1. Understanding Your 2013-14 School and District Performance Frameworks
Accountability and Data Analysis Unit
Presenter: Jessica Knevals, Principal Consultant
Webinar: August 18, 2014

2. Learning Objectives
Learn the fundamentals of Colorado’s accountability system, specifically the District and School Performance Framework reports.
Understand the timelines of the SPF/DPF process and implications of the accountability system.
Understand the current changes to the SPFs and DPFs
Determine what you need more information on and where/how to get it. 2

3. What are School and District Performance Frameworks?

4. Accountability in Colorado
Passed SB (Colorado Educational Accountability Act) that provided foundation for an aligned accountability system
Granted ESEA Flexibility Waiver in February 2012 that further streamlined accountability in the state
One set of outcome data to determine overall district and school accountability -- the Performance Frameworks
Identify those schools and districts with the greatest need, in order to direct resources and support and potential consequences
I added some language – so you’ll want to check it lgm
CASE Conference - July Accountability & Improvement

5. District & School Performance Frameworks
Through the Colorado Educational Accountability Act of 2009 (SB09-163)…
CDE annually evaluates districts and schools based on student performance outcomes.
All districts receive a District Performance Framework (DPF). This determines their accreditation rating.
All schools receive a School Performance Framework (SPF). This determines their school plan types.
Provide a common framework through which to understand performance and focus improvement efforts.
The Preliminary DPFs and SPFs will be available on CEDAR: Friday, August 15
SPF Tutorial for More In-Depth Training:
CASE Conference - July Accountability & Improvement

6. Purpose of SPFs/DPFs
The District Performance Framework and the School Performance Framework serve to:
Hold districts and schools accountable for performance on the same, single set of indicators and measures; and
Inform a differentiated approach to state support based on performance and need.
These aims are a central part of the Colorado Department of Education’s Statewide System of Accountability and Support and the goals outlined in The Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB ). They are critical to enabling the state to better support district evaluation, planning, decision-making, and implementation in improving schools. To support the various state, district and school uses of the performance frameworks, both district and school performance frameworks will be provided to districts annually at the start of the school year. 6

7. Accreditation & Plan Types
Accreditation designations:
Accredited with Distinction (10%)
Accredited (50%)
Accredited with Improvement Plan (25%)
Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan (10%)
Accredited with Turnaround Plan (5%)
School plan types:
Performance Plan (60%)
Improvement Plan (25%)
Priority Improvement Plan (10%)
Turnaround Plan (5%)
Distributions are baselines from Year 1 of the performance frameworks.
CASE Conference - July Accountability & Improvement

8. Performance Indicators & Data (HS)
Performance Data
Weight
Academic Achievement
CSAP/TCAP % proficient and advanced (reading, mathematics, writing, and science)
15%
Academic Growth
Median and adequate student growth percentile (reading, mathematics and writing) on CSAP/TCAP and ACCESS
35%
Academic Growth Gaps
Median and adequate student growth percentile in reading, mathematics and writing for disaggregated groups on CSAP
Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
Graduation Rate, Dropout Rate, Average Colorado ACT Composite Score, Disaggregated Graduation Rate
How many people have seen an SPF or DPF report?
Elementary/Middle school weights- 25%, 50%, 25%
CASE Conference - July Accountability & Improvement

9. Indicator Ratings & Overall Rating
Districts/schools receive a rating on each of the performance indicators:
Exceeds (4 pts), Meets (3), Approaching (2), Does not meet (1)
The ratings roll up to an overall evaluation of the school/district’s performance, which determines the plan type or accreditation rating:
School Plan Types: Performance, Improvement, Priority Improvement, Turnaround
District Accreditation Rating: Distinction, Accredited, Improvement, Priority Improvement, Turnaround
CASE Conference - July Accountability & Improvement

10. SPF/DPF Process Timeline
Date
Action
August 15th, 2014
CDE will provide performance framework results with an initial district accreditation category and initial recommendation for school plan type.
September 15th, 2014
Districts must notify CDE of their intent to submit a Request to Reconsider of a school plan type assignment or district accreditation rating.
October 15th, 2014
Districts will submit to CDE the accreditation categories they have assigned to schools. For districts and schools on a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan: If districts disagree with CDE’s initial district accreditation or initial school plan assignment, the district may submit additional data for consideration.
November 13th, 2014
CDE will form a final accreditation designation and a final school plan recommendation, and, along with any conflicting recommendation from the district, submit that final recommendation for approval by the State Board.
December 4-5th, 2014
CDE submits all DPFs and SPFs to the State Board for approval. Once the State Board approves all frameworks, the DPFs and SPFs are available to the public on SchoolView. 10

11. Changes to the 2013-14 SPF and DPF

12. Changes to the 2013-14 SPF and DPF
Item
2013 Performance Frameworks
2014 Performance Frameworks
Rationale
Participation- CMAS Science and Social Studies
TCAP Science included as a participation requirement.
CMAS Science and Social Studies participation results at the elementary and middle level will be included.
No high school CMAS Science or Social Studies participation will be included on either the one or three year framework.
Flexibility may be available for records that did not receive scores due to technology issues.
It is important that the new assessments be included through participation requirements.
CMAS Science and Social Studies have not been administered at the high school level yet, high school participation will not be included.
Due to the technology challenges outside of districts’ control, flexibility is available.
Academic Achievement- Science
TCAP science achievement scores were included in the Academic Achievement indicator.
CMAS Science and Social Studies achievement results will not be included.
Due to the timeline for standard setting for the new CMAS Science and Social Studies assessments, the achievement results will not be included in the 2014 frameworks.
Academic Growth- English language proficiency
English language proficiency growth only included median growth percentiles, as adequate growth percentiles were not available during the initial transition to ACCESS.
English language proficiency growth will again include adequate growth percentiles, now that they are available again.
Three year frameworks will only include one year of data, as the aggregated 3 year data is not consistent over time.
With two years of ACCESS for ELLs assessment results, adequate growth can again be calculated and included in the frameworks.
For more information, please see the summary posted here:
PWR- Colorado ACT composite score calculations
All students were included in the composite Colorado ACT score calculations.
Foreign exchange students’ scores are not included in the composite Colorado ACT score.
As foreign exchange students attend school in the US for a limited time, their scores will not be included in this PWR sub-indicator. 12

13. The DPF and SPF 13

14. Annotated District Performance Framework Report
The sum of the total framework points earned across all indicators.
The four key performance indicators for which districts are held accountable.
Different indicators are worth different amounts of total framework points. For districts with data on all indicators, the total eligible points across all indicators is 100. For districts with incomplete data (because of small numbers of students), the total eligible points may be less than 100.
The percentage of points earned divided by points for which the district was eligible. See pages 2-4 for data used to calculate this percentage. This percentage determines the district’s rating on this indicator.
Science and social studies achievement data will not be included; only participation in 2014
The accreditation category the State has assigned to the district based on the data presented in the official report.
The framework is based on either the 1 or 3 year report. Refer to page 7.
Districts that do not meet finance, safety or test administration requirements default to “PI” or remain “Turnaround”. Districts on PI not meeting test administration assurances drop to Turnaround.
The sum of the total framework points earned out of points for which the district was eligible is converted to a percentage. This helps determine the final accreditation category.
Districts that exceed the 1% cap of students scoring proficient on CoAlt will receive a flag.
Districts that do not meet the 95% test participation rate for more than one subject area are assigned one accreditation category lower than what they would have earned.

15. Annotated School Performance Framework Report (High School)
Different indicators are worth different amounts of total framework points. For schools with data on all indicators, the total eligible points across all indicators is 100. For schools with incomplete data (because of small numbers of students), the total eligible points may be less than 100.
The four key performance indicators for which schools are held accountable.
The percentage of points earned out of the points for which the school was eligible. See page 2 for data used to calculate this percentage. This percentage determines the school’s rating on this indicator.
Science and social studies achievement data will not be included; only participation in 2014
Schools that do not meet the 95% test participation rate for more than one subject area are assigned a plan one category lower than what they would have earned.
The sum of the total framework points earned across all indicators.
The type of plan the state has assigned to the school to implement, based on the data presented in the official report.
The sum of the total framework points earned out of points for which the school was eligible is converted to a percentage. This helps determine the final plan assignment.
The framework is based on either the 1 or 3 year report. Refer to page 5.

16. Annotated SPF Report(High School)
This is the school’s data for each metric on this performance indicator. The data are used to determine the number of points and the indicator ratings the school earned. How performance relates to points is described on page 4.
The school can earn points for each metric based on the ratings assigned. Schools with too few students may have fewer points eligible.
The school’s points are added together and converted to a percentage for this indicator. This percentage is shown on page 1 as the school’s overall rating on this indicator.
Growth gaps are calculated for five different subgroups in three subject areas. Each row shows the median growth percentile and the adequate median growth percentile needed for students to reach or maintain proficiency.
The ratings for the Growth and Growth Gaps indicators are determined by the median growth percentile and the median adequate growth percentile. See page 3 for details regarding how these metrics result in different ratings.
N refers to the number of students included in each sub-indicator.

17. Annotated SPF Report (High School)
These tables show the 4, 5, 6, and 7-year graduation rates for the district overall and for disaggregated student groups. This page provides more detailed trend data than included in the PWR section.
The gray boxes refer to the 4, 5, 6, and 7-year grad rates used to determine the “best of” rate.
Red italics designate the “best of” grad rate among the 4, 5, 6, and 7-year rates.

18. Annotated SPF Report (High School)
Elementary and middle schools have a different scoring guide than high schools, since high schools include a Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness indicator.

19. Annotated SPF Report (High School)
Use this data in conjunction with the Academic Achievement section of the Scoring Guide, comparing your district’s percent proficient/advanced to Colorado’s percent proficient/ advanced, to understand the ratings assigned.
This is a visual representation of the rubric used in the Academic Growth and Academic Growth Gaps section of the Scoring Guide. Use the column that matches with whether your district met or did not meet adequate growth.
Use this data in conjunction with the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness section of the Scoring Guide, comparing your district’s results to the Colorado dropout rate and average ACT composite score, to understand the ratings assigned.

20. Resources

21. Future Trainings
Upcoming trainings will be announced in the Scoop, the CDE newsletter.
Register here:
Future webinars will include:
Growth Model
SchoolView
Performance Frameworks
Alternate Education Campus Frameworks
UIP 101 and Changes from Last Year
Call-in/walk-in appointments on Performance Frameworks will begin August 6th
Additional In-Person trainings on UIP:
CASE Conference - July 2013 Accountability & Improvement

22. SPF/DPF Resources CEDAR: https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/
Preliminary District and School Performance Framework reports are available on Monday, August 18
SchoolView:
Official District and School Performance Framework reports are available on the Performance page after December 4, 2014.
Dynamic and interactive data platforms
Colorado Growth Model
SchoolView Data Center
SchoolView Data Lab
CASE Conference - July 2013 Accountability & Improvement

23. Additional CDE Accountability & Data Analysis Resources
CDE Accountability & Data Analysis Website:
School and District Performance Frameworks Resources:
Colorado State Accountability:
Alternative Education Campuses:
School Accreditation and Request to Reconsider: 23

24. Accountability and Data Analysis Contact Information
Dan Jorgensen: Growth Reporting, CEDAR Access and Help, Green and Whites ,
Jessica Knevals: Accountability and Policy, SPF/DPFs, Requests to Reconsider, Alternative Education Campuses ,
Kelly Stritzinger: Application Forms, General Questions, UIP ,

25. Questions, Comments, and Concerns