2010 school performance framework results and update on …file/4.01+-+2010+spf+presentation.pdf ·...
Post on 28-Jun-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2010 School Performance Framework Results and Update on Denver
Plan Goals19/16/2010
Alignment with 2010 Denver Plan
ALIGNS WITH 2010 DENVER PLAN’S MAJOR ELEMENTS AND STRATEGIES: Focus on the Instructional Core
Implement a continuous improvement process informed by data and best practices. (Strategy 4)
Great People to Drive Better outcomes for Students Recognize and reward teachers and principals for driving student
achievement. (Strategy 3) Deepening Engagement with Families and the Community
Engage and inform students, families, and the community about DPS strategies and initiatives. (Strategy 2)
A Culture of High Expectations, Service, Empowerment, and Responsibility High Expectations. (Strategy 1) Empowerment and Responsibility. (Strategy 3)
29/16/2010
Alignment with 2010 Denver Plan
SUPPORTS ACHIEVEMENT OF 2010 DENVER PLAN’S GOALS: All students will graduate from the DPS prepared for postsecondary success All students will demonstrate at least one year’s growth in the core content
areas and meet or exceed state standards The number of high-performing schools as measured by the SPF will increase Enrollment will continue to increase in DPS
39/16/2010
School Performance FrameworkPurposes
Inform teachers, principals, staff and school and District leadership with student/school performance data to focus on increase student achievement.
Informs school/district performance on student academic growth and status .
Informs school incentives and interventions.
Informs teacher and principal compensation.
Informs measures of school performance as required by federal, state, and policy and legislation for school/district accreditation.
49/16/2010
School Performance Framework Features
School Performance Framework captures two years of data.
Two years are considered to view performance over time.
New schools only have data for one year.
Any schools without CSAP grade levels are assessed through the Unified Improvement Plan.
One framework for all traditional and traditional charter schools.
One framework for all alternative schools, district/charter.
59/16/2010
School Performance Framework History
April, 2008 First calculations without overall rating Baseline data for feedback, analysis, and revision
September, 2008 First release of the SPF with overall ratings Informed School Improvement Process Informed Teacher and Principal Compensation
September, 2009 Second release of the SPF with overall ratings Informed School Improvement Process Informed Teacher and Principal Compensation
September, 2010 Third release of the SPF with overall ratings First release Colorado Department of Education SPF (SB 193) Inform Unified School Plan Improvement Process Inform Teacher and Principal Compensation
69/16/2010
2009 SPF Indicator Weights
7
58.4% 59.7%
49.6% 50.0%
30.7% 29.9%
29.2%23.5%
4.4% 3.7%
4.4% 13.2%
2.9% 3.0%
2.9%
10.9% 8.8%
3.6% 3.7% 2.9% 4.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Elementary Middle High Alt
2009 Weight of SPF Indicators by Educational Level
Parent Engagement
Post-Secondary Readiness
School Demand
Student Engagement
Status
Growth
9/16/2010
2010 SPF Indicator Weights
65.1% 64.1%
34.0%
47.9%
25.3% 25.6%
15.4%
22.5%27.0%
8.5%
18.1%
3.6% 3.8%2.3%
12.7%
1.2% 1.3%0.8%4.8% 5.1% 2.3%
8.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Elementary Middle High Alt
We
igh
t o
f In
dic
ato
rs
Educational Level
2010 Weight of SPF Indicators by Educational Level
Parent Engagement
School Demand
Student Engagement
Post-Secondary Readiness Status
Post-Secondary Readiness Growth
Status
Growth
89/16/2010
2010 Measure Changes
• Added indicator related to post secondary readiness growth (Grad rate, 9th Grade Cohort, AP/IB/College Readiness course offerings). Measures related to DRA Growth, CELA Growth, and Achievement Gap Change
• Deleted those that did not provide useful information (enrollment change)
• Modified measures to make them more informative (Changed scoring from norm referenced to criterion referenced, DRA/EDL matched to the appropriate language)
99/16/2010
DPS SPF Five Rating Categories
9/16/2010 10
16.30%
12.59%
28.89%
39.26%
8.89%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DPS
% o
f D
PS
sch
oo
ls
Distinguished/Performance
Meets Expectations/Performance
Watch/Improvement
Watch/Priority Watch/Prioirty Improvement
Probation/Turnaround
DPS Rating / CDE Rating
Priority
SPF 2010 – Summary Results • 31 schools increased at least one framework
level, based on the 2010 Framework.
• 15 schools moved from Probation to Priority Watch or Watch.
• 24 schools increased their overall % by at least 10 percentage points.
– The following 9 schools increased their overall percentage by 15% or more:
11Board of Education Meeting
16 September 2010
1. Beach Court Elementary School (28%)2. Sabin World School (25%)3. Hallett Fundamental Academy (24%)4. Eagleton Elementary School (18%)
5. Newlon Elementary School (17%)6. Pioneer Charter School (16%)7. Cowell Elementary School (15%)8. Contemporary Learning Academy (15%)9. Community Challenges (15%)
SPF 2010 – Summary Results• 23 schools decreased at least one framework level.
• 1 school moved from Distinguished to Meets.
• 15 schools moved from Meets to Watch.
• 6 schools moved from Watch to Probation.
• 1 school moved from Meets to Probation.
• 19 schools decreased their overall % by at least 10 percentage points.
• 7 schools decreased their overall % by at least 15 percentage points.
12Board of Education Meeting
16 September 2010
School by Ratings—3 Years
10
54 4735
9
55 51
2512
5339
17
22
010203040506070
Dis
tin
guis
he
d
Mee
ts
Wat
ch
Pro
bat
ion
Dis
tin
guis
he
d
Mee
ts
Wat
ch
Pro
bat
ion
Dis
tin
guis
he
d
Mee
ts
Wat
ch/P
rio
rity
W
atch
Pro
bat
ion
2008 2009 2010
SPF 2010 – Summary Results
Schools at the Distinguished Level1. West Denver Prep - Harvey Park Campus2. Steck Elementary School3. Polaris at Ebert4. West Denver Prep - Federal Campus5. Denver School of Science and Technology6. Beach Court Elementary School7. Slavens Elementary School8. Cory Elementary School9. Westerly Creek Elementary10. McMeen Elementary School11. Bromwell Elementary School12. Lincoln Elementary School
14Board of Education Meeting
16 September 2010
SPF 2010 – Summary Results FRL Across the Framework
• The Free/Reduced lunch percentages for Distinguished and Meets schools ranged from 7.9% to 100%.
• 28 schools in the Distinguished and Meets categories had Free/Reduced lunch rates greater than 80%.
Beach Court ElementaryBryant Webster EC-8Castro Elementary SchoolCEC Middle CollegeColumbine ElementaryCommunity ChallengesCowell Elementary SchoolDoull Elementary SchoolEllis Elementary SchoolFarrell B. Howell School 15
Board of Education Meeting
16 September 2010
Force Elementary SchoolGarden Place ElementaryGoldrick ElementaryGust Elementary SchoolHolm Elementary SchoolJohnson ElementaryJustice High SchoolKIPP Sunshine PeakKnapp Elementary School
Lena Archuleta ElementaryMcMeen ElementaryNewlon Elementary SchoolPioneer Charter SchoolRidgeview AcademyStedman ElementaryWest Denver Prep - FedWest Denver Prep - Harvey Wyatt Edison Charter
SPF 2010 – Summary Results Schools at the Accredited on Probation Level
1. Manny Martinez Middle2. Rishel Middle School*3. PS1 Charter School*4. Greenlee K-8*5. Ford Elementary6. Denver Online High7. Oakland Elementary
8. Denver Venture School*9. Rachel Noel Middle School10. Henry Middle School11. Montbello High School12. Cheltenham Elementary School13. Kunsmiller Creative Arts Academy14. Northeast Academy Charter
School*
1. Emerson Street School* (Alt)2. Life Skills Center High School (Alt)3. Colorado High Charter School (Alt)
16Board of Education Meeting
16 September 2010
*Schools currently in process of being restructured or closed
5
2
65
24
11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Meets Expectations
Accredited On Watch
Accredited On Priority Watch
Accredited On Probation
No rating
Nu
mb
er
of
sch
oo
ls2008 Red Schools’ 2010 Rating
Restructured/Closed
SPF 2010 – Growth vs. Status
18Board of Education Meeting
16 September 2010
9/16/2010 19
Principal Incentives
Incentive Principal AP
Hard to ServeSchools with the highest percentage of students qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch
$6,000 $4,500
High GrowthGreatest percentage of growth points earned on SPF
$5,500 $4,125
Top PerformingGreatest overall percentage of overall points earned on SPF
$10,000 distinguished$6,000Meets Expectations
$7,500Distinguished$4,500Meets Expectations
UIP ImplementationSuccessful implementation of strategies outlined in UIP
$3,375 - Exceeds$2,125 - Meets
$2,535 - Exceeds$1,600 - Meets
209/16/2010
Teacher IncentivesIncentive Amount
Hard to ServeSchools with the highest percentage of students qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch
$2,403
Hard to StaffRoles with high vacancy rate and high turnover $2,403
High GrowthGreatest percentage of growth points earned on SPF
$2,403
Top PerformingGreatest overall percentage of overall points earned on SPF
$2,403
Exceeds ExpectationsExceeds district target for student growth on CSAP $2,403
219/16/2010
2010 Denver Plan GoalsStudent Enrollment Goals
• DPS total enrollment will grow 500 students a year to a total exceeding 77,000 in 2012, from ECE-12, including charter school students.
• By 2013, 84% of children in DPS will re-enroll in district schools the following year, excluding students graduating out of the district.
School Readiness Goal
• By 2013, full-day Kindergarten will be available to 100% of parents who choose to enroll their student in a full-day program.
• An additional 3.5% of 3rd Grade students will become proficient on CSAP in reading or Lecturaeach year for the next five years.
School Success Goal
• The number of schools scoring above 50% of possible points on SPF will grow by 3.5% annually.
Student Growth Goal
• The percentage of students scoring above the state median growth percentile on CSAP will grow by 2.0% each year.
• The performance gap between Asian / Caucasian students and African-American and Hispanic students scoring Proficient & above on CSAP will decrease by 3.5% annually, closing the achievement gap.
22
2010 Denver Plan GoalsStudent Performance Goals
• On average, the proficiency rate for grade level cohorts will increase 3.5% in reading, writing, and math over each year.
• On average, the percentage of students scoring unsatisfactory will decrease by 3.5% in reading, writing, and math each year.
• 3.5% of grade level English language learners will become proficient or better on the CELA Overall rating each year.
Postsecondary Readiness Goals
• The number of DPS students taking AP classes each year will grow by 3.5% and the number of students who take the test and who receive 3, 4 or 5 will increase by 3.5% per year.
• The number of DPS students concurrently enrolled in college classes will grow by 3.5% per year.
• The number of students scoring 20 or better on the ACT will grow by 3.5% students per year by 2013.
• The graduation rate for DPS students will increase by 5% per year (base of 52% for 06-07).
• The dropout rate for DPS students will decrease by 1.0% per year.
• College enrollment rates will grow by 3.5% each year.
23
Schedule for Reporting on Denver Plan Goals
24
Month Measures Yrs Reported
August - Full-day Kindergarten availability- 3rd Grade students’ reading proficiency- Percentage of students above state median for growth- Achievement Gap- Proficiency rate for cohorts- Percent scoring unsatisfactory- ACT scores
-1011-0910-0910-0910-0910-0910-0910
September -School success measured by SPF- English language learners’ performance on CELA- AP enrollment- AP test results- Concurrent enrollment in college classes
-0910-0910-0910-0910-0910
November - DPS enrollment- Re-enrollment
-1011-1011
December - College enrollment rates- Graduation rate- Dropout rate
-0910-0910-0910
2010 Denver Goal UpdatesMetric Status Update
School success measured by SPF Did not meet goal
English language learners’ performance on CELA Met goal
AP Enrollment Met goal
AP Tests Taken Met goal
AP Tests Passed Did not meet goal
Concurrent enrollment in College Courses Met goal
25
School PerformanceGoal: Increase number of schools scoring more than 50% of points on SPF by 3.5% annually.
26
• The School Performance Framework measures growth & status of district schools.
• 2009-10 Goal: 48.5%
• 2009-10 Actual: 65/143 Schools
• 2009-10 Status: DID NOT MEET GOAL
45.2%
45.0%
45.5%
44.7%
44.8%
44.9%
45.0%
45.1%
45.2%
45.3%
45.4%
45.5%
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Percentage of Schools Scoring More than 50% on SPF Rating
CELAGoal: Increase percentage scoring Prof / Adv by at least 3.5% per year
27
• The Colorado English Language Assessment monitors progress of English language acquisition
• 2009-10 Goal: 34.7%
• 2009-10 Status: MET GOAL
31.2%
37.0%
28.0%
29.0%
30.0%
31.0%
32.0%
33.0%
34.0%
35.0%
36.0%
37.0%
38.0%
2008-2009 2009-2010
CELA
AP Classes & Tests TakenGoal: Increase number of students taking classes, taking test, and passing test by at least 3.5% per year
28
• 2009-10 Goal for Taking class: 2550 students
• 2009 – 10 Status: MET GOAL
16651739
1868
2464
2727
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Number of Students enrolled in AP Classes
3323
3932
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
2008-09 2009-10
Number of Students who take AP exam
• 2009-10 Goal for Taking exam: 3439 students
• 2009 – 10 Status: MET GOAL
AP Tests PassedGoal: Increase number of students taking classes, taking test, and passing test by at least 3.5% per year
• 1389 AP tests were passed in 2010, an increase of over 250 tests passed
29
34.59% 34.45%
32.33%
35.16%
36.70%
30.00%
31.00%
32.00%
33.00%
34.00%
35.00%
36.00%
37.00%
38.00%
Percentage of Students who take AP test and receive 3+
• 2009-10 Goal for Passing test: 38.6%
• 2009 – 10 Status: DID NOT MEET GOAL
Concurrent EnrollmentGoal: Increase number concurrently enrolled by at least 3.5% per year
30
• Goal is to increase the number of students taking college classes during high school.
• 2009-10 Change: 21.2%
• 2009-10 Status: MET GOAL
538
670
789
1284
1556
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Number of Students Concurrently Enrolled in College Course
2010 Denver Plan Goals
Metric Status Update
Full-day Kindergarten access Met goal
3rd Grade CSAP proficiency Did not meet goal
Students scoring above state median for growth Met goal
Achievement gap Did not meet goal
Cohort proficiency rates on CSAP Partially met goal
Percentage of students scoring unsatisfactory on CSAP Did not meet goal
Students scoring 20+ on ACT Did not meet goal
School success measured by SPF Did not meet goal
English language learners’ performance on CELA Met goal
AP Enrollment Met goal
AP Tests Taken Met goal
AP Tests Passed Did not meet goal
Concurrent enrollment in College Courses Met goal 31
top related