educational excellence in a changing world

Educational Excellence in a Changing World

Rigor + Relevance + Relationships =

RESULTS

Cuyahoga Falls City SchoolsHome of the Black Tigers!

2013-2014

Welcome Back!Educational Excellence in a Changing World

Community

BOE

OIPStrategic Plan

Professional Learning Communities

Professional Learning Communities

First Big Idea of PLCs:

Focus on Learning

We accept high levels of learning for all students as the fundamental purpose of our school and therefore are willing to examine all practices in light of their impact on learning.

Second Big Idea of PLCs:

A Collaborative Culture

We can achieve our fundamental purpose of high levels of learning for all students only if we work together.

Third Big Idea of PLCs:

Focus on Results

We assess our effectiveness on the basis of results rather than intentions. Individuals, teams and schools seek relevant data and information and us that information to promote continuous improvement.

What are we doing?Why are we doing it?Have we been successful?How do we know?What are we going to do about it?

Five Essential Questions

AcademicMeet each student at his/her cognitive level and

guarantee at least one year of academic growth for each year in our system.

BusinessAssure a first-class service delivery model that provides our

communities with the highest degree of customer satisfaction possible within fiscally responsible parameters. Cuyahoga Falls expenditures will not exceed revenues in FY13.

2012-2013 GoalsReview

How did we do?

Academic Goal77% of K-8 students met the end of year i-Ready

benchmark in reading74% of K-8 students met the end of year i-Ready

benchmark in math


Business Goal


Revenues FY10 Revenues FY11 Revenues FY12 Revenues FY13

$45,658,187 $45,433,771 $45,645,836 $46,944,631

Expenditures FY10

Expenditures FY11

Expenditures FY12

Expenditures FY13

$45,959,480 $46,423,496 $45,864,698 $46,489,497

($301,293) ($989,725) ($218,862) $455,134

2012-2013 OAA/OGT Results

Performance IndexSchool Year Performance Index Advanced/Accelerated Basic/Limited

2012-2013Targets

100.0+ 50.0 15.0

2011-2012 99.1 47.2 16.2

2010-2011 99.3 48.6 16.1

2009-2010 98.1 46.2 17.5

2008-2009 95.8 43.5 21.3

2007-2008 95.3 40.5 21.3

2006-2007 95.5 39.4 20.8

Performance IndexSchool Year Performance Index Advanced/Accelerated Basic/Limited

2012-2013

98.3 46.7 17.3

2011-2012 99.1 47.2 16.2

2010-2011 99.3 48.6 16.1

2009-2010 98.1 46.2 17.5

2008-2009 95.8 43.5 21.3

2007-2008 95.3 40.5 21.3

2006-2007 95.5 39.4 20.8

OAA Data – Elementary Schools

2011-2012 2012-2013 change

Reading -3 85.7% 91.1% +5.4%

Math -3 80.6% 85.0% +4.4%

Reading -4 87.2% 92.1% +4.9%

Math -4 87.2% 85.4% -1.8%

Reading -5 77.9% 78.3% +0.4%

Math -5 72.7% 73.5% +0.8%

Science -5 80.5% 73.0% -7.5%

OAA Data – Middle Schools

2011-2012 2012-2013 change

Reading -6 89.6% 81.6% -8.0%

Math -6 85.1% 75.9% -9.2%

Reading -7 85.6% 81.7% -3.9%

Math -7 81.4% 81.4% 0.0

Reading -8 86.6% 89.4% +2.8%

Math -8 86.9% 87.0% +0.1%

Science -8 69.7% 69.3% -0.4%

OGT Data - CFHS2011-2012 2012-2013 change

Reading -10 92.3% 90.1% -2.2%

Math -10 86.4% 85.6% -0.8%

Writing -10 88.5% 84.7% -3.8%

Social Studies -10 90.1% 85.3% -4.8%

Science -10 84.0% 83.8% -0.2%

Reading -11 96.7% 93.7% -3.0%

Math -11 95.2% 91.5% -3.7%

Writing -11 94.4% 94.6% +0.2%

Social Studies -11 93.2% 90.9% -2.3%

Science -11 93.2% 90.3% -2.9%

2013-2014 ProjectionReading -3 91.1%

Math -3 85.0%

Reading -4 92.1%

Math -4 85.4%

Reading -5 78.3%

Math -5 73.5%

Science -5 73.0%

2013-2014 ProjectionReading -6 81.6%

Math -6 75.9%

Reading -7 81.7%

Math -7 81.4%

Reading -8 89.4%

Math -8 87.0%

Science -8 69.3%

New Report Card Based on Letter Grades

Report Card Components

Gap Closing

Achievement

Graduation Rate

Progress

K-3 Literacy Progress

Prepared for Success

Gap Closing Component

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO’s) –A through F for this measure is defined as follows: 90 – 100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C; 60-69.9% = D; Below 60% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:

2011-2012 2012-2013

District = F District = C

Bolich = C Bolich = F

CFHS = C CFHS = C

Price = F Price = A

DeWitt = F DeWitt = F

Lincoln = F Lincoln = F

Preston = F Preston = C

Richardson = A Richardson = A

Roberts = A Roberts = F

Silver Lake = D Silver Lake = A

Achievement Component

Performance Indicators –A through F for this measure is defined as follows: 90 – 100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C; 50-69.9% = D; Below 50% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:

2011-2012 2012-2013

District = A (22/24) District = B (21/24)

Bolich = B Bolich = C

CFHS = A CFHS = A

Price = D Price = D

DeWitt = B DeWitt = C

Lincoln = B Lincoln = C

Preston = C Preston = D

Richardson = A Richardson = A

Roberts = B Roberts = B

Silver Lake = B Silver Lake = B

Achievement ComponentPerformance Index –A through F for this measure is defined as the percentage of the total possible 120 points: 90 – 100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C; 50-69.9% = D; Below 50% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:

2011-2012 2012-2013

District = B (99.1) District = B (98.3)

Bolich = B Bolich = B

CFHS = B CFHS = B

Price = C Price = B

DeWitt = B DeWitt = B

Lincoln = B Lincoln = B

Preston = C Preston = C

Richardson = B Richardson = B

Roberts = B Roberts = B

Silver Lake = B Silver Lake = B

Graduation Rate

Four-Year Graduation Rate – A through F for this measure is defined as follows: 93-100% = A; 89-92.9% = B; 84-88.9% = C; 79-83.9% = D; less than 79% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:

2011-2012 2012-2013

District = B (92.5 Cohort 2011) District = B (91.7 Cohort 2012)

CFHS = B CFHS = B

Graduation Rate

Five-Year Graduation Rate –A through F for this measure is defined as follows: 95-100% = A; 90-94.9% = B; 85-89.9% = C; 80-84.9% = D; less than 80% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:

2011-2012 2012-2013

District = C (89.7 Cohort 2010) District = B (94.4 Cohort 2011)

CFHS = C CFHS = B

Progress Component

Value Added for All Students – A through F for this measure is based on the bell curve and standard deviation calculation:

2011-2012 2012-2013

District = D Data due today

Bolich = C

CFHS = N/A

Price = F

DeWitt = D

Lincoln = C

Preston = A

Richardson = F

Roberts = A

Silver Lake = F

Progress Component

Value Added for Gifted Students – A through F for this measure is based on the bell curve and standard deviation calculation:

2011-2012 2012-2013


Bolich = C

CFHS = N/A

Price = C

DeWitt = C

Lincoln = B

Preston = C

Richardson = F

Roberts = C

Silver Lake = F

Progress Component

Value Added for Students with Disabilities – A through F for this measure is based on the bell curve and standard deviation calculation:

2011-2012 2012-2013


Bolich = C

CFHS = N/A

Price = N/A

DeWitt = C

Lincoln = D

Preston = C

Richardson = C

Roberts = C

Silver Lake = N/A

Progress Component

Value Added for Lowest Quintile – A through F for this measure is based on the bell curve and standard deviation calculation:

2011-2012 2012-2013

District = C Data due today

Bolich = C

CFHS = N/A

Price = F

DeWitt = C

Lincoln = C

Preston = A

Richardson = C

Roberts = C

Silver Lake = N/A

K-3 Literacy Component

K-3 Literacy:

Reduce the number and percent of students not on grade level in reading

Not reported this year

Prepared for Success Component

Aug 2013 Aug 2014 Aug 2015 Aug 2016

Component Grade Calculated Calculated

College Admission Test

Report Only Report Only Report Only

Dual Enrollment Credits


Industry Credentials Report Only Report Only Report Only

Honors Diplomas Report Only Report Only Report Only

AP Participation & Score


IB Participation & Score


College and Career Ready Assessment

Report Only (if available)

Report Only (may be included in component grade)

Report Only(may be included in component grade)

Opportunities to Excel

2013-2014• OTES• OPES• New Report Card• 3rd Grade Guarantee• Biennium Budget –

HB59• New Strategic Plan

2014-2015• PARCC Assessments• End-of-Course Exams• Replacement of OGT• 1 of 3 Renewal Levies• Pension System• Educational Delivery

Model

2014-15 Assessment System

End-of-course Exams

Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2

English 1, English 2, English 3

Physical Science, Biology

American History, American Government

College and Career Readiness Assessment will replace the OGT.

PARCC assessments will be given in grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics, grades 4 and 6 in social studies and grades 5 and 8 in science.

Cut scores for these tests will be equivalent to NAEP Level 4 or roughly equivalent to current Advanced and Accelerated levels.

Proficient levels are likely to drop from 82% to 46% based on 2012-13 data

College & Career ReadinessLevel 5: Superior command of the knowledge, skills, and practices embodied by the CCSS assessed at the grade level/course. Level 4: Solid command…

Level 3: Partial command…

Level 2: Limited command…

Level 1: Very Limited command…

College and Career Ready.

NAEP’s proficient level

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

Commitment to a shared vision

Culture/Student Life

Create a systemic culture of caring in which students flourish – Every student, every day

Stakeholder Involvement

Cause intentional community engagement

Resource Leveraging

Utilize and design human, physical and fiscal resources to meet the needs of today and tomorrow

BOE Focus Areas

Cuyahoga Falls2013-2014 Goals

Academic Growth By the end of the 2013-14 school year, 85% of our students will demonstrate one year’s growth in reading and mathematics as measured by iReady (grades K-9) and common assessments (grades 10-12).

Cuyahoga Falls2013-2014 Goals

Fiscal Responsibility In FY14 district revenues will exceed district expenditures.

Cuyahoga Falls2013-2014

What are we doing?

Mission statement:

The mission of the Cuyahoga Falls City School District is to assure each student is equipped with the skills necessary to meet the challenges of the future.


Why are we doing it?

Academic – Our community demands growth with each student annually

Business – Our community demands fiscal responsibility with the use of our public funds

Cuyahoga Falls 2013-2014

Have we been successful?

AcademicData collectionImproving our

classroom instruction

BusinessIdentify cost-

savings areasIdentify alternate

forms of revenue


How do we know?

Academici-Ready dataState/national dataCommon

Assessment dataBusiness

Financial reportsStakeholder

surveys/feedback


What are we doing about it?


Academic Goals

• Implement Common Core and revised standards

• Purposeful data use

• Instructional technology

• Small interest-based learning community process(CFHS)

• Design Challenges (MS)

• Instruction meets the standards rigor and relevance

• Utilize assessment data to progress monitor & inform instruction

• Is technology improving instruction?

• CFHS work

• Implementation of 6 design challenges per grade level

August 12, 13 & 1460 ParticipantsEvolution of schooling Business Advisory Council perspective8 Work/Research GroupsShare out, reflection, and next stepsCommunication is critical!

High School Summer Institute

August 19, 20, & 2170 participantsDesign Challenge studyRigor & Relevance with instructionProvide MS students exposure to career clustersCommunication is critical!

Middle School Summer Institute

In schools where teachers examined the evidence of the

impact of teaching effectiveness on student achievement and regard

their professional practices as the primary cause of student

achievement…

Reeves, D. (2007). Ahead of the curve. Solution Tree

…the gains in student achievement were three times higher than those in schools

where the faculty and leaders attributed the causes to factors

beyond their control.

Reeves, D. (2007). Ahead of the curve. Solution Tree

Meeting increased RIGOR of the CCSS & PARCCStudents need to see RELEVANCE of content and

schoolBuild RELATIONSHIPS with all stakeholders: our

colleagues, our students, our parents, our community

Prepare students for “next step”

We ALL need to share the why when asked by our stakeholders!

High School and Middle SchoolWHY?

Connection across ALL levelsElementary Schools

• Teaching to rigor and relevance of CCSS

• Develop the skills required

MS Institute

• All students experience the 16 career clusters

• 6 Design Challenges per year

Skills desired by employers

Common

Core State

Standards

Rigor/Relevance

Not just the “flavor of the month”…

Stakeholder Relationship

sDesign Challenges


Business goals• Increase revenues

• Reduce expenditures

• HB 59• Student enrollment• Property tax

• Contracts with outside agencies

• Needs vs. wants• Align expenditures with our

goals

Creativity

Together WE can…Achieve our goalsWhile modeling the 4C’s in our adult workWhile embedding the 4C’s into instruction

Critical Thinking

Collaboration

Communication

Educational Excellence In a Changing World

Aligned Acts of Improvement – School

District

educational excellence in a changing world

Documents

end of year iready benchmark

results cuyahoga

relevant data

year of academic growth

data elementary schools2011

basis of results

educational excellence

oaa data middle schools2011