Post on 07-Jun-2018
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK (SPF)
Clark County School District
Presentation to the Board of Trustees
February 23, 2012
Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Dr. Ken Turner
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 1 of 32Dr. Kenneth Turner February 23, 2012
Presentation Objectives
Approve a recommendation from the Superintendent to adopt the School Performance Framework for elementary and middle schools.
Understand how the School Performance Framework (SPF) will be used for E-2 Ends Reporting. Thus, the next E-2 Ends Report will feature results from the SPF.
Understand the purpose of the SPF and how it works.
Understand how pieces fit: Nevada Growth Model, SPF, Autonomous Schools.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 2 of 32
Introduction
School Performance Framework introductory video:
http://ccsd.net/spf/videos/
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 3 of 32
Purpose of School Performance Framework (SPF)
The School Performance Framework (SPF) helps us be accountable for success of every student. While initially holding schools harmless, CCSD will celebrate schools achieving uncommon results. The aim is to identify what works so we can learn and get better faster.
The SPF will be an important addition to the accountability picture.
The SPF is an improvement because it takes into account student growth while recognizing highest performing schools. It helps us focus support on schools that need it most.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 4 of 32
Nevada Growth Model
Catch Up
Keep Up
Move Up
Demonstrated growth, that if sustained, would enable that student to meet or exceed standards on the state assessment in 3 years or by 8th grade, whichever comes first.
Demonstrated growth, that if sustained, would enable that student to continue meeting or exceeding standards on the state assessment in 3 years or by 8th grade, whichever comes first.
Demonstrated growth, that if sustained, would enable that student to exceed standards on the state assessment in 3 years or by 8th grade, whichever comes first.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 5 of 32
Drawbacks of NCLB (AYP)
Focus on “bubble kids”
No credit unless proficient
One way to get it right, lots of ways to get it wrong
Little or no support
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 6 of 32
Background
While status still matters, academic growth to a standard is the most important measure of academic achievement. It takes into account where students start (whether they are approaching, meeting, or exceeding standards). And schools receive credit if students progress even if they have not yet reached proficiency.
Under AYP, schools only received credit if students reached proficiency on the state assessment.
The SPF uses Nevada Growth Model results to acknowledge schools that put students on track to: become proficient (“Catch Up”), stay proficient (“Keep Up”), or exceed standards (“Move Up”) in three years or by eighth grade, whichever comes first.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 7 of 32
Development
May 2011: SPF introduced and described in Superintendent’s policy document “A Look Ahead”
September 2011: Superintendent appoints a 36 member Technical Advisory Panel on Academic Growth Phase 2 (TAP2) including 2 superintendents from rural districts, 2 Nevada Department of Education staff, 2 UNLV Professors, 2 parents, 7 teachers, 6 principals, and central office support staff to advise the Superintendent on how to use Nevada Growth Model data in a School Performance Framework
October 2011 – February 2012
Over 5,000 people including staff, community members, and parents surveyed on SPF weights and elements
Multiple frameworks created, shared, and revised based on feedback from the field
Final version released for trial year (includes spring 2012 & 2012-2013 school year)
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 8 of 32
Previous Board Meeting Presentations
October 13, 2011
Dr. Ken Turner presented general overview of the SPF during Work Session
December 7, 2011
Dr. Ken Turner presented update on SPF development during Work Session
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 9 of 32
Flowchart: How a School Earns a Score
*A School that makes AYP, but earns 30-0 points will be a 2 star school.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 10 of 32
Steps to an Elementary & Middle School’s Score: Step One
Step One: Academics matter most
The CCSD is accountable for ALL students being Ready By Exit. Academics is 88 percent of a school’s SPF score. Growth: Did the students at the school grow more than their
academic peers? 44 points
Status: Did the students at the school pass the state test and did Catch Up/Keep Up students meet their growth goal targets (Move Up students included next year)? 22 points
Gaps: Are Free and Reduced Lunch, Minority, Special Education, and Limited English Proficient students increasing achievement? 22 points*
*Gap points are only calculated for categories with 25 or more students. Schools with 24 or less are held harmless.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 11 of 32
Steps to an Elementary & Middle School’s Score: Step Two
Step Two: An excellent school is more than just a test score
The CCSD values a positive learning environment for all students. School Climate is 12 percent of a school’s SPF score. Attendance: Do 90 percent or more of students attend school daily? 2 points (full points if 92% or higher
of students attend daily; half points if 90-91.99%)
Limited English Proficient student equity: Did Limited English Proficient students meet state targets on the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA)? 2 points (half points for increasing)
Special Education student equity: Did the percent of Special Education students in their Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) meet the state target OR the time students spend in their LRE increase? 2 points
Increased rigor: Did 40 percent or more of fifth grade students from the school enroll in accelerated courses in sixth grade? 2 points (full points if 40% or higher; half points if the percentage of fifth grade students enrolling in sixth grade accelerated courses increases)
Engaging students: Did 80 percent or higher of students respond positively on the climate survey? 1 point
Engaging parents: Did the school create a Parent Engagement plan? 3 points
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 12 of 32
Steps to an Elementary & Middle School’s Score: Step Two
Step Two: An excellent school is more than just a test score
The CCSD values a positive learning environment for all students. School Climate is 12 percent of a school’s SPF score.
Attendance: Do 90 percent or more of students attend school daily? 2 points (full points if 92% or higher of students attend daily; half points if 90-91.99%)
Dropout Rate: Are less than 2 percent of 6th and 7th grade students dropping out of middle school? 2 points
Limited English Proficient student equity: Did Limited English Proficient students meet state targets on the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA)? 1 point (half points for increasing)
Special Education student equity: Did the percent of Special Education students in their Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) increase OR the time students spend in their LRE increase? 1 point
Increased rigor: Did 30 percent or higher of 8th graders enroll in algebra 1? (schools receive credit for 6th and/or 7th grade students enrolled) 1 point (full points if 30% or higher; half points if the percentage of students in algebra increases)
Increased rigor: Did 40 percent or higher of students enroll in accelerated courses? 1 point (full points if 40% or higher; half points if the percentage of students enrolled in accelerated courses increases)
Engaging students: Did 80 percent or higher of students respond positively on the climate survey? 1 point
Engaging parents: Did the school create a Parent Engagement plan? 3 points
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 13 of 32
Steps to an Elementary & Middle School’s Score: Step Three
Step 1: Academics 88 +
Step 2: School Climate 12 =
100 percent of a school’s SPF score
Step Three: All schools are unique
The CCSD recognizes different schools may have different goals. A met Focus Goal is a 5 percent bonus added to the school’s overall SPF score (added from steps 1 and step 2). In partnership with Academic Managers, schools choose the annual focus goal their
particular school wants to work on. Schools choose how to measure this goal.
A school does not lose percentage points for not accomplishing their focus goal.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 14 of 32
Steps to an Elementary & Middle School’s Score: Step Four
Step Four: All systems must be aligned
The CCSD must align with the federal and state accountability systems. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a gatekeeper to the highest ratings and from the lowest rating.
If a school did not make AYP or AYP Watch, the highest rating that school can earn is “3 stars.”
If a school made AYP, the lowest rating that school can earn is “2 stars.”
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 15 of 32
Steps to an Elementary & Middle School’s Score: Step Five
Step Five: Transparency plus support equal success.
Every school earns a score based on steps 1-4. However, a school’s designation is based on 2 years of scores. Example: 2010-2011 data (framework released February 2012)Meets
2011-2012 data (framework released August 2012)Silver
This school’s 2012 SPF score during the hold harmless year (released August 2012) is Silver
Different ratings earn differential supports or autonomies. Through transparency, schools will be able to know and learn from schools succeeding with similar populations.
*A school that makes AYP and earns 30-0 points will be classified as a 2 star school
AYP Watch
105-65 points, 4 stars 64-51 points, 3 stars 50-31 points, 2 stars 30-0 points, 1 star
AYP
105-80 points, 5 stars 79-65 points, 4 stars 64-51 points, 3 stars 50-31 points, 2 stars 30-0 points, 1 star*
No
105-51 points, 3 stars 50-31 points, 2 stars 30-0 points, 1 star
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 16 of 32
Results: Elementary School
Designation Count Percent
37
17.29%
37
17.29%
76
35.51%
60
28.04%
4
1.87%
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 17 of 32
Results: 5 star elementary schools with 40% or more Free & Reduced Lunch and/or Limited English Proficient students
School % FRL % LEP
Adcock 78% 42%
Bracken 52% 47%
Bryan (Roger) 48% 44%
Bunker 71% 39%
Hayes 40% 27%
Hewetson 100% 77%
Hoggard 52% 30%
Indian Springs 42% 0%
Mackey 62% 28%
McCall 100% 65%
Rogers 46% 30%
Smith (Helen) 60% 26%
Ullom 85% 67%
Wengert 74% 57%
50% + 40-49%
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 18 of 32
Elementary Schools
Adcock ES
Alamo ES
Bendorf ES
Bilbray ES
Bonner ES
Bracken ES
Bryan (Richard) ES
Bryan (Roger) ES
Bunker ES
Dooley ES
Goolsby ES
Goynes ES
Hayes ES
Hewetson ES
Hoggard ES
Indian Springs ES
Lamping ES
Mackey ES
May ES
McCall ES
Morrow ES
Ober ES
Piggott ES
Rogers ES
Smalley ES
Smith (Helen) ES
Staton ES
Tarr ES
Taylor (Glen) ES
Thompson ES
Twitchell ES
Ullom ES
Vanderburg ES
Walker International ES
Wallin ES
Wengert ES
Wright ES
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 19 of 32
Elementary Schools
Agassi K-5
Bailey (Sister) ES
Bartlett ES
Batterman ES
Bell ES
Booker ES
Bozarth ES
Carson ES
Derfelt ES
Earl (Marion) ES
Forbuss ES
Frias ES
Givens ES
Griffith ES
Guy ES
Hayden ES
Jacobson ES
Katz ES
Keller ES
Kesterson ES
Kim ES
Lummis ES
Lynch ES
O'Roarke ES
Reedom ES
Rhodes ES
Scherkenbach ES
Sewell ES
Simmons ES
Stanford ES
Steele ES
Stuckey ES
Tate ES
Triggs ES
Twin Lakes ES
Ward (Gene) ES
Wolff (Elise) ES
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 20 of 32
Elementary Schools
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
Adams ES
Allen ES
Antonello ES
Bass ES
Beatty ES
Beckley ES
Bennett ES
Brookman ES
Cahlan ES
Cartwright ES
Christensen ES
Conners ES
Cox (Clyde) ES
Cox (David) ES
Cozine ES
Crestwood ES
Culley ES
Cunningham ES
Darnell ES
Decker ES
Deskin ES
Dondero ES
Duncan ES
Eisenberg ES
Fine ES
Fitzgerald ES
Galloway ES
Garehime ES
Gibson (James) ES
Gilbert ES
Goldfarb ES
Gragson ES
Gray ES
Hancock ES
Harmon ES
Heard ES
Heckethorn ES
Herron ES
Hill ES
Hummel ES
Iverson ES
Jeffers ES
Jydstrup ES
Kahre ES
King (Martha) ES
Lincoln ES
Mack (Nate) ES
McCaw ES
McDoniel ES
McWilliams ES
Mendoza ES
Miller (Sandy) ES
Mountain View ES
Neal ES
Newton ES
Park ES
Perkins (Ute V.) ES
Pittman ES
Priest ES
Ries ES
Roberts ES
Ronzone ES
Sandy Valley ES
Schorr ES
Snyder ES
Tanaka ES
Tartan ES
Thiriot ES
Thomas ES
Tobler ES
Tomiyasu ES
Virgin Valley ES
Ward (Kitty M) ES
Warren ES
Woolley ES
Wynn ES
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 21 of 32
Elementary Schools
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
Bowler (Grant) ES
Bowler (Joseph Sr) ES
Bruner ES
Cambeiro ES
Carl ES
Cortez ES
Craig ES
Dailey ES
Dearing ES
Detwiler ES
Diaz ES
Dickens ES
Diskin ES
Earl (Ira) ES
Edwards ES
Elizondo ES
Explore Knowledge K-5
Ferron ES
Fong ES
French ES
Fyfe ES
Gehring ES
Harris ES
Herr ES
Hickey ES
Hinman ES
Hollingsworth ES
Kelly ES
King (Martin Luther Jr) ES
Lake ES
Long ES
Lowman ES
Lunt ES
Manch ES
Martinez ES
McMillan ES
Moore ES
Paradise ES
Perkins (Dr. Claude G.) ES
Rainbow Dreams Academy
Red Rock ES
Reed ES
Ronnow ES
Roundy ES
Rowe ES
Rundle ES
Scott ES
Smith (Hal) ES
Squires ES
Sunrise Acres ES
Taylor (Robert) ES
Treem ES
Vegas Verdes ES
Wasden ES
Watson ES
West Prep ES
Whitney ES
Wilhelm ES
Williams (Wendell) ES
Wolfe (Eva) ES
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 22 of 32
Elementary Schools
Innovations International K-5
Parson ES
Petersen ES
Williams (Tom) ES
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 23 of 32
Results: Middle School
Designation Count Percent
0
0.00%
7
10.94%
34
53.13%
18
28.13%
5
7.81%
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 24 of 32
Results: Almost half of CCSD 4 star middle schools have a 40% or more Free & Reduced Lunch population
School % FRL % LEP
White 49% 10%
Lawrence 48% 18%
Laughlin 65% 3%
50% + 40-49%
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 25 of 32
Middle Schools
Canarelli MS
Laughlin Jr/Sr HS
Lawrence JHS
Miller (Bob) MS
Rogich MS
Webb MS
White MS
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 26 of 32
Middle Schools
Becker MS
Bridger MS
Brown JHS
Burkholder JHS
Cadwallader MS
Cashman MS
Cram MS
Escobedo MS
Explore Knowledge 6-12
Faiss MS
Fertitta MS
Garrett JHS
Greenspun JHS
Guinn MS
Harney MS
Hughes MS
Hyde Park MS
Indian Springs MS
Keller (Duane) MS
Knudson MS
Leavitt MS
Lied MS
Lyon MS
Mannion MS
Martin MS
Molasky JHS
Odyssey Charter MS
Orr MS
Robison MS
Sandy Valley Jr/Sr HS
Saville MS
Silvestri JHS
Tarkanian MS
Von Tobel MS
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 27 of 32
Middle Schools
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
100 Academy of Excellence MS
Agassi 6-12
Bailey MS
Brinley MS
Cannon JHS
Cortney JHS
Findlay MS
Garside JHS
Johnson JHS
Johnston MS
Mack (Jerome) MS
Monaco MS
Sawyer MS
Schofield MS
Smith (J.D.) MS
Swainston MS
West Prep at West Hall
Woodbury MS
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 28 of 32
Middle Schools
An appeals process will be available to schools from March 15 through April 15. Until the appeals process is complete this will remain a preliminary list.
Fremont MS
Gibson (Robert) MS
Innovations International 6-12
O'Callaghan MS
Sedway MS
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 29 of 32
Other Schools
A School Performance Framework for high schools is currently in development. A draft form of the high school framework will be complete by April 2012.
A School Performance Framework for alternative and special education schools is currently in development and will be released by August 2012.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 30 of 32
Uses
Schools that earn the 5 star rating will become Autonomous Schools.
Schools that earn the 1 star rating will receive differentiated supports.
Schools will attend School Improvement Planning professional development so SPF results can be used to increase achievement for all students.
The main purpose of the SPF is for schools to learn who is earning uncommon results with similar student populations in order to learn from one another and increase achievement of all students.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Revised Reference 6.05 A Page 31 of 32