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