accountability in colorado: a systems approach
DESCRIPTION
Accountability in Colorado: A systems approach. Presentation to the School Finance Partnership April 2012. Building an Aligned Accountability System. Presentation & Discussion Outline: What are we holding ourselves accountable for? Goals of the system Performance measures & targets - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Accountability in Colorado:
A systems approach
Presentation to the School Finance PartnershipApril 2012
2
Presentation & Discussion Outline:
What are we holding ourselves accountable for?• Goals of the system• Performance measures & targets
Where are the connections and disconnections across the system?
Where does funding fit in?
Time & interest permitting…a deeper look at how the state’s school and district performance frameworks work
Building an Aligned Accountability System
3
Building an Aligned Accountability System
Students
Educators
Schools/Districts
State
Each component of the system should be held to the same expectations.
Believing that the state should hold itself accountable for the same measures we
hold students, educators, and schools/districts accountable for, CDE
articulated strategic goals and performance measures for the state as whole.
4
Strategic Goals• Globally competitive workforce• Ensure every student is on track to graduate postsecondary and workforce ready.• Ensure students graduate ready for success in postsecondary education and the workforce.• Increase achievement and national/international competitiveness for all students .
• Great teachers and leaders• Increase and support the effectiveness of all educators.• Optimize the preparation, retention, and effectiveness of new educators.• Eliminate the educator equity gap.
• Outstanding schools and districts• Increase school and district performance.• Foster innovation and expand access to a rich array of high quality school choices for students.
• Best state education agency in the nation• Develop and implement CDE’s strategic direction.• Increase customer satisfaction with CDE’s communication, services, and systems. • Attract and retain outstanding talent to CDE.
Students
Educators
Schools/Districts
State
Statewide Strategic Goals
5
Strategic Goals• Globally competitive workforce• On track to graduate postsecondary and workforce ready: Achievement & growth data• Graduate ready for success: Dropout rate, graduation rate, and ACT scores• National competiveness: NAEP achievement rates
• Great teachers and leaders• Increase and support the effectiveness of all educators: Establish baseline, improve over time• Optimize the preparation, retention, and effectiveness of new educators: Retention rates• Eliminate the educator equity gap: Effectiveness ratings in high poverty/high minority schools
• Outstanding schools and districts• Increase school/district perf.: Decrease # of turnaround, increase # accredited with distinction • Foster innovation and expand choice: Improve accreditation ratings of schools of choice
• Best state education agency in the nation• Develop and implement CDE’s strategic direction: % of performance targets met• Increase customer satisfaction: Improved efficiencies (2 week licensure turnaround time) • Attract and retain outstanding talent to CDE: Satisfaction and retention rates
Students
Educators
Schools/Districts
State
Statewide Performance Measures
How can a school finance formula assist districts in meeting these measures?
6
Setting Statewide Performance Targets
• Examined 5-year trend data for all student performance measures
• Calculated the 5-year growth rate
• Set targets at three times the historical growth rate
• Where there were declines over 5 years, CDE set targets to increase performance by 3-5 percentage points
• For student sub-populations, CDE established more aggressive growth expectations to work towards narrowing achievement gaps
• For non-student performance measures, CDE looked at relevant historical performance and set targets to achieve desired growth
Refer to CDE’s strategic direction document that includes tables with all of the performance targets.
Reading Proficiency TargetsActual CSAP Results 2006-07 to 2010-11
Targets 2011-12 to 2014-15
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-1560.0%
62.0%
64.0%
66.0%
68.0%
70.0%
72.0%
74.0%
76.0%
ElementaryMiddleHigh
Pe
rce
nt
pro
ficie
nt
an
d a
dva
nce
d
Actual Targets
Performance Targets: Example from Objective 1a.
Strengths, weaknesses of this approach
Learn over time
Improve calibration and target setting
Tighter alignment, but disconnects remain
With these performance measures, we’ve improved alignment of system-wide expectations, but…
• Alignment doesn’t mean strong connections across the system.
• We still need to tighten accountability for students.
• We’re still figuring out how best to hold educators accountable for student results.
• We don’t know yet if we’re looking at the right measures for schools and districts.
• We lack strong statewide leading indicators that can signal mid-course corrections.
• We need to tighten the links between performance, accountability, improvement, and return on investment.
Connecting the pieces
Performance
Accountability
Improvement
Return on Investment
How are we performing?
Is it good enough?
What are we doing to improve?
Are our investments yielding results?
Tightening the ROI connectionMaximizing the Role of:
• Transparency• What data do we make available?• What connections do we make between different data that
will inherently drive change?
• Incentives and rewards• How can the finance formula incent desired performance?• What role do rewards for good and/or removal of funds for
poor performance play?
• Eligibility requirements• Can we set eligibility requirements for certain funding
streams that drive specific behaviors?
What else should we be considering?
Delving deeper intothe State’s School & District Accountability Frameworks
(a discussion as time, interest permits)
12
School and District Accountability
• School and District Performance Frameworks• State and Federal- Title IA accountability• Focus attention on the data that matters the
most• SB-163 created a “5-year clock” for the lowest
performing schools and districts
13
Performance Indicators & DataPerformance Indicator Performance DataAcademic Achievement CSAP % proficient and advanced (reading,
mathematics, science and writing)
Academic Growth Median and adequate student growth percentile (reading, mathematics and writing) on CSAP, and English language proficiency on CELApro
Gaps in Academic Growth Median and adequate student growth percentile in reading, mathematics and writing for disaggregated groups on CSAP
Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
Graduation Rate, Disaggregated Graduation Rate, Dropout Rate, Average Colorado ACT Composite Score
14
How does the framework focus on these indicators?
• Assigns a rating to each of the performance indicators:– Exceeds, Meets, Approaching, Does not meet
• The ratings roll up to an overall evaluation of the school/district’s performance, which determines the school’s plan type assignment:– Performance, Improvement, Priority Improvement,
Turnaround
15
16
17
18
Consolidated Federal Programs
• Federal formula dollars (Title IA, IIA, IIIA, IIIA-S) are distributed to districts through the Consolidated Application process
• The consolidated application asks districts to identify needs, meet program requirements, and submit an aligned budget
• In our NCLB Waiver, we stated that there will be increased scrutiny for low performing districts, in application approval
19
Consolidated Federal Programs
• Meeting with all districts on Priority Improvement/Turnaround prior to their application submission for 2012-13
• Discussing use of federal funds and checking for alignment with Unified Improvement Plan
• If districts remain on PI/Turnaround, they will have less discretion over funds
20
Questions• Leanne Emm, Assistant Commissioner, Public School
• Jill Hawley, Chief of Staff & [email protected]
• Alyssa Pearson, Executive Director, Accountability & Data [email protected]