district and school performance frameworks 101

1

District and School Performance Frameworks 101

Colorado Department of EducationWebinar

September 2011http://

www.cde.state.co.us/Accountability/Downloads/SPF-WebinarSept2011.pptx

http://www.cde.state.co.us/Accountability/Downloads/SPF-WebinarSept2011.pptx



2

Agenda

• The Big Picture

• Background on the DPF/SPF

• Measures and metrics on the SPF

• Walkthrough of the SPF

• Uses of the DPF/SPF

• Additional Tools & Support from the State

3

Every Student Career &

College Ready

High Expectations

Effective Educators

Accountability &

Improvement

Innovation & Choice

Ensuring effective educators for every

student and effective leaders for every school

Fostering and enabling innovative approaches

to teaching and learning

Ensuring students and their families can

choose the schools that best meet their needs

Measuring how well schools and districts are

meeting the needs of students

Using data to continuously improve district, school, and

student performance

Setting high standards for what all students should know and be

able to do

Assessing and supporting students in

mastering the standards

Every Student Career &

College Ready

CDE’s Strategic Priorities

DRAFT Where do the DPF/SPF fit into CDE’s strategic priorities?

4

Aligning Accountability and Support

All students will exit Colorado’s K-12 education system ready for postsecondary education and workforce success. - Colorado's Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K) SB08-212

State Accountability• Accreditation• PPR

Federal Accountability• NCLB• Special

Education

Competitive Grants and Strategic

Partnerships

5

All students will exit Colorado’s K-12 education system ready for postsecondary education and workforce success. - Colorado's Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K) SB08-212

Aligning Accountability and Planning

State • Accreditation• PPR

Competitive Grants and Strategic

Partnerships

Federal • NCLB• Special

Education

AYP AMAOHQ

UIP

Grad.SPF/DPF Program Performance

UIP

UIP

UIP

UIP

UIP

6

Agenda

• The Big Picture






7

DPF and SPF Background• Required by the Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB-163)

• All districts receive a District Performance Framework (DPF). This determines their accreditation rating.

• All schools receive a School Performance Framework (SPF). This determines their school plan types.

• All districts and all schools submit an improvement plan using the Unified Improvement Plan template. Components:– Trends, Root Causes, Targets, Strategies, Resources, Interim Measures &

Implementation Benchmarks

8

DPF and SPF Purposes

• Focus attention on what matters most.

• Provide a body of evidence related to state-identified performance indicators to support school and district performance management.

• Support school and district efforts to evaluate their performance.

• Establish a common framework for the state to use to hold schools accountable for performance.

• Identify schools that need additional support (Priority Improvement and Turnaround).

9

Accreditation & Plan Types• Accreditation designations:

– Accredited with Distinction (10%)– Accredited (50%)– Accredited with Improvement Plan (25%)– Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan (10%)– Accredited with Turnaround Plan (5%)

• School plan types:– Performance Plan (60%)– Improvement Plan (25%)– Priority Improvement Plan (10%)– Turnaround Plan (5%)

• Implications

10

Distribution of Preliminary School Performance Framework Plan Assignments, 2010

11

Timeline for District Accreditation & Plan Submission

12

Timeline for School Plan Type Assignment & Plan Submission

13

Agenda

• The Big Picture






14

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

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, Dropout Rate, Average Colorado ACT Composite Score

15

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

16

1 year vs. 3 year data

• CDE provides two different versions of the School Performance Framework Reports:– The most recent year of data (1-year SPF, 2011)

– The most recent three years of data (3-year SPF, 2011)

• Only one report counts for official accountability purposes:– The one under which the school has ratings on a higher number of the

performance indicators, or

– If the school has ratings under an equal number of indicators, the one under which it received a higher total number of points.

17

Agenda

• The Big Picture






18

School Performance Framework Overview

• Page 1: Summary of school performance, including plan type assignment and ratings for each performance indicator

• Page 2: Details of school performance by indicator and sub-indicator

• Page 3: Scoring guides including cut scores

• Page 4: Comparison data

19

DPF/SPF ExpectationsApproaching Meets Exceeds

Achievement The district/school’s % of students scoring P/A was at/above the … percentile of all districts/schools

15th percentile (2010 baseline)



Growth The district/school’s MGP was at/above…

If school meets AGP: 30If school does not meet AGP: 40



20

DPF/SPF ExpectationsApproaching Meets Exceeds

Growth Gaps The disaggregated group’s MGP was…

If group meets AGP: 30If group does not meet AGP: 40




The district/ school’s graduation rate was at/above…

The district/ school’s dropout rate was at/below…

The district/ school’s average ACT composite score was at/above…

65%

10%

17

80%

State average (2009 baseline)1-yr 3.6% 3-yr 3.9%

State average (2010 baseline)1-yr 20.0 3-yr 20.1

90%

1%

22

21

Academic Achievement (status)• Performance Data: the percent of students in the school

scoring at the proficient or advanced achievement level• Comparison: Compared to the distribution of percent

proficient and advanced scoring students in all other schools* in the state.

• Scoring Guide: sets the percentile cut-points for each rating.– Approaching = 15th percentile– Meets = 50th percentile– Exceeds = 90th percentile

* Does not included schools with N of less than 16 or Alternative Education Campuses

22

Academic Growth• Performance data: Median Growth Percentile and

Median Adequate Growth• Comparison:

1. What was my school’s median growth percentile?2. Was my school’s median growth percentile

adequate? (yes or no)3. How did my school’s median growth percentile

compare to state expectations for growth?• Scoring guide: sets the cut-points for median growth

percentile using two tables that depend on whether or not the school met adequate growth

23

Scoring Guide/Decision Tree for Academic Growth

24

Adequate Growth

• What is adequate growth?• Based on catch-up and keep-up growth.

25

Calculating Adequate Growth for Students Scoring Below Proficient: Catching Up

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

55

95

N o t P ro fi c i e n t

7th grade 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade6th grade

85

8580

80

80

7676

7676

76 is the minimum-this student’s adequate growth percentile

P ro fi c i e n t

26

Calculating Adequate Growth for Students Scoring Below Proficient: Catching Up

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



7676

7676

5555

55

55

55th percentile growth will not be enough for this student to catch up – his current growth is not adequate.

P ro fi c i e n t

27

Calculating Adequate Growth for Students Scoring Above Proficient: Keeping Up

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

12



25

25 3838

38

5050

50

50

50 is the maximum -this student’s adequate growth percentile

P ro fi c i e n t79

28

Calculating Adequate Growth for Students Scoring Above Proficient: Keeping Up

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



50

5050

50

79 7979

79

P ro fi c i e n t79th percentile growth will be enough for this student to keep up – his current growth is adequate.

29

Median Adequate GrowthAGP Sorted AGPs Median AGP4578993211915567431077

Median Adequate Growth for this school is 55

Search for the middle value…

Adequate growth percentiles for all catch-up and keep-up students

30

Adequate Growth

• What was my school’s median growth percentile?

• Was my school’s median growth percentile adequate? – If MGP > AGP = yes– If MGP < AGP = no

• How did my school’s median growth percentile compare to the state’s expectations for growth?– Plug into Growth Scoring Guide/decision tree

31

Scoring Guide/Decision Tree for Academic Growth

32

Growth Gaps• Performance data: Median Growth Percentile and Median

Adequate Growth for disaggregated student groups• Comparison:

1. What was the disaggregated group’s median growth percentile?

2. Was the group’s median growth percentile adequate? (yes or no)

3. How did the group’s median growth percentile compare to state expectations for growth?

• Scoring guide: sets the cut-points for median growth percentile using two tables that depend on whether or not the school met adequate growth

33


Performance Data Approaching Meets Exceeds

Graduation Rate At/above 65% At/above 80% At/above 90%

Drop-Out Rate At/below 10% At/below state average At/below 1%

Colorado ACT Composite At/above 17 At/above the state average At/above 22

See the back page of the performance framework report for:• The state average dropout rate.• The state average ACT Composite Score.

Note: State averages are different for 1-year vs. 3-year metrics.

34

This School's Graduation Rate (1-year)

4-year 5-year 6-year 7-year

Anticipated Year of Graduation

2007 86.8 86.9 87.0 87.0

2008 89.7 91.6 92.8

2009 86.7 88.5

2010 89.6

This School's Graduation Rate (3-year aggregate)

4-year 5-year 6-year 7-year

Anticipated Year of Graduation

2007 86.8 86.9 87.0 87.0

2008 89.7 91.6 92.8

2009 86.7 88.5

2010 89.6

Aggregated 88.3 89.7 89.9 87.0

On-Time and Adjusted YearGraduation Rates

35

Indicator Points• Points earned on a scale of 0-4

• Sum the sub-indicator points for the total indicator points.

• Convert to % (points earned/points eligible for the indicator).

Points Earned Rating4 Exceeds3 Meets2 Approaching1 Does not meet0 Not eligible for points

36

Indicator Ratings

• Based on the % of points earned of the points eligible for the indicator.

• Cut-points on page 3 of SPFCut-Points for each performance indicator Cut-Point: The school earned … of the points eligible on this indicator.

Achievement; Growth; Gaps; Postsecondary and Workforce

Readiness

• at or above 87.5% Exceeds • at or above 62.5% - below 87.5% Meets • at or above 37.5% - below 62.5% Approaching

• below 37.5% Does Not Meet

37

Framework (Weighted) Points• Each indicator is weighted differently in the overall plan type

assignment (page 1 SPF).

• Multiply the percent of points earned by the weight for each indicator (Eligible points).

• These are your framework points for each indicator.

Indicator ES/MS Weight HS WeightAcademic Achievement 25 15

Academic Growth 50 35

Academic Growth Gaps 25 15


0 35

38

Arriving at a Plan Type Assignment• Sum framework points for each indicator.

• Convert this sum to a percentage (of 100).

• Use % of framework points to determine the plan type assignment.

• See “Cut-points for plan type assignment” on page 3 to determine plan type assignment.

Cut-Points for plan type assignment

Cut-Point: The school earned … of the total framework points eligible.

Total Framework Points

• at or above 60% Performance • at or above 47% - below 60% Improvement • at or above 33% - below 47% Priority Improvement • below 33% Turnaround

39

Agenda

• The Big Picture






40

Uses of the DPF/SPF

• Select a report www.schoolview.org/performance.asp

• What does the report tell you? – Where is the school doing well?– Where is it struggling?

• What doesn’t the report tell you ?– What additional information do you need to

understand its performance?• How can you use your SPF/DPF in your UIP?

http://www.schoolview.org/performance.asp

41

District Performance Framework• Mirrors the School Performance Framework

• Distribution of district accreditation categories similar to school plan type distribution• 10% Accredited with Distinction• 50% Accredited• 25% Accredited with Improvement Plan• 10% Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan• 5% Accredited with Turnaround Plan

• Safety and Finance assurances• Districts not meeting either their Safety or Finance assurances will default to

Accredited with Priority Improvement (or stay in Priority Improvement or Turnaround if they are already there) until they meet requirements.

43

Agenda

• The Big Picture






44

Additional Resources• CDE Accountability Website:

http://www.cde.state.co.us/Accountability/index.asp

• SPF Tutorial: http://www.cde.state.co.us/media/training/SPF_Online_Tutorial/player.html

• UIP Website: http://www.cde.state.co.us/Accountability/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp

• SchoolView: http://www.schoolview.org/ – Colorado Growth Model– SchoolView Data Center– SchoolView Data Lab

http://www.cde.state.co.us/Accountability/index.asp

http://www.cde.state.co.us/media/training/SPF_Online_Tutorial/player.html

http://www.cde.state.co.us/Accountability/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp

http://www.schoolview.org/

45

Additional Resources

• CDE Staff– Bill Bonk, Longitudinal Growth Consultant,

[email protected]– Marie Huchton, Senior Statistical Consultant,

[email protected]– Somoh Supharukchinda, State Accountability,

[email protected]

• Federal Programs Staff– http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/ov/contacts.asp -

Alyssa Pearson & Donna Morganstern

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/ov/contacts.asp

district and school performance frameworks 101

Documents