school performance compactfile/s… · timeline of key policy development decisions december 2015:...

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE COMPACT

Denver Board of Education

January 19, 2017

1

EVERY

CHILD

SUCCEEDS

OUR VISION

2

GOAL #1 Great Schools in Every Neighborhood

DPS’ top Denver Plan 2020 goal is to ensure Great Schools in Every Neighborhood

3


DPS checks progress to see how well each school is helping students succeed.

4

GOAL #1 | Great Schools in Every Neighborhood


“In the event that students are served in persistently low performing schools—even after substantive efforts to support and improve these schools—the District believes students deserve fundamental transformation of their learning environments. …

This policy focuses specifically on establishing a transparent and consistent process to identify and designate for replacement, restart or closure the most persistently low performing schools. The School Performance Compact is driven by a sense of urgency to dramatically improve the learning environment in these schools.”

5


The Board of Education makes decisions about restarting or closing schools based on three measures:

6

A

Student academic growth

in the most recent yearB

Results of a School Quality Review

to check overall instructional quality

and learning cultureC

School Performance Framework

ratings over multiple yearsSchool Performance Framework

ratings over multiple years

TIMELINE OF KEY POLICY DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS

December 2015: BOE passes the Compact

May 2016: Measure A and B defined

September 2016: Measure C defined

December 2016: BOE makes determinations

7


MEASURE C: SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEWSummary of Implementation Decisions

1. A School Quality Review would be used as one of three designation criteria related to performance;

2. Using a third-party vendor (SchoolWorks) to ensure objectivity;

3. With the expectation that the vendor would apply numerical scores to a largely observational tool; and

4. DPS would make determinations using a bright-line threshold.

8


SCHOOL PERFORMANCE COMPACTSummary of Policy-Driven Steps

Based on 2013, 2014 and 2016 SPF results, six schools were determined to fall within the bottom 5%: West Early College, Gilpin Montessori, Wyatt Academy, Greenlee Elementary, Amesse Elementary, and Lake International School.

Four of those schools did not receive more than 50% of total growth points on the 2016 SPF: West Early College, Gilpin Montessori, Greenlee Elementary, and AmesseElementary. (Wyatt Academy and Lake International School were removed from SPC consideration at this point, because they received 65% and 56.79% of available growth points on the 2016 SPF, respectively.)

Gilpin Montessori, Greenlee Elementary and Amesse Elementary SQRs did not meet the threshold for performance on the School Quality Review and thus were eligible for restart or closure. (West Early College was removed at this point, as it scored a 25 with no “1s.”)

Based primarily on enrollment patterns and availability of school options, Greenlee Elementary and Amesse Elementary were recommended for restart; Gilpin Montessori was recommended for closure.

9


SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEWClarification Areas

The School Quality Review portion of the SPC processes has generated significant scrutiny within impacted schools and the broader community, which reflects multiple factors, including:

1. A belief among some that DPS employees may have influenced outcomes of the SchoolWorks’ processes;

2. The nature of a qualitative review itself; and

3. Misunderstanding of SchoolWorks processes, especially as it relates to rating changes during quality assurance steps.

10


SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEWRatings Changes as a Result of Quality Assurance Steps

Portfolio Management has analyzed the ratings included in draft reports it received against the final reports issued by SchoolWorks. The analysis shows that changes to ratings during SchoolWorks’ quality assurance processes were common and, on the whole, improved school ratings:

In 13 of 16 schools, ratings changed during SchoolWorks’ quality assurance processes.

In schools not eligible for the SPC, ratings changes occurred for ten of 12 schools.

In schools not eligible for the SPC, the quality assurance processes resulted in eight rating decreases and seven rating increases.

SchoolWorks’ quality assurance processes resulted in ratings changes for three of the four SPC-eligible schools.

In the SPC-eligible schools, the quality assurance processes resulted in two rating decreases and five rating increases.

Of note, ratings changes for West Early College during the SchoolWorks quality review processes resulted in the school meeting the SQR performance threshold under the SPC criteria.

11



“In the event that students are served in persistently low performing schools—even after substantive efforts to support and improve these schools—the District believes students deserve fundamental transformation of their learning environments. …

This policy focuses specifically on establishing a transparent and consistent process to identify and designate for replacement, restart or closure the most persistently low performing schools. The School Performance Compact is driven by a sense of urgency to dramatically improve the learning environment in these schools.”

12

school performance compactfile/s… · timeline of key policy development decisions december 2015:...

Documents