Educational Excellence in a Changing World
Rigor + Relevance + Relationships =
RESULTS
Cuyahoga Falls City SchoolsHome of the Black Tigers!
2013-2014
Professional Learning Communities
First Big Idea of PLCs:
Focus on Learning
We accept high levels of learning for all students as the fundamental purpose of our school and therefore are willing to examine all practices in light of their impact on learning.
Second Big Idea of PLCs:
A Collaborative Culture
We can achieve our fundamental purpose of high levels of learning for all students only if we work together.
Third Big Idea of PLCs:
Focus on Results
We assess our effectiveness on the basis of results rather than intentions. Individuals, teams and schools seek relevant data and information and us that information to promote continuous improvement.
What are we doing?Why are we doing it?Have we been successful?How do we know?What are we going to do about it?
Five Essential Questions
AcademicMeet each student at his/her cognitive level and
guarantee at least one year of academic growth for each year in our system.
BusinessAssure a first-class service delivery model that provides our
communities with the highest degree of customer satisfaction possible within fiscally responsible parameters. Cuyahoga Falls expenditures will not exceed revenues in FY13.
2012-2013 GoalsReview
Academic Goal77% of K-8 students met the end of year i-Ready
benchmark in reading74% of K-8 students met the end of year i-Ready
benchmark in math
2012-2013 GoalsReview
Business Goal
2012-2013 GoalsReview
Revenues FY10 Revenues FY11 Revenues FY12 Revenues FY13
$45,658,187 $45,433,771 $45,645,836 $46,944,631
Expenditures FY10
Expenditures FY11
Expenditures FY12
Expenditures FY13
$45,959,480 $46,423,496 $45,864,698 $46,489,497
($301,293) ($989,725) ($218,862) $455,134
Performance IndexSchool Year Performance Index Advanced/Accelerated Basic/Limited
2012-2013Targets
100.0+ 50.0 15.0
2011-2012 99.1 47.2 16.2
2010-2011 99.3 48.6 16.1
2009-2010 98.1 46.2 17.5
2008-2009 95.8 43.5 21.3
2007-2008 95.3 40.5 21.3
2006-2007 95.5 39.4 20.8
Performance IndexSchool Year Performance Index Advanced/Accelerated Basic/Limited
2012-2013
98.3 46.7 17.3
2011-2012 99.1 47.2 16.2
2010-2011 99.3 48.6 16.1
2009-2010 98.1 46.2 17.5
2008-2009 95.8 43.5 21.3
2007-2008 95.3 40.5 21.3
2006-2007 95.5 39.4 20.8
OAA Data – Elementary Schools
2011-2012 2012-2013 change
Reading -3 85.7% 91.1% +5.4%
Math -3 80.6% 85.0% +4.4%
Reading -4 87.2% 92.1% +4.9%
Math -4 87.2% 85.4% -1.8%
Reading -5 77.9% 78.3% +0.4%
Math -5 72.7% 73.5% +0.8%
Science -5 80.5% 73.0% -7.5%
OAA Data – Middle Schools
2011-2012 2012-2013 change
Reading -6 89.6% 81.6% -8.0%
Math -6 85.1% 75.9% -9.2%
Reading -7 85.6% 81.7% -3.9%
Math -7 81.4% 81.4% 0.0
Reading -8 86.6% 89.4% +2.8%
Math -8 86.9% 87.0% +0.1%
Science -8 69.7% 69.3% -0.4%
OGT Data - CFHS2011-2012 2012-2013 change
Reading -10 92.3% 90.1% -2.2%
Math -10 86.4% 85.6% -0.8%
Writing -10 88.5% 84.7% -3.8%
Social Studies -10 90.1% 85.3% -4.8%
Science -10 84.0% 83.8% -0.2%
Reading -11 96.7% 93.7% -3.0%
Math -11 95.2% 91.5% -3.7%
Writing -11 94.4% 94.6% +0.2%
Social Studies -11 93.2% 90.9% -2.3%
Science -11 93.2% 90.3% -2.9%
2013-2014 ProjectionReading -3 91.1%
Math -3 85.0%
Reading -4 92.1%
Math -4 85.4%
Reading -5 78.3%
Math -5 73.5%
Science -5 73.0%
2013-2014 ProjectionReading -6 81.6%
Math -6 75.9%
Reading -7 81.7%
Math -7 81.4%
Reading -8 89.4%
Math -8 87.0%
Science -8 69.3%
Report Card Components
Gap Closing
Achievement
Graduation Rate
Progress
K-3 Literacy Progress
Prepared for Success
Gap Closing Component
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO’s) –A through F for this measure is defined as follows: 90 – 100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C; 60-69.9% = D; Below 60% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = F District = C
Bolich = C Bolich = F
CFHS = C CFHS = C
Price = F Price = A
DeWitt = F DeWitt = F
Lincoln = F Lincoln = F
Preston = F Preston = C
Richardson = A Richardson = A
Roberts = A Roberts = F
Silver Lake = D Silver Lake = A
Achievement Component
Performance Indicators –A through F for this measure is defined as follows: 90 – 100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C; 50-69.9% = D; Below 50% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = A (22/24) District = B (21/24)
Bolich = B Bolich = C
CFHS = A CFHS = A
Price = D Price = D
DeWitt = B DeWitt = C
Lincoln = B Lincoln = C
Preston = C Preston = D
Richardson = A Richardson = A
Roberts = B Roberts = B
Silver Lake = B Silver Lake = B
Achievement ComponentPerformance Index –A through F for this measure is defined as the percentage of the total possible 120 points: 90 – 100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C; 50-69.9% = D; Below 50% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = B (99.1) District = B (98.3)
Bolich = B Bolich = B
CFHS = B CFHS = B
Price = C Price = B
DeWitt = B DeWitt = B
Lincoln = B Lincoln = B
Preston = C Preston = C
Richardson = B Richardson = B
Roberts = B Roberts = B
Silver Lake = B Silver Lake = B
Graduation Rate
Four-Year Graduation Rate – A through F for this measure is defined as follows: 93-100% = A; 89-92.9% = B; 84-88.9% = C; 79-83.9% = D; less than 79% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = B (92.5 Cohort 2011) District = B (91.7 Cohort 2012)
CFHS = B CFHS = B
Graduation Rate
Five-Year Graduation Rate –A through F for this measure is defined as follows: 95-100% = A; 90-94.9% = B; 85-89.9% = C; 80-84.9% = D; less than 80% = F. Our simulated grades are as follows:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = C (89.7 Cohort 2010) District = B (94.4 Cohort 2011)
CFHS = C CFHS = B
Progress Component
Value Added for All Students – A through F for this measure is based on the bell curve and standard deviation calculation:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = D Data due today
Bolich = C
CFHS = N/A
Price = F
DeWitt = D
Lincoln = C
Preston = A
Richardson = F
Roberts = A
Silver Lake = F
Progress Component
Value Added for Gifted Students – A through F for this measure is based on the bell curve and standard deviation calculation:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = D Data due today
Bolich = C
CFHS = N/A
Price = C
DeWitt = C
Lincoln = B
Preston = C
Richardson = F
Roberts = C
Silver Lake = F
Progress Component
Value Added for Students with Disabilities – A through F for this measure is based on the bell curve and standard deviation calculation:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = D Data due today
Bolich = C
CFHS = N/A
Price = N/A
DeWitt = C
Lincoln = D
Preston = C
Richardson = C
Roberts = C
Silver Lake = N/A
Progress Component
Value Added for Lowest Quintile – A through F for this measure is based on the bell curve and standard deviation calculation:
2011-2012 2012-2013
District = C Data due today
Bolich = C
CFHS = N/A
Price = F
DeWitt = C
Lincoln = C
Preston = A
Richardson = C
Roberts = C
Silver Lake = N/A
K-3 Literacy Component
K-3 Literacy:
Reduce the number and percent of students not on grade level in reading
Not reported this year
Prepared for Success Component
Aug 2013 Aug 2014 Aug 2015 Aug 2016
Component Grade Calculated Calculated
College Admission Test
Report Only Report Only Report Only
Dual Enrollment Credits
Report Only Report Only Report Only
Industry Credentials Report Only Report Only Report Only
Honors Diplomas Report Only Report Only Report Only
AP Participation & Score
Report Only Report Only Report Only
IB Participation & Score
Report Only Report Only Report Only
College and Career Ready Assessment
Report Only (if available)
Report Only (may be included in component grade)
Report Only(may be included in component grade)
Opportunities to Excel
2013-2014• OTES• OPES• New Report Card• 3rd Grade Guarantee• Biennium Budget –
HB59• New Strategic Plan
2014-2015• PARCC Assessments• End-of-Course Exams• Replacement of OGT• 1 of 3 Renewal Levies• Pension System• Educational Delivery
Model
2014-15 Assessment System
End-of-course Exams
Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2
English 1, English 2, English 3
Physical Science, Biology
American History, American Government
College and Career Readiness Assessment will replace the OGT.
PARCC assessments will be given in grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics, grades 4 and 6 in social studies and grades 5 and 8 in science.
Cut scores for these tests will be equivalent to NAEP Level 4 or roughly equivalent to current Advanced and Accelerated levels.
Proficient levels are likely to drop from 82% to 46% based on 2012-13 data
College & Career ReadinessLevel 5: Superior command of the knowledge, skills, and practices embodied by the CCSS assessed at the grade level/course. Level 4: Solid command…
Level 3: Partial command…
Level 2: Limited command…
Level 1: Very Limited command…
College and Career Ready.
NAEP’s proficient level
Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment
Commitment to a shared vision
Culture/Student Life
Create a systemic culture of caring in which students flourish – Every student, every day
Stakeholder Involvement
Cause intentional community engagement
Resource Leveraging
Utilize and design human, physical and fiscal resources to meet the needs of today and tomorrow
BOE Focus Areas
Cuyahoga Falls2013-2014 Goals
Academic Growth By the end of the 2013-14 school year, 85% of our students will demonstrate one year’s growth in reading and mathematics as measured by iReady (grades K-9) and common assessments (grades 10-12).
Cuyahoga Falls2013-2014 Goals
Fiscal Responsibility In FY14 district revenues will exceed district expenditures.
Cuyahoga Falls2013-2014
What are we doing?
Mission statement:
The mission of the Cuyahoga Falls City School District is to assure each student is equipped with the skills necessary to meet the challenges of the future.
Cuyahoga Falls2013-2014
Why are we doing it?
Academic – Our community demands growth with each student annually
Business – Our community demands fiscal responsibility with the use of our public funds
Cuyahoga Falls 2013-2014
Have we been successful?
AcademicData collectionImproving our
classroom instruction
BusinessIdentify cost-
savings areasIdentify alternate
forms of revenue
Cuyahoga Falls2013-2014
How do we know?
Academici-Ready dataState/national dataCommon
Assessment dataBusiness
Financial reportsStakeholder
surveys/feedback
What are we doing about it?
Academic Goals
• Implement Common Core and revised standards
• Purposeful data use
• Instructional technology
• Small interest-based learning community process(CFHS)
• Design Challenges (MS)
• Instruction meets the standards rigor and relevance
• Utilize assessment data to progress monitor & inform instruction
• Is technology improving instruction?
• CFHS work
• Implementation of 6 design challenges per grade level
August 12, 13 & 1460 ParticipantsEvolution of schooling Business Advisory Council perspective8 Work/Research GroupsShare out, reflection, and next stepsCommunication is critical!
High School Summer Institute
August 19, 20, & 2170 participantsDesign Challenge studyRigor & Relevance with instructionProvide MS students exposure to career clustersCommunication is critical!
Middle School Summer Institute
In schools where teachers examined the evidence of the
impact of teaching effectiveness on student achievement and regard
their professional practices as the primary cause of student
achievement…
Reeves, D. (2007). Ahead of the curve. Solution Tree
…the gains in student achievement were three times higher than those in schools
where the faculty and leaders attributed the causes to factors
beyond their control.
Reeves, D. (2007). Ahead of the curve. Solution Tree
Meeting increased RIGOR of the CCSS & PARCCStudents need to see RELEVANCE of content and
schoolBuild RELATIONSHIPS with all stakeholders: our
colleagues, our students, our parents, our community
Prepare students for “next step”
We ALL need to share the why when asked by our stakeholders!
High School and Middle SchoolWHY?
Connection across ALL levelsElementary Schools
• Teaching to rigor and relevance of CCSS
• Develop the skills required
MS Institute
• All students experience the 16 career clusters
• 6 Design Challenges per year
Skills desired by employers
Common
Core State
Standards
Rigor/Relevance
Not just the “flavor of the month”…
Stakeholder Relationship
sDesign Challenges
What are we doing about it?
Business goals• Increase revenues
• Reduce expenditures
• HB 59• Student enrollment• Property tax
• Contracts with outside agencies
• Needs vs. wants• Align expenditures with our
goals
Creativity
Together WE can…Achieve our goalsWhile modeling the 4C’s in our adult workWhile embedding the 4C’s into instruction
Critical Thinking
Collaboration
Communication