1

Presentation to the Board of Education on2013 School Performance Index (SPI)

and 2013 District Performance Index (DPI)

Michael Emmett, SuperintendentTimothy Howes, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources & Financial OperationsSally Dastoli, Director of Curriculum & Instruction Keith Rafaniello, Director of TechnologyEmily Daigle, Director of Special EducationDarla Miner, Instructional Supervisor for Literacy

Wethersfield Public Schools

January 7, 2014

2

CT’s New Accountability System

• CT’s No Child Left Behind Waiver was approved by USDE on May 29, 2012– Replaces AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) under

NCLB with CT designed annual performance targets

– Replaces NCLB sanctions for schools and districts with more effective interventions

– Schools will no longer be identified as “in need of improvement” based on 2012 CMT/CAPT

3

Major Shifts

NCLB CT’s New Indicators

Target is Proficient Target is - on average - Goal

Get to 100% by 2014 Halfway to target by 2018

Only Math and Reading count

Math, Reading, Writing and Science count

4

NCLB CT’s New Indicators School progress only measured by standardized test scores

School progress also measured by high school graduation rates (4-year and extended)

Accountable for subgroups of students of 40 or greater

Still accountable for subgroups of students, but 20 students or greater

5

Performance Index

• Each district, school, subject and subgroup will have a Performance Index

• Index is between 0 and 100• Counts performance in all tested grade levels• Captures performance across all performance bands• Includes all tested subjects: reading, writing, math

and science• Incorporates all tested students, including students

who take the MAS and Skills Checklist

6

How Can a School Increase its SPI(School Performance Index)?

• For a school with 100 students…..NCLB CT’s New Indicators Increasing % Proficient by 9% requires moving 9 students who were not Proficient to Proficient

Increasing the SPI by 3 points requires moving 9 students across any performance threshold (0.33 for each student)

Advanced AdvancedGoal Goal

Proficient ProficientBasic Basic

Below Basic Below Basic

7

Performance Index(Students who take CMT/CAPT)

Levels of Performance “Credit” to calculate SPIGoal, Advanced 1.0Proficient 0.67Basic .33Below Basic 0

8

Performance Index(Students who take MAS or Skills Checklist )

MAS Skills Checklist “Credit” to calculate SPI

Goal Independent 1.0Proficient Proficient 0.50Basic Basic 0

9

What’s the difference between the results released in July and the SPI/DPI data?

Raw data(released July 19th)

Performance metricsSPI / DPI Data

Results separated by grade level and subject

Results aggregated across subjects and grade levels

All students who were tested in a school/district included

Only students who were present in the school/district for 10 months included

Only currently identified ELL and SWD included

ELL and SWD included for 2 years after they “exit”

MAS/ Skills Checklist reported separately

MAS/ Skills checklist included in index

10

CT State TargetsComponent Measures State TargetsStudent and Subgroup Achievement

School Performance Index (SPI)

88

Achievement Gaps

School Performance Index Gaps

< 10

Graduation Rate - 4-year graduation rate- Extended graduation rate

94%

96%

11

48 Points/12 years = 4 Points a Year SPI Growth

A

2024

12

Schools are Divided into Categories

• Excelling • Progressing • Transitioning • Review • Focus • Turn around

13

Future

• No SPI/DIP will be published for the 2013-14 school year

• Current SPI assessments/expectations not aligned to CCSS expectations and new Smarter Balanced Assessment

14

• The SPI alone does not represent a full picture of performance as does school classification….

(CSDE 12/7/12 Memo)

15

Data Snapshots

16

District ELL Enrollment

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 .October 2013

150155160165170175180185190195200205210

185

171

164

187

156

168

203

Total ELL

17

District Special Education Enrollment

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 .October 2013

370

395

420

445

470

377 378 378 383

419

433

454

Total Special Education

Total Special Education

18

Free/Reduced

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 .October 20130

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

474

530 548

616 617

675720

Free and Reduced Meals

Total Free Total Reduced Total Free and Reduced

19

District Data - Homeless

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 .October 2013

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

54

1

6

10 10

13

Homeless Total

20

Summer Reading 2013 Participation

CW EW Hanmer HC Webb0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

4643

38

45

22

% Elementry Students Participating in 2013 Summer Reading

21

Case Study

Avg number tested

CMT/CAPT

Same # Students in

Grade 3Grade 3 in 2006 267 Grade 8 in 2011 277

Same Students in Grade 3 to Grade 8 218

79% of grade 8 students have been in Wethersfield since grade 3

Grade 10 in 2013 262

Same Students in Grade 3 to Grade 10 193

74% of grade 10 students have been in Wethersfield since grade 3

From Grade 8 to Grade 10:24 Students no longer enrolled at WHS

22

Cohort Case Study 2006-2013

Math Science Reading Writing40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

WHS CAPT Scores 2013 At/Above GoalEstimated Scores with 3-10 WPS At/Above Goal

23

New Students to District as of 9/3/13 (3rd Day of School this year)

• Total of 87 students

Grade # of New Students

PreK 14Kindergarten 13Grade 1 5Grades 2-4 13Grades 5-6 9SDMS 7WHS 26

24

New Students to District as of 9/3/13 (3rd Day of School this year)

• Total of 87 students– 15 ELL – 17 Free/Reduced Meals – 17 Special Education– 1 Homeless

• 41 (46%) High Needs Students = Either ELL, Free/Reduced, or Special Education

25

Other Measures of Success….

• Art, music and drama productions & shows • Athletics• Participation in school clubs and activities • Connections to community such as community service • Parent and Staff Survey results • Enrollment and success in Advanced Placement / Early

College Experience• Honor Societies • District wide assessments • Etc.

26

SPISnapshots

27

Did They Meet The Target?School SPI Math Reading Writing Science

WHS 78.1 No No No No No

SDMS 85.7 No No Yes No No

*Charles Wright

80.3 No Yes Yes No No

*Hanmer 83.5 No Yes Yes No Yes

Emerson-Williams

84.0 No Yes Yes No Yes

Highcrest 85.4 No Yes No No Yes

*Webb 77.3 No No No No No

* Title 1

28

Highlights

• All 7 schools are classified as: Transitioning– Overall SPI between 64-87– Participation rate of 95% or higher – Misses one or more of the Progressing criteria

• Overall, district strength is reading and math

29

Achievement Gap

• Tracking national research, higher levels of student need are associated with lower levels of academic performance. (achievement gap)

• Wethersfield Schools do have some subgroups who met target.

30

Overall School Subgroup Performance

School Black/AA

Hispanic or Latino

ELL Free/ Reduced

Special Ed High Needs

WHS --- No --- No No NoSDMS Yes Yes No Yes No No

Charles Wright

--- Yes --- Yes No No

Hanmer --- Yes --- Yes No NoEmerson-Williams

--- Yes --- Yes Yes Yes

Highcrest --- No --- No No NoWebb --- No --- No No No

31

Barriers

• Change is difficult • Changing demographics• Changing institutional culture • Changing practice

32

Other Towns…..

• Wethersfield– 7 schools Transitioning

• Wallingford – 1 school Progressing – 11 schools Transitioning

• Berlin– 1 school Progressing – 4 schools Transitioning

• Rocky Hill – 2 schools Progressing – 2 schools Transitioning

• Newington– 3 schools Excelling – 1 school Progressing – 3 schools Transitioning

• Cromwell – 1 school Excelling– 1 school Progressing – 2 schools Transitioning

• West Hartford – 4 schools Excelling – 4 school Progressing – 8 schools Transitioning

33

Website for All SPI / DPI Reports • http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/performancereports/20122013reports.asp