Date post: | 18-Jul-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kevinohlandt |
View: | 299 times |
Download: | 0 times |
State Board of Education Retreat: Assessment, Accountability, Performance, and
Evaluation Presentation
Penny Schwinn, Chief Accountability and Performance Officer
Chantel Janiszewski, Branch Officer
Topics for Discussion
Priority Schools Update
Accountability System Update
Smarter Balanced
Other Branch Work and Updates
1
Priority Schools: Fast Facts
Schools were named on September 4th (71 days into the process)
120-day planning period is what is currently listed in the regulation and ESEAAlso provides time to ensure implementation of planning
for the start of the year
Two City Council meetings, multiple Red Clay and Christina community meetings, multiple DOE engagement
Red Clay began engaging with DOE immediately
Christina would not engage with DOE until mid-October (40 days into the process)
2
Priority Schools: Update on the MOU
Red Clay and DOE have been in ongoing negotiations for the last 6 weeks
Christina is still in the process of determining what they want included in the MOU
Benchmark 1 for “On Track” would be that an MOU is signed with collective bargaining units and the LEAs within 75 days
Benchmark 2 for “On Track” would be that an MOU is signed with the DOE and the LEA by November 17th in order to ensure sufficient time for planning in alignment with the MOU
3
Priority Schools: Update on the Plans
Planning money is being processed by OMB ($40,000 per school in advance of the MOU being signed)
Red Clay is planning to use for teacher stipends, but currently has no plans to bring-in experts to support research or drafting of the plans
Christina is not sure if board will allow use of the planning money and has no plans on how to spend it
Neither district has provided any plans or partial plans for feedback in any of the 3 open windows that have passed
DOE has expanded planning review opportunities to include every week, in addition to office hours on Mondays, and weekly meetings on Fridays (two per week with CSD)
4
Priority Schools: LEA Landscape
Both districts are significantly behind where one would expect them to be given that 10 weeks have passed
Red Clay is partnering with UVA, and has included DOE, which will allow for ongoing collaboration
Christina appears to be dealing with internal politics that is preventing significant forward movement in the process
5
Priority Schools: Next Steps
We have provided minor extensions to the planning process: new submission date is January 7th
Developing plans based on approvable plans
Developing systems to monitor planning year activities to ensure the schools are “first-day ready”
6
Accountability System: Brief Review
What We are Developing:
Accountability system with Parts A and B (both are reported; the AFWG will provide guidance on any rating system)
A School and District Performance Framework (1-pager) that clearly and efficiently communicates the information
An interim-level system that will provide you with the information in real-time and not just EOY data
Links to supports and tools that align with what is being measured (long-term)
Accountability System - Part A Review
1. Academic Achievement• Proficiency and Growth in Math, ELA, Science, Social Studies
2. College and Career Readiness• High School - As measured by % of students who have demonstrated CCR
by senior year as measured by SBAC proficiency or the new SAT (school/district choice)
• Middle School – As measured by % of students on track to be proficient in 3 years
• Elementary School – As measured by % of students on track to be proficient in 3 years
3. Chronic Absenteeism• As measured by the reduction in the average days missed of the bottom
10% attendance (cutoff at X days)
4. On-Track• % of students on-track to graduate as measured by the reduction in the rate
of off-track by cohort
Accountability System - Part B Review
Nothing has been decided – we will take community feedback on this through the Community Planning Process
The AFWG will analyze the data and make recommendations to the Secretary
Districts will receive the information on the results, as well as the analytics on participation
Accountability System– Part B Review
Ideas on what Part B could include: Academic Achievement
Post-secondary enrollment (including military)
% of high school graduates with college credit upon graduation
Dual enrollment, AP, IB
% of high school students who graduate with industry-recognized credential
Graduation rates
Culture and Climate Surveys (staff, families, students)
Suspensions and expulsions (not recommended)
Social-emotional learning
Other Measures Parent attendance at conferences
Similar schools comparison
Input measures (HQT, staff to student ratios, etc.)
Space to indicate school-specific programs and narrative
Community Planning Process
The AFWG decided to remove capacity restraints on districts
The State will sponsor 25 State Survey Representatives, allocated proportionally throughout the state, to solicit feedback
Chiefs will receive an email to designate a primary contact person for survey reps to call (to learn about any district or school events for survey purposes)
Chiefs memo will include information on participation
Survey can be emailed and should be sent to all school stakeholders
Press release, publicity in the newspaper, etc.
Town Halls are scheduled in each county
November 5, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – Carvel Building, Wilmington
November 12, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – John Collette Education Resource Center, Dover
November 13, 2014 (6:30 – 8:00) – Waters Middle School, Middletown
November 19, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – Sussex County Council Chamber Auditorium, Georgetown
Current Metrics
In first two weeks: 2,168 survey responses
Results by county NCC – 65.5% (59.4%) Kent – 14.1% (18.3%) Sussex – 20.4% (22.3%)
Results by school type District public school 37% Public charter school 10% Private school 6% No children in school 50%
Results by grade band Elementary 28% Middle 19% High 20% Children graduated 9% NA 45%
12
Current Metrics
13
Type Percent of Respondents
Race/Ethnicity Percent of Respondents
State Census Demographics
Parent 26.8% White/Caucasian 83.9% 64.1%
Teacher 39.6% Black/African-American 5.3% 22.1%
Principal/Assistant Principal 3.6% Hispanic/Latino 3.4% 8.7%
Other School Staff 10.7% Asian 0.9% 3.6%
District Administrator/Superintendent
2.4% Multi-racial 1.9% 2.4%
Community Member 10.8% Native-American 0.5% 0.7%
Other 6.1% Other 4.1% -
Current Metrics
Initial results show: Name: School Success Framework (59%) Reasons to use accountability system:
Strengths and challenges of my school (76.5%) Choice (58%) Professional Development (40%) Other (9%)
How to reflect performance: Performance ratings (73.74% ranked as #1 or #2) Letter grades (73.26% ranked as #1 or #2)
Priorities (that had 85% or greater positive rankings) Graduation rate Closing the achievement gap Industry recognized credential Literacy Drop out rate
14
Current Metrics
Initial results show:
Culture Priorities (that had 85% or greater positive rankings)
School surveys
Parent attendance at conferences
Social Emotional Learning
Staff attendance
15
Timeline October – December (2014):
Community Planning Process
AFWG meets to finalize Part A methodology
Initial technology work is completed for online system
December (2014):
Community Planning Process ends
Data analysis conducted
Final metrics are produced with methodology
January – March (2015):
Online platform is developed and tested
April – May (2015):
Beta versions are tested by users, districts, etc.
Edits are made
Resources linked
June (2015):
Soft launch
July – August (2015):
Hard launch
Community Input: Process and How the SBE Can Help
Publicize survey broadly
Public events
Op-Eds
Connect with Community Leaders
CBOs
Faith groups
Political organizations
Business leaders
Take the Survey individually
17
Growth Overview
Growth is student performance over 2+ points in time
Measured for individual students and/or groups
Interpretations that Growth Models can support:Growth Description – How much growth?
Growth Prediction – Growth to where?
Value-added: What caused growth?
Models in greatest use in accountability under ESEA waivers:Value Table
Projection
Student Growth Percentile
18
Summary of Options
Characteristics Value Table Projection SGP
Ease of explanation of model Easy Hard Medium
Ease of explanation of growth results Medium Hard Easy
Provide detailed information about growth across performance spectrum
No Yes Yes
Incorporate past student performance No Yes Yes
Can be aligned to Proficiency Yes Yes Yes
Can be used to measure growth through transition to SBAC in 2014-15
Yes Yes Yes
Can be used to measure growth-to-proficiency through transition to SBAC in 2014-15
No No No
Data burden Easy Hard Medium
19
RFP - Growth Methodology
Timeline
Public Notice 11/10/14
Deadline for Questions 11/17/14
Response to Questions Posted by 11/18/14
Deadline for Receipt of Proposals 11/25/14 at 3:00 PM (Local Time)
Estimated Notification of Award 12/30/14
20