Accountability in Colorado: A systems approach

1. Accountability in Colorado:A systems approach Presentation to the School Finance Partnership April 2012

2. Building an Aligned Accountability System • Presentation & Discussion Outline: • What are we holding ourselves accountable for? • Goals of the system • Performance measures & targets • Where are the connections and disconnections across the system? • Where does funding fit in? • Time & interest permitting…a deeper look at how the state’s school and district performance frameworks work

3. Building an Aligned Accountability System Students Each component of the system should be held to the same expectations. Believing that the state should hold itself accountable for the same measures we hold students, educators, and schools/districts accountable for, CDE articulated strategic goals and performance measures for the state as whole. Educators Schools/ Districts State

4. Statewide Strategic Goals Strategic Goals Students Educators Schools/ Districts State

5. Statewide Performance Measures Strategic Goals Students Educators Schools/ Districts State How can a school finance formula assist districts in meeting these measures?

6. Setting Statewide Performance Targets • Examined 5-year trend data for all student performance measures • Calculated the 5-year growth rate • Set targets at three times the historical growth rate • Where there were declines over 5 years, CDE set targets to increase performance by 3-5 percentage points • For student sub-populations, CDE established more aggressive growth expectations to work towards narrowing achievement gaps • For non-student performance measures, CDE looked at relevant historical performance and set targets to achieve desired growth Refer to CDE’s strategic direction document that includes tables with all of the performance targets.

7. Performance Targets: Example from Objective 1a. Reading Proficiency Targets Actual CSAP Results 2006-07 to 2010-11 Targets 2011-12 to 2014-15 Strengths, weaknesses of this approach Learn over time Improve calibration and target setting Actual Targets Percent proficient and advanced

8. Tighter alignment, but disconnects remain With these performance measures, we’ve improved alignment of system-wide expectations, but… • Alignment doesn’t mean strong connections across the system. • We still need to tighten accountability for students. • We’re still figuring out how best to hold educators accountable for student results. • We don’t know yet if we’re looking at the right measures for schools and districts. • We lack strong statewide leading indicators that can signal mid-course corrections. • We need to tighten the links between performance, accountability, improvement, and return on investment.

9. Connecting the pieces How are we performing? Are our investments yielding results? Is it good enough? What are we doing to improve?

10. Tightening the ROI connection • Maximizing the Role of: • Transparency • What data do we make available? • What connections do we make between different data that will inherently drive change? • Incentives and rewards • How can the finance formula incent desired performance? • What role do rewards for good and/or removal of funds for poor performance play? • Eligibility requirements • Can we set eligibility requirements for certain funding streams that drive specific behaviors? • What else should we be considering?

11. Delving deeper intothe State’s School & District Accountability Frameworks(a discussion as time, interest permits)

12. School and District Accountability • School and District Performance Frameworks • State and Federal- Title IA accountability • Focus attention on the data that matters the most • SB-163 created a “5-year clock” for the lowest performing schools and districts

13. Performance Indicators & Data

14. 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

18. Consolidated Federal Programs • Federal formula dollars (Title IA, IIA, IIIA, IIIA-S) are distributed to districts through the Consolidated Application process • The consolidated application asks districts to identify needs, meet program requirements, and submit an aligned budget • In our NCLB Waiver, we stated that there will be increased scrutiny for low performing districts, in application approval

19. Consolidated Federal Programs • Meeting with all districts on Priority Improvement/Turnaround prior to their application submission for 2012-13 • Discussing use of federal funds and checking for alignment with Unified Improvement Plan • If districts remain on PI/Turnaround, they will have less discretion over funds

20. Questions • Leanne Emm, Assistant Commissioner, Public School Finance emm_l@cde.state.co.us • Jill Hawley, Chief of Staff & Strategy Hawley_j@cde.state.co.us • Alyssa Pearson, Executive Director, Accountability & Data Analysis Pearson_a@cde.state.co.us