Briefing on Development of Performance Frameworks Colorado Department of Education April 29, 2010

1. DRAFT Briefing on Development of Performance Frameworks Colorado Department of Education April 29, 2010

2. Previous Accountability System DRAFT • Multiple frameworks and reports • Federal: Adequate Yearly Progress (evaluated for schools, districts and the state) • % of students making AYP • District: Accreditation Reports • Categories of Accredited w/Distinction; Accredited; Accredited, Letter of Support; Accredited, Notice with Support; Probation • School: Accountability Reports • Rating of excellent, high, average, low and unsatisfactory achievement • Rating of high, typical, or low growth

3. Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB-163) DRAFT • Aligns accountability system into single system. • Modernizes reporting of state, district and school performance information. • Establishes new system of support and intervention, including turnaround. • Provides transparent performance information to drive statewide conversation about change. • Focuses on four key performance indicators: • Student achievement levels • Student longitudinal growth • Extent of student gaps • Postsecondary and workforce readiness (PWR).

4. Accountability Impact of SB-163 DRAFT • Federal • AYP remains, pending ESEA reauthorization. • District and School • Districts will continue to accredit schools. • CDE will assign accreditation categories to districts and assign plan types to schools based on aligned performance frameworks that measure attainment on the four performance indicators. • Districts will have an opportunity to provide additional information about improvements and progress made before final district accreditation categories and school plan assignments are made.

5. Accountability Impact of SB-163: District DRAFT • CDE will assign district accreditation categories: • Level 1: Accredited w/ Distinction • Level 2: Accredited • Level 3: Accredited w/ Improvement Plan • Level 4: Accredited w/ Priority Improvement Plan • Level 5: Accredited w/ Turnaround Plan • Level 6: Unaccredited

6. Accountability Impact of SB-163: School DRAFT • CDE will assign the plans schools will be required to implement:  Performance Plan  Priority Improvement Plan Improvement Plan  Turnaround Plan • Districts will assign accreditation categories to schools. • In accrediting their schools, districts may choose to use state’s school performance framework. • Alternatively, districts may, in the local school board’s local discretion, use additional performance indicators. • Either way, each district’s accreditation of its schools must correlate with the state’s plan assignment and emphasize attainment of the four key performance indicators.

7. District Plan Development and Submission in Proposed SB-163 Rules DRAFT * By Aug. 15th, CDE will issue to each district a Performance Framework Report including an initial accreditation assignment. No later than Oct. 15th, if the district disagrees with the assignment, the district shall submit additional performance data for CDE’s consideration. No later than Nov. 15th, CDE shall determine a final accreditation category.

8. School Plan Development and Submission in Proposed SB-163 Rules DRAFT * By Aug. 15th, CDE will issue to each school a Performance Framework Report including an initial recommendation as to the type of plan the school will implement. No later than Oct. 15th, each district shall submit the accreditation category assigned to each school and, if the district disagrees with CDE’s initial plan assignment, the district may submit additional performance data for CDE’s consideration. No later than Nov. 15th, CDE shall determine a final recommendation concerning plan assignments for the State Board’s approval.

9. Key Dates DRAFT • April 2010: CDE releases initial draft of School Performance Framework (SPF). • June 2010: CDE releases initial draft of District Performance Framework (DPF). • May - July 2010: CDE collects feedback; provides initial training and professional development. • August 15, 2010: CDE releases DPF and SPF for preliminary district accreditation categories and preliminary school plan assignments. • October 15, 2010: If desired, districts may submit additional performance data for CDE consideration of district accreditation or school plan assignments. • November 15, 2010: CDE finalizes district accreditation categories and makes recommendations to the State Board for final approval of school plan assignments. • January 15, 2011: Deadline to submit Unified Plan for districts and schools identified as Priority Improvement, Turnaround, or NCLB Title I, IIA, III Program Improvement and/or Corrective Action (district) or Title IA School Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring. • February 2011: State reviews district unified plans for NCLB requirements and reviews school and district priority improvement and turnaround plans for state requirements. State provides any recommendations or modification for plans. • April 15, 2011: Deadline to submit all plans for publication on SchoolView. • Fall 2011: Districts and schools with Priority Improvement or Turnaround assignments in 2010 begin consecutive 5-year countdown at the start of the 2011-12 school year. Districts who received prior Notice of Support or Probation status in 2009 have 4 years remaining at the start of the 2011-12 school year.

10. CDE Support, Intervention & Service DRAFT • SB-163 creates a fairer and clearer cycle of support and intervention. • Support provided with increasing involvement based on need and CDE resource availability, including turnaround support for chronically low- performing districts and schools. • Ready access to data to support interpretation, decision-making, planning and learning. • Consultative services on best practices for improvement and implementation. • Unified planning template, to be released Summer 2010. • Evaluation and feedback on district and school plans.

11. Performance Framework Indicators DRAFT

12. Changes in the District Framework DRAFT

13. The Growth Indicator is measured by answering: DRAFT • What was the student growth rate in my school? • Was the growth rate adequate for the typical student in my school to catch up and keep up? • I.e., was the median SGP greater than or equal to the SGP sufficient for the typical (median) student to reach or maintain proficiency within three years or by 10th grade? • In what category did my growth rate put me in on the Framework rubric? • I.e., what was the median student growth percentile (SGP) in my school relative to other schools?

14. Was my median SGP adequate for the typical (median) student to reach or maintain proficiency within three years or by 10th grade? (Yes/No) Yes No 70-99 60-99 55-69 45-59 40-54 30-44 1-39 1-29 Rubric for the Growth Indicator DRAFT What was the median SGP for my school? In what category did my median SGP fall into on the Framework rubric? (Exceeds, Meets, Approaching, Does Not Meet) Exceeds Meets Approaching Does Not Meet • For example… • What was the student growth rate in my school? 54 • Was the growth rate adequate for the typical student in my school to catch up and keep up? The typical student in my school needed a SGP of 62. No, my growth was not adequate because my median SGP was 54. • In what category did my growth rate put me in on the Framework rubric? Approaching.

15. Additional Information DRAFT • The Education Accountability Act of 2009: http://www.cde.state.co.us/scripts/reforms/detail.asp?itemid=623952 • SchoolView Learning Center: http://www.schoolview.org/learningcenter.asp • John Condie: condie_j@cde.state.co.us • Kady Dodds: dodds_k@cde.state.co.us • John Penn: penn_j@cde.state.co.us • Somoh Supharukchinda: supharukchinda_s@cde.state.co.us • Rich Wenning: wenning_r@cde.state.co.us