Local Control Accountability Plan - LCAP 2016-2017 Update Accountability Dashboard
Process L.C.A.P. L.C.F.F. Adopted Budget
2017-18 Update, Review & Revise S ECTION 1: P LAN S UMMARY S ECTION 2: A NNUAL U PDATE S ECTION 3: S TAKEHOLDER E NGAGEMENT S ECTION 4: G OALS , A CTIONS , E XPENDITURES , AND P ROGRESS I NDICATORS S ECTION 5: U SE OF S UPPLEMENTAL AND C ONCENTRATION G RANT F UNDS AND P ROPORTIONALITY
Levels of Engagement as Required by Statute 4 3 2 1 Adoption of the plan: Opportunity for public • Adopted input: Present for review and concurrent with comment to: • Notice of the the LEA’s Consultation with: opportunity to • Parent advisory budget • Teachers submit written committee. • Submitted to • Principals comment Superintendent must COE for • School personnel respond in writing to • Public hearing approval • Pupils comments received • Posted on • Local bargaining • English learner parent district & COE units advisory committee website
LCAP Update & Revise Activities review data, update actions, and finalize plan LCAP Committee Parents, Teachers, Classified Staff, Administrators DAC Individual District Advisory School Committee Staffs DELAC District English Individual Learner Advisory School SSC Committee African American Individual Parent Advisory School ELAC
#1 #7 Basic Services: #2 Core Access: Facilities in good repair Implementation of State Student access and enrollment Rate of teacher misassignment Standards: in all required areas of study. Student access to standards- Implementation of California aligned instructional materials State Content Standards in all subject areas #4 Pupil Achievement: Performance on CAASPP Achievement on State and Local #8 measures Other Pupil Outcomes: EL proficiency rate LCAP Required Other indicators of student EL reclassification rate performance in required areas of Percent of student passing AP Metrics study. May include performance exams (score 3 or higher) on other exams. Percent of students passing EAP exam Percent of students A-G compliant #5 Pupil Engagement: #3 #6 Student attendance rates Parent Involvement: School Climate: Chronic absenteeism rates Efforts to seek parent input Student suspension rates Middle school dropout rates Promotion of parental participation Student expulsion rates High school dropout rates Other local indicators High school graduation rates
Indicators by Priority Area Priority Area State Indicator Local Indicator Basic Services or Basic NA Basic Conditions at Schools • Conditions at Schools PRIORITY 1 Implementation of State NA Implementation of State • Academic Standards Academic Standards PRIORITY 2 Parental Engagement NA Parental Engagement • PRIORITY 3 Student Achievement Academic Indicator NA • PRIORITY 4 English Learner Indicator Student Engagement Chronic Absence Indicator • PRIORITY 5 Graduation Rate Indicator* School Climate Suspension Rate Indicator Local Climate Survey • PRIORITY 6 Access to Broad Course College/Career Indicator* NA • of Study PRIORITY 7 Outcomes on a Broad College/Career Indicator* NA • Course of Study PRIORITY 8
Performance Levels for State Indicators Performance levels are calculated using that combine status and change using a 5x5 colored table to indicate individual school or district performance
5x5 Colored Tables
Equity Report
Graduation Rate
Old Accountability System
Site Met/ Exceeded Anderson 46% Jefferson 49% Laurel 54% Rosecrans 47% Tibby 56%
1 2 3 4
Distance from Met/ Distance from 3 ○ LOSS: Lowest Obtainable Scale Score ○ HOSS: Highest Obtainable Scale Score ○ Average Grade Level Score ○ Level 3/Met Scale Score ○ Distance from Met also means Distance from Level 3 (DL3)
Display of the ELA CAASPP Scale Score Ranges
The Gap is Distance from Level 3/MET
Calculating the Distance from Level 3 Grade 6 Students 2016 Grade 6 Math Distance From Score Level 3 Sally 2440 112 points below Level 3 Billy 2505 47 points below Level 3 Jason 2576 24 points above Level 3 Debbie 2556 4 points above Level 3 Total scores for Grade 6 students 131 points below Level 3 Average (-131 ÷ 4) = -32.3 2235 2748 2552 LOSS HOSS Level 3/Met The Schoolwide average is 32.3 points below Level 3
Formula for Academic Indicator (The 5 x 5 Grid) Status ○ The 2016 DF3 average will be used for Status in the initial release of the Dashboards. Change: ○ Change uses current and prior year DF3. Change Formula: 2016 DF3 average minus 2015 DF3 average. California Department of Education
Example For Mathematics Ruby Elementary School Status ○ 2016 DF3 average is -52 Change: ○ Step 1: Obtain prior year (2015) DF3 average: -89 ○ Step 2: Calculate Change Current Average minus Prior Average -52 minus -89 = 37
Ruby Elementary School Status = -52 and Change = 37 Difference of ‘16 & ‘15 Data (change) Declined Declined Maintained Increased Increased Significantly Declined by less Significantly Level than 1 point or by more than 10 by 1 to 10 points by 5 to less than by 15 points or Improved by less points 15 points more than 5 points 7 65 112 330 155 Very High (0.1%) (0.9%) (1.6%) (4.6%) (2.2%) 35 or more points above Yellow Green Blue Blue Blue 24 130 255 491 369 High (0.3%) (1.8%) (3.6%) (6.9%) (5.2%) 5 below to less than 35 points above Orange Yellow Green Green Blue Medium 29 131 171 353 260 More than 5 points (0.4%) (1.8%) (2.4%) (4.9%) (3.6%) below to 25 points Orange Orange Yellow Green Green below Low 276 737 908 1,257 664 More than 25 points (3.9%) (10.3%) (12.7%) (17.6%) (9.3%) below to 95 points Red Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow below 94 127 84 97 29 Very Low (1.3%) (1.8%) (1.2%) (1.4%) (0.4%) More than 95 points California Department of Education below Red Red Red Orange Yellow
3-8 Mathematics
3-8 ELA
www.caschooldashboard.org/#/home
Dashboards http://www6.cde.ca.gov/californiamodel/gri d?indicator=math&year=2017s&cdcode=1973 437&scode=&reporttype=schools
Recommend
More recommend
