2016-2017 Update Accountability Dashboard Process L.C.A.P. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Local Control Accountability Plan - LCAP

2016-2017 Update

Accountability Dashboard

L.C.F.F. L.C.A.P.

Adopted Budget

Process

2017-18 Update, Review & Revise

SECTION 2: ANNUAL UPDATE SECTION 1: PLAN SUMMARY

SECTION 5: USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AND CONCENTRATION GRANT FUNDS

AND PROPORTIONALITY

SECTION 3: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

SECTION 4: GOALS, ACTIONS, EXPENDITURES, AND PROGRESS INDICATORS

1 2 3 4

Consultation with:

• Teachers
• Principals
• School personnel
• Pupils
• Local bargaining

units Present for review and comment to:

• Parent advisory

committee. Superintendent must respond in writing to comments received

• English learner parent

advisory committee Opportunity for public input:

• Notice of the
• pportunity to

submit written comment

• Public hearing

Adoption of the plan:

• Adopted

concurrent with the LEA’s budget

• Submitted to

COE for approval

• Posted on

district & COE website

Levels of Engagement as Required by Statute

LCAP Update & Revise Activities

review data, update actions, and finalize plan

LCAP Committee

Parents, Teachers, Classified Staff, Administrators DELAC District English Learner Advisory Committee DAC District Advisory Committee Individual School Staffs Individual School SSC Individual School ELAC African American Parent Advisory

#8 Other Pupil Outcomes:  Other indicators of student

performance in required areas of

• study. May include performance
• n other exams.

#1 Basic Services:  Facilities in good repair

 Rate of teacher misassignment  Student access to standards- aligned instructional materials

#2 Implementation of State Standards:  Implementation of California

State Content Standards in all subject areas

#7 Core Access:  Student access and enrollment

in all required areas of study.

#4 Pupil Achievement:  Performance on CAASPP

 Achievement on State and Local measures  EL proficiency rate  EL reclassification rate  Percent of student passing AP exams (score 3 or higher)  Percent of students passing EAP exam  Percent of students A-G compliant

#6 School Climate:  Student suspension rates

 Student expulsion rates  Other local indicators

#3 Parent Involvement:  Efforts to seek parent input

 Promotion of parental participation

#5 Pupil Engagement:  Student attendance rates

 Chronic absenteeism rates  Middle school dropout rates  High school dropout rates

 High school graduation rates

LCAP Required Metrics

Indicators by Priority Area

Priority Area State Indicator Local Indicator

• Basic Services or Basic

Conditions at Schools PRIORITY 1 NA Basic Conditions at Schools

• Implementation of State

Academic Standards PRIORITY 2 NA Implementation of State Academic Standards

• Parental Engagement

PRIORITY 3 NA Parental Engagement

• Student Achievement

PRIORITY 4 Academic Indicator English Learner Indicator NA

• Student Engagement

PRIORITY 5 Chronic Absence Indicator Graduation Rate Indicator*

• School Climate

PRIORITY 6 Suspension Rate Indicator Local Climate Survey

• Access to Broad Course
• f Study

PRIORITY 7 College/Career Indicator* NA

• Outcomes on a Broad

Course of Study PRIORITY 8 College/Career Indicator* NA

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 Score Distance From 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

The Schoolwide average is 32.3 points below Level 3

2235 LOSS

2552 Level 3/Met

2748 HOSS

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

California Department of Education

Ruby Elementary School

Status = -52 and Change = 37

Level Declined Significantly

by more than 10 points

Declined

by 1 to 10 points

Maintained

Declined by less than 1 point or Improved by less than 5 points

Increased

by 5 to less than 15 points

Increased Significantly

by 15 points or more

Very High

35 or more points above

7 (0.1%) Yellow 65 (0.9%) Green 112 (1.6%) Blue 330 (4.6%) Blue 155 (2.2%) Blue High

5 below to less than 35 points above

24 (0.3%) Orange 130 (1.8%) Yellow 255 (3.6%) Green 491 (6.9%) Green 369 (5.2%) Blue Medium

More than 5 points below to 25 points below

29 (0.4%) Orange 131 (1.8%) Orange 171 (2.4%) Yellow 353 (4.9%) Green 260 (3.6%) Green Low

More than 25 points below to 95 points below

276 (3.9%) Red 737 (10.3%) Orange 908 (12.7%) Yellow 1,257 (17.6%) Yellow 664 (9.3%) Yellow Very Low

More than 95 points below

94 (1.3%) Red 127 (1.8%) Red 84 (1.2%) Red 97 (1.4%) Orange 29 (0.4%) Yellow

Difference of ‘16 & ‘15 Data (change)

3-8 Mathematics

3-8 ELA

www.caschooldashboard.org/#/home

http://www6.cde.ca.gov/californiamodel/gri d?indicator=math&year=2017s&cdcode=1973 437&scode=&reporttype=schools

Dashboards