CAIRO-DURHAM CSD Overview of Accountability Status and Student - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

October 3, 2013

Overview of Accountability Status and Student Performance

CAIRO-DURHAM CSD

Accountability Status

• The district is designated as a Focus

District

• The elementary and middle school

buildings are designated as Focus Schools

• The high school is designated as a

school in good standing

2

Differentiated Accountability

• Designations were based on AYP

performance and growth using 2010-2011 school year as the base year

• In the first round districts/schools

received focus designation for 3 years

• District/schools must show 2

consecutive years of positive performance to get off the Focus list

3

C-D Accountability

4

2011 did not make AYP

• Students with disabilities sub-group
• Economically disadvantaged sub-group

2012 did not make AYP

• All students
• White student sub-group
• Students with disabilities sub-group
• Economically disadvantaged sub-group

C-D Focus Designation

• On-site review process based on the

Diagnostic Tool for School and District Effectiveness (DTSDE)

• Outside Educational Expert led reviews

were completed for Durham Elementary and the Middle School last May

5

C-D Focus Designation

• Final Focus Review Reports for Durham

Elementary and the Middle School last May were submitted to SED

• SED led reviews were conducted for

Cairo Elementary and the District last

• June. Final reports have not yet been

issued.

6

DTSDE Road Map

• DTSDE review provides the road map for

school improvement based on 6 strategic areas called tenets

• Tenet 1 – district leadership and capacity
• Tenet 2 – school leadership
• Tenet 3 – CCLS aligned curriculum

development

• Tenet 4 – CCLS aligned teacher practice
• Tenet 5 – Student social & emotional support
• Tenet 6 – Parent & community engagement

7

DTSDE Review Process

• Collection of “low inference” evidence
• Pre-review document collection
• School leader interviews
• Teacher focus group interviews
• Support staff interviews
• Student focus group interviews
• Parent focus group interview
• Classroom visitations

8

C-D DTSDE Scoring

• HEDI ratings based on the DTSDE

rubric

• Tenet 1 Ineffective
• Major issue – district administrative

turnover

• Tenet 2 Developing
• Positive work on teacher feedback for

APPR in first cycle of use

• Need work on vision and goals

9

C-D DTSDE Scoring

• Tenet 3 Developing
• Accelerate pace of CCLS curriculum

development

• Tenet 4 Developing
• Accelerate pace of CCLS aligned teacher

practice through professional development

10

C-D DTSDE Scoring

• Tenet 5 Developing
• Need to develop a comprehensive plan to

address increasing student social and emotional development needs

• Tenet 6 Developing/Effective
• Increase parent education and

communication to foster higher levels of parent engagement

11

Common Core in New York

EngageNY.org 12

2010: Board of Regents adopts Common Core State

Standards

2013: Common Core Assessments in Grades 3 – 8 ELA and Math are administered 2014: Roll-out of Common Core Regents Exams begins

• June 2014: ELA and Algebra I
• June 2015: Geometry
• June 2016: Algebra II

Class of 2017 (2013 cohort): First cohort of high school graduates required to pass Common Core Regents Exams for graduation

Transition to New York Common Core Assessments is a seven year phase-in.

13

English Language Arts 2009 – 2013 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

Grades 3-8: 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432 1,192,129 1,182,266 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of Students Tested The vertical lines indicate the years where the tests

• changed. In 2010, cut

scores changed, but the standards and scale remained the same. In 2013, the standards, scale, and cut scores changed to measure the Common Core.

31.1% Proficiency

Changes to NYS Assessments

2010 Changes

• Adoption of Career and

College Ready proficiency definition

• Change in proficiency cut

points in scoring the assessments

2013 Changes

• 100% alignment to CCLS
• Change in scoring scale
• Change in proficiency cut

points

14

15

English Language Arts 2009-2013 Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1 Notice the Difference Between 2010 and 2013

16

C-D ELA 3-8 Performance Levels Versus NYS

17

18

2013 ELA Assessment Results

Drill Down on Key Accountability Subgroups

19

English Language Arts 2009-2013 Economically Disadvantaged Comparisons Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 C-D 13.2%

20

English Language Arts 2009-2013 Students with Disabilities Comparisons Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 C-D 2.5%

21

22

Across grades 3-8, lower-need communities continued to

• utperform other areas of the State in ELA proficiency (NYS

Levels 3 or 4)

23

New Performance Metrics

Not just proficiency levels

Student Growth Towards Proficiency (APPR/Accountability)

C-D Opportunity Show Growth for Level 1 and Level 2 Students

Road Map for School Improvement

• Focus Review recommendations
• DCIP/SCEP plans are the district’s

strategic plan for school improvement

• Use the focus review recommendations
• Describe specific goals and activities that

support the recommendations

• Focus Reviews will be done this year

and next to measure progress

24

Major Initiatives

• Update the district/schools vision and goals

through a shared decision making committee (Tenet 2)

• CCLS Curriculum Plan (Tenet 3)
• CCLS aligned Professional Development

Plan (Tenet 4)

• Create a Data Driven Instruction Plan to

instructionally target specific student skill gaps (Tenets 3/4)

25

Major Initiatives

• Use of teacher common planning time

(Tenet 4)

• Develop a comprehensive district-wide

student support plan (Tenet 5)

• Create a community/parent

engagement plan (Tenet 6)

26

QUESTIONS

27