School Performance Framework: Elementary School LAUSD School Board, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

School Performance Framework: Elementary School

LAUSD School Board, November 15, 2011

Rationale

The purpose of the SPF is to:

• Illustrate true academic performance gains for individual

schools,

• Provide a holisFc overview of performance for all schools,
• IdenFfy and Fer schools according to Performance Meter

Status Metrics and the Academic Growth over Time measure (for elementary and middle schools)

Last Year’s Focus School Criteria

(Abbreviated Version)

• Less than 30% proficiency on the CST in Math OR English

Language Arts;

• Program Improvement Status of 3 or more years and an API

Growth Score of 650 or less;

• DID NOT MEET Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets;
• Less than 100 points net API growth over 5 years; and
• Greater than 10% dropout 4‐year rate (for High Schools only).

Previous Framework vs. Revised Framework (Elementary Schools Part I)

Previous Framework

• Focus: Less than or equal to 40%

Proficient or Advanced in ELA Focus: Less than or equal to 55% Proficient or Advanced in Math

• Inclusive of a Growth Metric; AGT
• Includes 7 status metrics, of which 5

aligned with Performance Meter

• Sub‐groups and other Performance

Meter indicators tracked at Part II of framework (to create further differenFaFon within Fers)

• Use of a point system
• Focus/ Watch/ Service & Support/

Achieving/ Excelling

Revised Framework

• Focus: Less than or equal to 30%

Proficient or Advanced in ELA or Math

• Growth defined by API
• Includes AYP & API
• Sub‐groups tracked; percent value

increase expectaFon created

• Does not use a point system
• Focus/ Service & Support/ Advancing/

Achieving/ Excelling

Revised Framework: Part I

Growth Status

(y‐axis) (x‐axis)

Why are we using a Y‐ & X‐Axis Approach?

Growth Status

(y‐axis) (x‐axis)

High Status/ Low Growth High Status/ High Growth Low Status/ Low Growth Low Status/ High Growth

Revised Framework: Status Measure

• The status component of Part I of the framework includes 7 status metrics
• Each status metric is assigned a point value from 1 – 5
• A school can earn from 7 to 35 points
• Metrics 1, 3, 5, 6 & 7 are directly from the Performance Meter

Status Metrics (y‐axis) Elementary Schools:

# METRIC 1 Point 2 Points 3 Points 4 Points 5 Points 1 ELA CST 2011 % Proficient or Advanced ≤ 40% 41% ‐ 49% 50% ‐ 59% 60% ‐ 66% ≥ 67.0% 2 ELA CST 2011 % FBB or BB ≥ 28% 27% ‐ 21% 20% ‐ 14% 13% ‐ 9% ≤ 8% 3 Math CST 2011 % Proficient or Advanced ≤ 55% 56% ‐ 62% 63% ‐ 68% 69% ‐ 74% ≥ 75% 4 Math CST 2011 % FBB or BB ≥ 23% 22% ‐ 17% 16% ‐11% 10% ‐ 7% ≤ 6% 5 3rd Grade ELA % Proficient or Advanced ≤ 28% 29% ‐ 39% 40% ‐ 48% 49% ‐ 54% ≥ 55% 6 Percentage of Student with 96% or Higher Attendance ≤ 60% 61% ‐ 64% 65% ‐ 67% 68% ‐ 70% ≥ 71% 7 Percentage of Students Suspended ≥ 2.5% 2.4% ‐ 2.0% 1.9% ‐ 1.5% 1.4% ‐ 1.1% ≤ 1.0%

Lead Status Indicators by Grade Level

Elementary School Lead Indicators Middle School Lead Indicators High School Lead Indicators 3rd Grade ELA % Proficient or Advanced Algebra 2011 % Proficient or Advanced 1st Time CAHSEE Pass Rate Algebra 2011 % FBB or BB 4 Year Cohort GraduaFon Rate

Growth Metrics: Academic Growth over Time (AGT)

• Value‐added method of performance evaluaFon
• Holds schools accountable only for that over which they have

direct control

• Controls for external factors which oden influence student

test results such as:

• Prior achievement,
• English Language Learner status,
• Special educaFon status and the like

Revised Framework Part I: Growth Measure

DesignaFon Far Below Predicted/ Below Predicted At Predicted Above Predicted Far Above Predicted Points for 3 Year ELA AGT 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points Points for 3 Year Math AGT 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points

Growth Metric (x‐axis) Elementary Schools:

Growth Indicators by Grade Level for 2011‐2012

Elementary School Growth Indicators Middle School Growth Indicators High School Growth Indicators Points for 3 Year ELA AGT Points for 3 Year ELA AGT No Indicators for Growth Points for 3 Year Math AGT Points for 3 Year Math AGT Bonus Points for 3 Year Algebra AGT

Revised Framework: Y‐Axis & X‐Axis Combined

Growth Status

32‐35 Status Points 23‐31 Status Points 16‐22 Status Points 8‐15 Status Points 7 Status Points 0 AGT Points 1‐2 AGT Points 3‐4 AGT Points 5‐6 AGT Points

Color Classification

Excelling Achieving Service & Support Watch Focus

A CASE STUDY: Reviewing Our Understanding of the School Performance Framework

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL A

Distribution of Elementary School A Status Metric (y‐axis)

# STATUS METRIC Actual Performance

1 ELA CST 2011 % Proficient or Advanced 38% 2 ELA CST 2011 % FBB or BB 33% 3 Math CST 2011 % Proficient or Advanced 57% 4 Math CST 2011 % FBB or BB 22% 5 3rd Grade ELA % Proficient or Advanced 30% 6 Percentage of Student with 96% or Higher Attendance 46% 7 Percentage of Students Suspended 5.4 %

Points 1 1 2 2 2 1 1

Y‐AXIS POINT TOTAL FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL A: 10 POINTS

Distribution of Elementary School A Growth Metric (x‐axis)

DesignaFon Far Below Predicted/ Below Predicted At Predicted Above Predicted Far Above Predicted Points for 3‐Year ELA AGT 1 point Points for 3‐Year Math AGT 1 point

Total Growth Points 2 Points

In Summary

• Y‐AXIS Point Value Total of 10
• X‐AXIS Point Value Total of 2

ClassiWication of Elementary School A: Status Metric (y‐axis) & Growth Metric (x‐axis)

Growth Status

Elementary School A

Summary & Next Steps

• All schools with tradiFonal grade configuraFons have been

classified according to the revised SPF

• We are in discussions to try and idenFfy the most effecFve

way to straFfy all other schools within our District (SPAN and OpFons schools)

• Once all schools have been classified, our goal is to develop

differenFated support structures to assist schools at different levels of performance

• The slightly revised SPF (adapted due to different reporFng

requirements) will be one part of the criteria used for the charter renewal process