You are on page 1of 23

State Board of Education Retreat

:
Assessment, Accountability, Performance, and
Evaluation Presentation

Penny Schwinn, Chief Accountability and Performance Officer
Chantel Janiszewski, Branch Officer

Topics for Discussion
Priority Schools Update
 Accountability System Update
 Smarter Balanced
 Other Branch Work and Updates

1

Priority Schools: Fast Facts

Schools were named on September 4th (71 days into the
process)
120-day planning period is what is currently listed in
the regulation and ESEA
 Also provides time to ensure implementation of planning

for the start of the year


Two City Council meetings, multiple Red Clay and
Christina community meetings, multiple DOE
engagement
Red Clay began engaging with DOE immediately
Christina would not engage with DOE until mid-October
(40 days into the process)
2

Priority Schools: Update on the MOU
Red Clay and DOE have been in ongoing
negotiations for the last 6 weeks
 Christina is still in the process of determining what
they want included in the MOU
 Benchmark 1 for “On Track” would be that an MOU
is signed with collective bargaining units and the
LEAs within 75 days
 Benchmark 2 for “On Track” would be that an MOU
is signed with the DOE and the LEA by November
17th in order to ensure sufficient time for planning
in alignment with the MOU

3

Priority Schools: Update on the Plans


Planning money is being processed by OMB ($40,000
per school in advance of the MOU being signed)
Red Clay is planning to use for teacher stipends, but
currently has no plans to bring-in experts to support
research or drafting of the plans
Christina is not sure if board will allow use of the
planning money and has no plans on how to spend it
Neither district has provided any plans or partial plans
for feedback in any of the 3 open windows that have
passed
DOE has expanded planning review opportunities to
include every week, in addition to office hours on
Mondays, and weekly meetings on Fridays (two per
week with CSD)
4

Priority Schools: LEA Landscape
Both districts are significantly behind where one
would expect them to be given that 10 weeks have
passed
 Red Clay is partnering with UVA, and has included
DOE, which will allow for ongoing collaboration
 Christina appears to be dealing with internal
politics that is preventing significant forward
movement in the process

5

Priority Schools: Next Steps
We have provided minor extensions to the planning
process: new submission date is January 7th
 Developing plans based on approvable plans
 Developing systems to monitor planning year
activities to ensure the schools are “first-day ready”

6

Accountability System: Brief Review

What We are Developing:
 Accountability system with Parts A and B (both are

reported; the AFWG will provide guidance on any
rating system)
 A School and District Performance Framework (1pager) that clearly and efficiently communicates the
information
 An interim-level system that will provide you with
the information in real-time and not just EOY data
 Links to supports and tools that align with what is
being measured (long-term)

Accountability System - Part A Review
Academic Achievement

1.

2.

College and Career Readiness


3.

High School - As measured by % of students who have demonstrated CCR
by senior year as measured by SBAC proficiency or the new SAT
(school/district choice)
Middle School – As measured by % of students on track to be proficient in
3 years
Elementary School – As measured by % of students on track to be
proficient in 3 years

Chronic Absenteeism

4.

Proficiency and Growth in Math, ELA, Science, Social Studies

As measured by the reduction in the average days missed of the bottom
10% attendance (cutoff at X days)

On-Track

% of students on-track to graduate as measured by the reduction in the rate
of off-track by cohort

Accountability System - Part B Review
Nothing has been decided – we will take
community feedback on this through the
Community Planning Process
 The AFWG will analyze the data and make
recommendations to the Secretary
 Districts will receive the information on the
results, as well as the analytics on participation

Accountability System– Part B Review

Ideas on what Part B could include:
 Academic Achievement




Post-secondary enrollment (including military)
% of high school graduates with college credit upon graduation
Dual enrollment, AP, IB
% of high school students who graduate with industry-recognized credential
Graduation rates

 Culture and Climate
 Surveys (staff, families, students)
 Suspensions and expulsions (not recommended)
 Social-emotional learning

 Other Measures



Parent attendance at conferences
Similar schools comparison
Input measures (HQT, staff to student ratios, etc.)
Space to indicate school-specific programs and narrative

Community Planning Process



The AFWG decided to remove capacity restraints on districts
The State will sponsor 25 State Survey Representatives, allocated
proportionally throughout the state, to solicit feedback
 Chiefs will receive an email to designate a primary contact person for
survey reps to call (to learn about any district or school events for
survey purposes)
 Chiefs memo will include information on participation
Survey can be emailed and should be sent to all school stakeholders
Press release, publicity in the newspaper, etc.
Town Halls are scheduled in each county
 November 5, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – Carvel Building, Wilmington
 November 12, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – John Collette Education Resource
Center, Dover
 November 13, 2014 (6:30 – 8:00) – Waters Middle School,
Middletown
 November 19, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – Sussex County Council Chamber
Auditorium, Georgetown

Current Metrics

In first two weeks: 2,168 survey responses

Results by county
 NCC – 65.5% (59.4%)
 Kent – 14.1% (18.3%)
 Sussex – 20.4% (22.3%)

Results by school type
 District public school 37%
 Public charter school 10%
 Private school 6%
 No children in school 50%

Results by grade band
 Elementary 28%
 Middle 19%
 High 20%
 Children graduated 9%
 NA 45%

12

Current Metrics

Type

Percent of
Respondents

Race/Ethnicity

Parent

26.8%

White/Caucasian

83.9%

64.1%

Teacher

39.6%

Black/African-American

5.3%

22.1%

Principal/Assistant Principal

3.6%

Hispanic/Latino

3.4%

8.7%

Other School Staff

10.7%

Asian

0.9%

3.6%

District
Administrator/Superintendent

2.4%

Multi-racial

1.9%

2.4%

Community Member

10.8%

Native-American

0.5%

0.7%

Other

6.1%

Other

4.1%

-

13

Percent of
Respondents

State Census
Demographics

Current Metrics

Initial results show:
 Name: School Success Framework (59%)
 Reasons to use accountability system:
 Strengths and challenges of my school (76.5%)
 Choice (58%)
 Professional Development (40%)
 Other (9%)
 How to reflect performance:
 Performance ratings (73.74% ranked as #1 or #2)
 Letter grades (73.26% ranked as #1 or #2)
 Priorities (that had 85% or greater positive rankings)
 Graduation rate
 Closing the achievement gap
 Industry recognized credential
 Literacy
 Drop out rate
14

Current Metrics

Initial results show:
 Culture Priorities (that had 85% or greater positive

rankings)
 School surveys
 Parent attendance at conferences
 Social Emotional Learning
 Staff attendance

15

Timeline



October – December (2014):
 Community Planning Process
 AFWG meets to finalize Part A methodology
 Initial technology work is completed for online system
December (2014):
 Community Planning Process ends
 Data analysis conducted
 Final metrics are produced with methodology
January – March (2015):
 Online platform is developed and tested
April – May (2015):
 Beta versions are tested by users, districts, etc.
 Edits are made
 Resources linked
June (2015):
 Soft launch
July – August (2015):
 Hard launch

Community Input:
Process and How the SBE Can Help

Publicize survey broadly
 Public events
 Op-Eds

Connect with Community Leaders
 CBOs
 Faith groups
 Political organizations
 Business leaders

Take the Survey individually

17

Growth Overview


Growth is student performance over 2+ points in time
Measured for individual students and/or groups
Interpretations that Growth Models can support:
 Growth Description – How much growth?
 Growth Prediction – Growth to where?
 Value-added: What caused growth?

Models in greatest use in accountability under ESEA
waivers:
 Value Table
 Projection
 Student Growth Percentile

18

Summary of Options
Characteristics

Value Table

Projection

SGP

Ease of explanation of model

Easy

Hard

Medium

Ease of explanation of growth results

Medium

Hard

Easy

Provide detailed information about
growth across performance spectrum

No

Yes

Yes

Incorporate past student performance No

Yes

Yes

Can be aligned to Proficiency

Yes

Yes

Yes

Can be used to measure growth
Yes
through transition to SBAC in 2014-15

Yes

Yes

Can be used to measure growth-toNo
proficiency through transition to SBAC
in 2014-15

No

No

Data burden

Hard

Medium

Easy

19

RFP - Growth Methodology

Timeline
 Public Notice

11/10/14

 Deadline for Questions 11/17/14
 Response to Questions Posted by 11/18/14
 Deadline for Receipt of Proposals 11/25/14 at 3:00 PM

(Local Time)
 Estimated Notification of Award 12/30/14

20

SBAC
 Update on where we are
 Questions

21

Questions?

22