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

CAIRO-DURHAM CSD Overview of Accountability Status and Student Performance October 3, 2013 1

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 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 4

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 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. EngageNY.org 12

English Language Arts 2009 – 2013 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 The vertical lines indicate the years where the tests Number of Students Tested changed. In 2010, cut scores changed, but the 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 standards and scale Grades 3-8: 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432 1,192,129 1,182,266 remained the same. In 2013, the standards, scale, and cut scores changed to measure the Common Core. 31.1% Proficiency 13

Changes to NYS Assessments 2010 Changes 2013 Changes • Adoption of Career and • 100% alignment to CCLS College Ready • Change in scoring scale proficiency definition • Change in proficiency cut • Change in proficiency cut points points in scoring the assessments 14

English Language Arts 2009-2013 Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1 Notice the Difference Between 2010 and 2013 15

16

C-D ELA 3-8 Performance Levels Versus NYS 17

2013 ELA Assessment Results Drill Down on Key Accountability Subgroups 18

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% 19

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% 20

21

Across grades 3-8, lower-need communities continued to outperform other areas of the State in ELA proficiency (NYS Levels 3 or 4) 22

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 23

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