Missouri Charter Public School Commission : Performance Contract Key Measures April 11, 2018 Prepared by: Anna Nicotera Quentin Wilson Mark Ehlert Evan Rhinesmith Michael Podgursky Basis Policy Research University of Missouri - Columbia 1
MCPSC Performance Contract Key Measures | Purpose Performance Contract Key Measures Purpose : Provide MCPSC a list of high quality performance measures that can be used by applicants and approved charter public schools to establish school goals The performance measures described in this report: • Used by other charter school authorizers • Grounded in research • Data is available & accessible in Missouri • Reviewed by stakeholders 2
MCPSC Performance Contract Key Measures | Performance Framework Roadmap Step 1: Identify Step 2: Develop Metrics Step 3: Establish Step 4: Performance for Performance Performance Targets for Metrics Framework Measures Measures List of high quality Once the metrics for each For the performance measures Establish a system that performance measures that performance measure have that meet the criteria outlined combines metrics into a meet the following criteria: been developed, establish in Step 1, develop metrics. performance framework. targets for the metrics. 1. Research-motivated Metrics provide the The system may use weights Targets are the goals that information for evaluating a Is there strong theory and to indicate how differential indicate whether the performance measure. (For value is placed on groups of empirical evidence to support performance measure has example, the metric for performance measures. The the use of the measure? been met. (For example, if evaluating school-level system may include an overall 2. Measurable percent proficient is selected academic performance on the performance rating or ratings as the metric for school-level state assessment could be a broken out by performance Are data available and academic performance, then composite scale score or the measure categories. accessible to measure and the target would be the percent proficient.) track progress? specific percentage point that indicates that the school met 3. Stakeholder Agreement the performance measure, such as 70 percent proficient.) Do stakeholders prioritize the measure and agree that a school could impact the performance measure? 3 Purpose of this report Next steps to develop a full performance framework
MCPSC Performance Contract Key Measures | Report Methodology 1. Compile 2. Establish 3. Collect information 4. Determine priority comprehensive list of performance and code performance performance measures measures criteria measures measures Use scoring rubric for Review performance Three criteria to assess Process to filter down to each criteria to assess frameworks and performance measures: priority measures: and code performance accountability 1. Lacks research support 1. Research-motivated measures: reports from other 2. Either missing a 2. Measurable authorizers and MO comparison group or 1. Examined research 3. Stakeholder Agreement DESE data collection and reports for empirical analysis are particularly Each criteria has a evidence Ex: burdensome 2. Searched websites and scoring rubric to assess • Colorado Charter 3. Place a premium on technical guidance of and code each School Institute stakeholder feedback, Missouri and national • DC Public Charter performance measure but could be overridden organizations for data School Board if there was strong availability • MO DESE research support 3. Gathered feedback from • Thomas B. Fordham 17 individuals from MO Foundation charter schools, authorizers, and policy groups 4
MCPSC Performance Contract Key Measures | Compile List of Performance Measures Reviewed the following resources: 1. Compile comprehensive list of Colorado Charter School Institute (CSI): The CSI Annual Review of Schools (CARS) Handbook measures • D.C. Public Charter School Board (DCPSB): Performance Management Framework: Policy & Technical • Guide Denver Public Schools (DPS): School Performance Framework (SPF) Report Guide Review performance • Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (Fordham): Fordham Sponsorship Annual Report frameworks and • Georgia State Charter Schools Commission (GA SCSC): Comprehensive Performance Framework for State accountability • Charter School Evaluation reports from other Indiana Charter School Board (ICSB): Indiana Charter School Board Accountability System • authorizers and MO Indianapolis Mayor’s Office of Education Innovation (Indy): Performance Framework for Mayor- • DESE Sponsored Charter Schools Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE): MSIP5 Comprehensive Guide to • Ex: the Missouri School Improvement Program • Colorado Charter New Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE): New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Charter • School Institute and Renaissance Schools: Performance Framework • DC Public Charter State University of New York Charter Schools Institute (SUNY): Guidelines for Creating an Accountability • School Board Plan • MO DESE • Thomas B. Fordham Resulted in over 150 examples of performance measures in the areas of academic Foundation performance, school finance, school operations, and school governance 5
MCPSC Performance Contract Key Measures | Establish Performance Measures Criteria 2. Establish performance measures criteria 1. Research-motivated : Is there strong theory and empirical evidence to support the use of the Three criteria to assess performance measure? performance measures: 2. Measurable : Are data available and accessible to 1. Research-motivated 2. Measurable measure and track progress on the performance 3. Stakeholder Agreement measure? Each criteria has a scoring rubric to assess 3. Stakeholder Agreement : Do stakeholders and code each performance measure prioritize the performance measure and agree that a school could impact the performance measure? 6
MCPSC Performance Contract Key Measures | Collect & Code Performance Measures 3. Collect information and code performance measures Use scoring rubric for each criteria to assess and code performance measures: 1. Examined research reports for empirical evidence 2. Searched websites and technical guidance of Missouri and national organizations for data availability 3. Gathered feedback from 17 individuals from MO charter schools, authorizers, and policy groups 7
MCPSC Performance Contract Key Measures | Report Methodology 4. Determine priority performance measures 1. Research-motivated : Excluded performance measures based on this criteria when we could not find evidence to Process to filter down to support the use of the measure. priority measures: 1. Lacks research support 2. Measurable : Excluded performance measures based on 2. Either missing a this criteria when data for comparison groups was comparison group or data collection and unavailable OR if the process for obtaining data was analysis are particularly burdensome particularly burdensome. 3. Place a premium on stakeholder feedback, 3. Stakeholder Agreement : Excluded performance but could be overridden if there was strong measures based on this criteria when we had coded it research support orange AND the research-motivated criteria indicated there was limited research. 8
MCPSC Performance Contract Key Measures | Recommended Priority Measures The next slides list the recommended priority performance measures in the following areas: Academic: Student Achievement • Academic: Student Growth • Academic: Gateway / Success-Ready • Academic: Post-Secondary Readiness • Post-Secondary: College • Post-Secondary: Workforce • School Environment • Financial • 9
Recommend
More recommend
