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 Revised Framework • Focus: Less than or equal to 40% • Focus: Less than or equal to 30% Proficient or Advanced in ELA Proficient or Advanced in ELA or Focus: Less than or equal to 55% Math Proficient or Advanced in Math • Inclusive of a Growth Metric; AGT • Growth defined by API • Includes 7 status metrics, of which 5 • Includes AYP & API aligned with Performance Meter • Sub‐groups tracked; percent value • Sub‐groups and other Performance Meter indicators tracked at Part II of increase expectaFon created framework (to create further differenFaFon within Fers) • Does not use a point system • Use of a point system • Focus/ Service & Support/ Advancing/ • Focus/ Watch/ Service & Support/ Achieving/ Excelling Achieving/ Excelling

Revised Framework: Part I (y‐axis) Status Growth (x‐axis)

Why are we using a Y‐ & X‐Axis Approach? High Status/ High Status/ (y‐axis) Low Growth High Growth Status Low Status/ Low Status/ Low Growth High Growth Growth (x‐axis)

Revised Framework: Status Measure 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 ≤ 28% 29% ‐ 39% 40% ‐ 48% 49% ‐ 54% ≥ 55% 3 rd Grade ELA % Proficient or Advanced 6 Percentage of Student with 96% or Higher ≤ 60% 61% ‐ 64% 65% ‐ 67% 68% ‐ 70% ≥ 71% Attendance 7 ≥ 2.5% 2.4% ‐ 2.0% 1.9% ‐ 1.5% 1.4% ‐ 1.1% ≤ 1.0% Percentage of Students Suspended • 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

Lead Status Indicators by Grade Level Elementary School Middle School High School Lead Indicators Lead Indicators Lead Indicators Algebra 2011 1 st Time CAHSEE 3 rd Grade ELA % Proficient or Advanced % Proficient or Pass Rate Advanced Algebra 2011 4 Year Cohort % FBB or BB 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 Growth Metric (x‐axis) Elementary Schools: Far Below Predicted/ At Predicted Above Predicted Far Above Predicted DesignaFon Below Predicted Points for 3 Year ELA 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points AGT Points for 3 Year 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points Math AGT

Growth Indicators by Grade Level for 2011‐2012 Elementary School Middle School High School Growth Indicators Growth Indicators Growth Indicators No Indicators for Points for 3 Year ELA AGT Points for 3 Year ELA AGT Growth Points for 3 Year Math Points for 3 Year Math AGT AGT Bonus Points for 3 Year Algebra AGT

Revised Framework: Y‐Axis & X‐Axis Combined 32‐35 Status Points 23‐31 Status 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 Growth 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) Actual Points # STATUS METRIC Performance ELA CST 2011 % Proficient or 1 Advanced 38% 1 ELA CST 2011 % FBB or BB 2 33% 1 Math CST 2011 % Proficient or 3 Advanced 57% 2 Math CST 2011 % FBB or BB 4 22% 2 3rd Grade ELA % Proficient or 5 30% 2 Advanced Percentage of Student with 96% or 6 46% 1 Higher Attendance Percentage of Students Suspended 7 5.4 % 1 Y‐AXIS POINT TOTAL FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL A: 10 POINTS

Distribution of Elementary School A Growth Metric (x‐axis) Far Below Predicted/ DesignaFon At Predicted Above Predicted Far Above Predicted Below Predicted Points for 3‐Year 1 point ELA AGT Points for 3‐Year 1 point Math AGT Total Growth 2 Points 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) Status Elementary School A Growth

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