using local flexibility in school accreditation and sb-163 updates sponsored by

of 13/13
Using Local Flexibility in School Accreditation and SB-163 Updates Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education July 21, 2010

Post on 20-Jan-2016

26 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Using Local Flexibility in School Accreditation and SB-163 Updates Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education July 21, 2010. Agenda. Accreditation: CDE’s role District’s role Local flexibility Revisions to the School Performance Framework District Performance Framework Timelines. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • Using Local Flexibility in School Accreditation and SB-163 Updates

    Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education

    July 21, 2010

  • AgendaAccreditation:CDEs roleDistricts roleLocal flexibilityRevisions to the School Performance FrameworkDistrict Performance FrameworkTimelines

  • Accreditation & PlanningCDE accredits districts:Accredited with DistinctionAccreditedAccredited with Improvement PlanAccredited with Priority Improvement PlanAccredited with Turnaround PlanCDE assigns school plan types:Performance PlanImprovement PlanPriority Improvement PlanTurnaround PlanUnified Planning Template

  • Accreditation: Big IdeasDistricts are responsible for accrediting schools.The state provides a framework for evaluating school performance (the school performance frameworks). Districts can add to the state framework.State involvement is only with the lowest performing schools Priority Improvement and Turnaround.Explicit links between school accreditation and improvement planning.

  • CDE RoleMajor components of the CDE role:Accredit districtsAssign school plan typesEvaluate district and school performance using common indicatorsReview and approve Priority Improvement and Turnaround plansProvide high quality informationProvide as much support to districts as possible within fiscal constraints

  • District RoleMajor components of the district role:Accredit schoolsEvaluate school performance using a more exhaustive or stringent framework than CDEWrite and implement district improvement plans; review school plansProvide as much support to schools as possible within fiscal constraints

  • Local FlexibilityDiscuss:How do you plan to accredit your schools?How can CDE support you?

  • Revisions to the SPF (1)

    ItemPreviousRevised /CurrentParticipation rateDistricts and schools that do not meet 95% participation rate requirement in one or more subjects drop one plan type assignmentDistricts and schools that do not meet 95% participation rate requirement in two or more subjects drop one plan type assignmentMinimum N for graduation and dropout rate Minimum N of 1Minimum N of 16ACT inclusion/ exclusion rulesNon-testers count towards the district/schools average ACT composite score as a score of 0Non-testers do not count towards the district/schools average ACT composite score and are excluded from the calculation

  • Revisions to the SPF (2)

    ItemPreviousRevised /CurrentComparison data for % proficient/ advanced on CSAPIncludes AECs and schools closed before Oct. 1 of the year prior to the reportExcludes AECs and schools closed before Oct. 1 of the year prior to the reportComparison data for dropout rateExclude 7th and 8th grade dropouts from dropout rateInclude 7th and 8th grade dropouts in dropout rate to match officially reported Colorado dataReference tables for comparison dataReference tables for comparison data to determine the values and cut-points for percentiles for Academic Achievement and averages for dropout rate and ACT composite scores are listed in the SPF Technical GuideReference tables for comparison data to determine the values and cut-points for percentiles for Academic Achievement and averages for dropout rate and ACT composite scores are listed on page 4 of the SPF (page 7 of the DPF)

  • District Performance FrameworkMirrors the School Performance FrameworkDistribution of district accreditation categories similar to school plan type distribution10% Accredited with Distinction50% Accredited25% Accredited with Improvement Plan10% Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan5% Accredited with Turnaround PlanSafety and Finance assurancesDistricts not meeting either their Safety or Finance assurances will default to Accredited with Priority Improvement (or stay in Priority Improvement or Turnaround if they are already there) until they meet requirements.

  • TimelineJuly 23, 2010 CDE releases draft SPF with refreshed 2007-09 data and draft DPF with 2007-09 data.August 15, 2010 CDE releases SPF and DPF with initial school plans and accreditation categories. October 15, 2010 District submits accreditation category for schools and any additional evidence.January 15, 2011 District submits Priority Improvement and Turnaround Plans, and any required for federal review.April 15, 2011 District submits Improvement and Performance Plans.

  • Timelines for District Accreditation and Plan Submission

  • Timelines for School Accreditation and Plan Submission

    *Version 1.4Version 1.4*