Transcript Slide 1
Wethersfield Public Schools Presentation to the Board of Education on 2013 School Performance Index (SPI) and 2013 District Performance Index (DPI) Michael Emmett, Superintendent Timothy Howes, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources & Financial Operations Sally Dastoli, Director of Curriculum & Instruction Keith Rafaniello, Director of Technology Emily Daigle, Director of Special Education Darla Miner, Instructional Supervisor for Literacy January 7, 2014 1 CT’s New Accountability System • CT’s No Child Left Behind Waiver was approved by USDE on May 29, 2012 – Replaces AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) under NCLB with CT designed annual performance targets – Replaces NCLB sanctions for schools and districts with more effective interventions – Schools will no longer be identified as “in need of improvement” based on 2012 CMT/CAPT 2 Major Shifts NCLB CT’s New Indicators Target is Proficient Target is - on average Goal Get to 100% by 2014 Halfway to target by 2018 Only Math and Reading Math, Reading, Writing count and Science count 3 NCLB School progress only measured by standardized test scores Accountable for subgroups of students of 40 or greater CT’s New Indicators School progress also measured by high school graduation rates (4-year and extended) Still accountable for subgroups of students, but 20 students or greater 4 Performance Index • Each district, school, subject and subgroup will have a Performance Index • Index is between 0 and 100 • Counts performance in all tested grade levels • Captures performance across all performance bands • Includes all tested subjects: reading, writing, math and science • Incorporates all tested students, including students who take the MAS and Skills Checklist 5 How Can a School Increase its SPI (School Performance Index)? • For a school with 100 students….. NCLB CT’s New Indicators Increasing % Proficient by 9% Increasing the SPI by 3 points requires moving 9 students who requires moving 9 students were not Proficient to Proficient across any performance threshold (0.33 for each student) Advanced Goal Proficient Basic Below Basic Advanced Goal Proficient Basic Below Basic 6 Performance Index (Students who take CMT/CAPT) Levels of Performance Goal, Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic “Credit” to calculate SPI 1.0 0.67 .33 0 7 Performance Index (Students who take MAS or Skills Checklist ) MAS Skills Checklist Goal Proficient Basic Independent Proficient Basic “Credit” to calculate SPI 1.0 0.50 0 8 What’s the difference between the results released in July and the SPI/DPI data? Raw data (released July 19th) Performance metrics SPI / DPI Data Results separated by grade level and subject Results aggregated across subjects and grade levels Only students who were All students who were tested present in the school/district in a school/district included for 10 months included Only currently identified ELL ELL and SWD included for 2 and SWD included years after they “exit” MAS/ Skills Checklist reported MAS/ Skills checklist included in separately index 9 CT State Targets Component Student and Subgroup Achievement Achievement Gaps Graduation Rate Measures School Performance Index (SPI) School Performance Index Gaps - 4-year graduation rate - Extended graduation rate State Targets 88 < 10 94% 96% 10 A 48 Points/12 years = 4 Points a Year SPI Growth 2024 11 Schools are Divided into Categories • • • • • • Excelling Progressing Transitioning Review Focus Turn around 12 Future • No SPI/DIP will be published for the 2013-14 school year • Current SPI assessments/expectations not aligned to CCSS expectations and new Smarter Balanced Assessment 13 • The SPI alone does not represent a full picture of performance as does school classification…. (CSDE 12/7/12 Memo) 14 Data Snapshots 15 District ELL Enrollment Total ELL 210 205 200 195 190 185 180 175 170 165 160 155 150 203 187 185 171 168 164 156 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 .October 2013 16 District Special Education Enrollment Total Special Education 470 454 445 433 419 420 395 377 378 378 2008 2009 2010 383 370 2011 2012 2013 .October 2013 Total Special Education 17 Free/Reduced Free and Reduced Meals 800 720 675 700 617 616 600 548 530 474 500 400 300 200 100 0 2008 2009 Total Free 2010 2011 Total Reduced 2012 2013 .October 2013 Total Free and Reduced 18 District Data - Homeless Homeless Total 14 13 12 10 8 6 5 4 10 10 2012 2013 6 4 2 1 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 .October 2013 19 Summer Reading 2013 Participation % Elementry Students Participating in 2013 Summer Reading 100 90 80 70 60 50 46 45 43 38 40 30 22 20 10 0 CW EW Hanmer HC Webb 20 Case Study Grade 3 in 2006 Grade 8 in 2011 Same Students in Grade 3 to Grade 8 Grade 10 in 2013 Avg number Same # tested Students in CMT/CAPT Grade 3 267 277 218 79% of grade 8 students have been in Wethersfield since grade 3 193 74% of grade 10 students have been in Wethersfield since grade 3 262 Same Students in Grade 3 to Grade 10 From Grade 8 to Grade 10: 24 Students no longer enrolled at WHS 21 Cohort Case Study 2006-2013 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 Math Science Reading Writing WHS CAPT Scores 2013 At/Above Goal Estimated Scores with 3-10 WPS At/Above Goal 22 New Students to District as of 9/3/13 (3rd Day of School this year) • Total of 87 students Grade PreK Kindergarten Grade 1 Grades 2-4 Grades 5-6 SDMS WHS # of New Students 14 13 5 13 9 7 26 23 New Students to District as of 9/3/13 (3rd Day of School this year) • Total of 87 students – 15 ELL – 17 Free/Reduced Meals – 17 Special Education – 1 Homeless • 41 (46%) High Needs Students = Either ELL, Free/Reduced, or Special Education 24 Other Measures of Success…. • • • • • • Art, music and drama productions & shows Athletics Participation in school clubs and activities Connections to community such as community service Parent and Staff Survey results Enrollment and success in Advanced Placement / Early College Experience • Honor Societies • District wide assessments • Etc. 25 SPI Snapshots 26 Did They Meet The Target? School SPI Math Reading Writing Science WHS 78.1 No No No No No SDMS 85.7 No No Yes No No *Charles Wright 80.3 No Yes Yes No No *Hanmer 83.5 No Yes Yes No Yes Emerson- 84.0 No Williams Yes Yes No Yes Highcrest 85.4 No Yes No No Yes *Webb No No No No * Title 1 77.3 No 27 Highlights • All 7 schools are classified as: Transitioning – Overall SPI between 64-87 – Participation rate of 95% or higher – Misses one or more of the Progressing criteria • Overall, district strength is reading and math 28 Achievement Gap • Tracking national research, higher levels of student need are associated with lower levels of academic performance. (achievement gap) • Wethersfield Schools do have some subgroups who met target. 29 Overall School Subgroup Performance School Black/ AA Hispanic or Latino ELL Free/ Reduced Special Ed High Needs WHS SDMS Charles Wright Hanmer EmersonWilliams --Yes --- No Yes Yes --No --- No Yes Yes No No No No No No ----- Yes Yes ----- Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Highcrest --- No --- No No No Webb --- No --- No No No 30 Barriers • • • • Change is difficult Changing demographics Changing institutional culture Changing practice 31 Other Towns….. • Wethersfield – 7 schools Transitioning • Wallingford – 1 school Progressing – 11 schools Transitioning • Berlin – 1 school Progressing – 4 schools Transitioning • Rocky Hill – 2 schools Progressing – 2 schools Transitioning • Newington – 3 schools Excelling – 1 school Progressing – 3 schools Transitioning • Cromwell – 1 school Excelling – 1 school Progressing – 2 schools Transitioning • West Hartford – 4 schools Excelling – 4 school Progressing – 8 schools Transitioning 32 Website for All SPI / DPI Reports • http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/performancereports/20122013reports.asp 33