1. Briefing on Development of Performance Frameworks
DRAFT
Briefing on Development of Performance Frameworks
Colorado Department of Education
April 29, 2010

2. Previous Accountability System
DRAFT
Multiple frameworks and reports
Federal: Adequate Yearly Progress (evaluated for schools, districts and the state)
% of students making AYP
District: Accreditation Reports
Categories of Accredited w/Distinction; Accredited; Accredited, Letter of Support; Accredited, Notice with Support; Probation
School: Accountability Reports
Rating of excellent, high, average, low and unsatisfactory achievement
Rating of high, typical, or low growth

3. Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB-163)
DRAFT
Aligns accountability system into single system.
Modernizes reporting of state, district and school performance information.
Establishes new system of support and intervention, including turnaround.
Provides transparent performance information to drive statewide conversation about change.
Focuses on four key performance indicators:
Student achievement levels
Student longitudinal growth
Extent of student gaps
Postsecondary and workforce readiness (PWR).

4. Accountability Impact of SB-163
DRAFT
Federal
AYP remains, pending ESEA reauthorization.
District and School
Districts will continue to accredit schools.
CDE will assign accreditation categories to districts and assign plan types to schools based on aligned performance frameworks that measure attainment on the four performance indicators.
Districts will have an opportunity to provide additional information about improvements and progress made before final district accreditation categories and school plan assignments are made.

5. Accountability Impact of SB-163: District
DRAFT
CDE will assign district accreditation categories:
Level 1: Accredited w/ Distinction
Level 2: Accredited
Level 3: Accredited w/ Improvement Plan
Level 4: Accredited w/ Priority Improvement Plan
Level 5: Accredited w/ Turnaround Plan
Level 6: Unaccredited

6. Accountability Impact of SB-163: School
DRAFT
CDE will assign the plans schools will be required to implement:
 Performance Plan  Priority Improvement Plan
Improvement Plan  Turnaround Plan
Districts will assign accreditation categories to schools.
In accrediting their schools, districts may choose to use state’s school performance framework.
Alternatively, districts may, in the local school board’s local discretion, use additional performance indicators.
Either way, each district’s accreditation of its schools must correlate with the state’s plan assignment and emphasize attainment of the four key performance indicators.

7. District Plan Development and Submission in Proposed SB-163 Rules
DRAFT
Nov.*
Dec
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
CDE assigns district accreditation category of "Accredited with Distinction" or "Accredited."
Submit Unified Improvement Plan
(only districts on NCLB Title I, IIA or III Program Improvement and/or Corrective Action).
Submit plan to CDE for publication on SchoolView (all districts).
CDE assigns district accreditation category of "Accredited with Improvement Plan."
Submit Unified Improvement Plan (only districts on NCLB Title I, IIA or III Program Improvement and/or Corrective Action).
Submit plan to CDE for publication on SchoolView (all districts).
CDE assigns district accreditation category of "Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan."
Opportunity to appeal accreditation status to State Board and may seek appropriate extensions.
Submit Unified Improvement Plan.
State Review Panel reviews state requirements, upon commissioner's request.
State Review Panel provides any recommendations and commissioner suggests any modifications to plan.
Submit revisions to CDE.
Submit plan to CDE for publication on SchoolView.
CDE assigns district accreditation category of "Accredited with Turnaround Plan."
Opportunity to appeal accreditation status to State Board and may seek appropriate extensions.
Submit Unified Improvement Plan.
State Review Panel reviews state requirements.
State Review Panel provides any recommendations and commissioner suggests any modifications to plan.
Submit revisions to CDE.
Submit plan to CDE for publication on SchoolView.
* By Aug. 15th, CDE will issue to each district a Performance Framework Report including an initial accreditation assignment. No later than Oct. 15th, if the district disagrees with the assignment, the district shall submit additional performance data for CDE’s consideration. No later than Nov. 15th, CDE shall determine a final accreditation category.

8. School Plan Development and Submission in Proposed SB-163 Rules
DRAFT
State Board directs school to adopt a School Performance Plan.
For schools on NCLB Title IA School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring, school submits unified improvement plan to district for review of NCLB requirements.
District submits school plan to CDE for publication on SchoolView (all schools).
State Board directs school to adopt a School Improvement Plan.
For schools on NCLB Title IA School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring, school submits unified improvement plan to district for review of NCLB requirements.
District submits school plan to CDE for publication on SchoolView (all schools).
State Board directs school to adopt a School Priority Improvement Plan.
District submits school's unified improvement plan to CDE.
State Review Panel reviews state requirements, upon commissioner's request.
State Review Panel provides any recommendations and commissioner suggests any modifications to plan.
Submit revisions to CDE.
District submits school plan to CDE for publication on SchoolView.
State Board directs school to adopt a School Turnaround Plan.
District submits school's unified improvement plan to CDE.
State Review Panel reviews state requirements.
State Review Panel provides any recommendations and commissioner suggests any modifications to plan.
Submit revisions to CDE.
District submits school plan to CDE for publication on SchoolView.
Nov.*
Dec
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
* By Aug. 15th, CDE will issue to each school a Performance Framework Report including an initial recommendation as to the type of plan the school will implement. No later than Oct. 15th, each district shall submit the accreditation category assigned to each school and, if the district disagrees with CDE’s initial plan assignment, the district may submit additional performance data for CDE’s consideration. No later than Nov. 15th, CDE shall determine a final recommendation concerning plan assignments for the State Board’s approval.

9. Key Dates
DRAFT
April 2010: CDE releases initial draft of School Performance Framework (SPF).
June 2010: CDE releases initial draft of District Performance Framework (DPF).
May - July 2010: CDE collects feedback; provides initial training and professional development.
August 15, 2010: CDE releases DPF and SPF for preliminary district accreditation categories and preliminary school plan assignments.
October 15, 2010: If desired, districts may submit additional performance data for CDE consideration of district accreditation or school plan assignments.
November 15, 2010: CDE finalizes district accreditation categories and makes recommendations to the State Board for final approval of school plan assignments.
January 15, 2011: Deadline to submit Unified Plan for districts and schools identified as Priority Improvement, Turnaround, or NCLB Title I, IIA, III Program Improvement and/or Corrective Action (district) or Title IA School Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring.
February 2011: State reviews district unified plans for NCLB requirements and reviews school and district priority improvement and turnaround plans for state requirements. State provides any recommendations or modification for plans.
April 15, 2011: Deadline to submit all plans for publication on SchoolView.
Fall 2011: Districts and schools with Priority Improvement or Turnaround assignments in 2010 begin consecutive 5-year countdown at the start of the school year. Districts who received prior Notice of Support or Probation status in 2009 have 4 years remaining at the start of the school year.

10. CDE Support, Intervention & Service
DRAFT
SB-163 creates a fairer and clearer cycle of support and intervention.
Support provided with increasing involvement based on need and CDE resource availability, including turnaround support for chronically low- performing districts and schools.
Ready access to data to support interpretation, decision-making, planning and learning.
Consultative services on best practices for improvement and implementation.
Unified planning template, to be released Summer 2010.
Evaluation and feedback on district and school plans.

11. Performance Framework Indicators
DRAFT
Achievement
Status rating based upon % Prof&Adv
Reading (includes CSAP, Lectura, and CSAPA)
Writing (includes CSAP, Escritura, and CSAPA)
Math (includes CSAP and CSAPA)
Science (includes CSAP and CSAPA)
Growth
Normative and Criterion- Referenced Growth
CSAP Reading, Writing and Math
Uses median Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) and median adequate SGPs
Gaps
Growth Gaps
Poverty
Race/Ethnicity
Disabilities
English proficiency
Achievement (proficient vs. non-proficient)
Postsecondary and Workforce (PWR) Readiness
Colorado ACT
Graduation Rate
Dropout Rate
Auxiliary
Test Participation
Target is 95% for Reading, Writing, Math and Science
Safety & Finance (for districts only)
Add place holder in “Growth” category for measuring growth on CELA in future years

12. Changes in the District Framework
DRAFT
Previous District Accreditation Measure
Future Accountability
Rationale
Included only a norm-referenced growth metric in the Growth and Growth Gaps indicators
Includes a norm-referenced growth metric as well as a criterion-referenced growth metric in the Growth and Growth Gaps indicators
A criterion-referenced metric allows for a determination of if growth is adequate to reach the state’s goal of proficiency within 3 years or by 10th grade.
Included gaps for race/ethnicity and poverty
Includes gaps for race/ethnicity, poverty, disabilities, English proficiency, and achievement (proficient vs. non-proficient)
Meets SB-163 guidelines and allows for more specific information on the effectiveness of programs for groups of students.
Included achievement status and growth gaps
Excludes achievement status gaps, includes growth gaps
Growth gaps are a better leading indicator of the direction of a district or school. The Growth Gaps indicator also now takes into account growth gaps between student groups of varying achievement levels (proficient vs. non-proficient).
Included graduation rate and ACT scores in the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness (PWR) indicator
Includes graduation rate, ACT scores, and dropout rate in the PWR Indicator
Increases the focus on PWR and meets SB-163 rules and CAP4K expectations.
The rubric for the Growth indicator was based on the distribution of individual student growth percentiles
The rubric for the Growth indicator is based on the distribution of school or district growth percentiles
The framework evaluates school and district performance, so norming the Growth Indicator against these groups is most appropriate.
Relative weight of indicators
E/M: 25 points for Achievement, 50 for Growth, 25 for Growth Gaps
H: 15 points for Achievement, 35 for Growth, 15 for Growth Gaps, 25 for PWR
Meets SB-163 rules by emphasizing growth and PWR.
Rubric cut-points
(TBD)
Which previous accountability? Accreditation right- not AYP?

13. The Growth Indicator is measured by answering:
DRAFT
What was the student growth rate in my school?
Was the growth rate adequate for the typical student in my school to catch up and keep up?
I.e., was the median SGP greater than or equal to the SGP sufficient for the typical (median) student to reach or maintain proficiency within three years or by 10th grade?
In what category did my growth rate put me in on the Framework rubric?
I.e., what was the median student growth percentile (SGP) in my school relative to other schools?

14. Rubric for the Growth Indicator
DRAFT
Yes No
55-69
Was my median SGP adequate for the typical (median) student to reach or maintain proficiency within three years or by 10th grade? (Yes/No)
45-59
60-99
70-99
40-54
30-44
1-39
1-29
Exceeds
What was the median SGP for my school? In what category did my median SGP fall into on the Framework rubric? (Exceeds, Meets, Approaching, Does Not Meet)
Meets
Approaching
Does Not Meet
For example…
What was the student growth rate in my school? 54
Was the growth rate adequate for the typical student in my school to catch up and keep up? The typical student in my school needed a SGP of 62. No, my growth was not adequate because my median SGP was 54.
In what category did my growth rate put me in on the Framework rubric? Approaching.

15. Additional Information
DRAFT
The Education Accountability Act of 2009:
SchoolView Learning Center:
John Condie:
Kady Dodds:
John Penn:
Somoh Supharukchinda:
Rich Wenning: