Denver Public Schools

1. Denver Public Schools Unified Improvement Planning 101 June 17, 2013

2. UIP 101 Road Map • Overview of the UIP Process • Structure and Components of the UIP Template • Developing a UIP • Data Narrative • School Performance Frameworks and the UIP • Data Analysis: • Review Past Performance/Describe Trends/Performance Challenges/Root Causes • Action Plans: • Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress Monitoring • Leadership Considerations & Resources • School Type & Title I • UIP Timeline & DPS/CDE Resources

3. Intent, Power, Possibility and Purpose of the UIP • School Improvement Historically at DPS: • Prior to the UIP process DPS developed School Improvement Plans (SIPs) • In 2008, Colorado introduced the Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) to streamline state and federal accountability requirements. • The UIP was established by the Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB 09-163) • Colorado is entering its 4th year (2013-14) of requiring UIPs for all schools throughout the state.

4. Planning Requirements met by the UIP

5. Intent, Power, Possibility and Purpose of the UIP Evaluate Evaluate FOCUS Implement Plan • Theory of Action: Continuous Improvement

6. How Has the UIP Process Focused Your School Improvement Efforts? “The UIP reminds us to do what we expect from our teachers…analyze the data, set goals, develop action steps and measure the results.  Here at GBMS we align our UIP to the professional development, SGO's and data team process.  Although we have set up our plan there are times we have not met our goals.  This allows us take a step back and talk about why we did not meet the goal.  For example, we were going to incorporate small group instruction in our reading classes but did not provide enough PD to support the goal.” Alex Magaña, Principal Grant Beacon Middle School

7. Intended Session Outcomes • Participants will understand: • The district and state SPF • The purpose, power and possibility of the UIP. • The accountability measures associated with the UIP. • How to develop each component of the UIP template. • How local, state and federal accountability connect to the UIP process.. • The state and district tools and resources available to assist school leaders in engaging in UIP work.

8. Purpose of the UIP • Provide a framework for performance management. • Support school and district use of performance data to improve system effectiveness and student learning. • Shift from planning as an event to continuous improvement. • Meet state and federal accountability requirements. • Give external stakeholders a way to learn about how schools and districts are making improvements. • Serves as a 2-Year strategic plan

9. Structure and Components of the UIP Template Major Sections: • Summary Information about the School (pre-populated template) • Improvement Plan Information • Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification • Action Plan(s) • Appendices (addenda forms)

10. State SPF: Pre-Populated UIP Template

11. State SPF: Pre-Populated UIP Template

12. Unified Improvement Planning Processes Gather and Organize Data Review Performance Summary Describe Notable Trends Prioritize Performance Challenges Identify Root Causes Data Analysis (Data Narrative) Data Analysis (Data Narrative) Set Performance Targets Identify Major Improvement Strategies Progress Monitoring Identify Implementation Benchmarks Identify Interim Measures Target Setting Action Planning

13. Data Narrative as a Repository UIP Data and Information Data Narrative: A Repository Description of School & Data Analysis Process School A has …. Review Current Performance Trend Analysis: Worksheets 1 & 2 Action Plans Target Setting/Action Planning Forms

14. Data Narrative • Purpose: The purpose of the data narrative is to describe the process and results of the analysis of the data for school improvement. It serves as a repository for everything you do in the UIP process. • Elements to Include in the Data Narrative: • Description of the School Setting and Process for Data Analysis • Review Current Performance • State & Federal Accountability Expectations • Progress Towards Last Year’s Targets • Trend Analysis • Priority Performance Challenges • Root Cause Analysis • Throughout the school-year capture the following in the data narrative: • Progress Monitoring (Ongoing)

15. UIP 101 Road Map • √ Overview of the UIP Process • √ Structure and Components of the UIP Template • Developing a UIP • √ Data Narrative • School Performance Frameworks and the UIP • Data Analysis: • Review Past Performance/Describe Trends/Performance Challenges/Root Causes • Action Plans: • Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress Monitoring • Leadership Considerations & Resources • School Type & Title I • UIP Timeline & DPS/CDE Resources

16. Step 2. Review Current Performance DPS School Performance Framework (SPF)

17. What is the DPS SPF? A comprehensive annual review of school performance. • Provides a body of evidence related to student growth and achievement and overall organizational strength using a variety of measures • Is the basis of mandatory school accreditation ratings • Aligns district goals, state requirements, and federal mandates • Provides information for teacher and principal compensation systems • Made public for the Denver community and is a factor in enrollment decisions

18. 5 Possible Ratings Based on the percentage of overall points earned, schools receive one of five possible SPF ratings DISTINGUISHED 80% - 100% MEETS EXPECTATIONS 51% - 79% ACCREDITED ON WATCH 40% - 50% ACCREDITED ON PRIORITY WATCH 34% - 39% ACCREDITED ON PROBATION UP TO 33% Consider this: What about schools that combine grade levels? (i.e. elementary and middle schools in a K-8th grade format, and middle and high schools in a 6th-12th grade format)

19. 2012 DPS SPF Overall Rating Categories *Alternative Schools excluded

20. Indicators >> Academic Growth >> Academic Status >> Post-Secondary Readiness Growth * >> Post-Secondary Readiness Status * >> Student Engagement & Satisfaction >> Enrollment >> Parent Satisfaction Consider this: Should all areas be measured equally? What weight would you assign to each category?

21. DPS 2012 SPF Indicator Weights

22. DPS Sample Stoplight Scorecard: Indicators

23. Indicator Total Points Come From the Measures 1) ACADEMIC GROWTH 2) ACADEMIC STATUS 3)Post-Secondary Readiness Growth * 4) Post-Secondary Readiness Status * 5) Student Engagement & Satisfaction 6) Enrollment 7) Parent Satisfaction 10 Measures Alt SPF= 2 Alt SPF= 1 7 Measures 9 Measures Alt SPF PSR= 7 11 Measures 3 Measures Alt SPF= 7 3 Measures 2 Measures Consider this: What indicators do the Elementary/Middle/High School grades have in common?

24. Adding up the Points Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Approaching Standard Does Not Meet Standard Data Collection & Aggregation Apply SPF Rubrics Measure Points & Stoplight Sum and Apply Cut-Offs Indicator Total Stoplight Sum and Apply Cut-Offs Overall Total Accreditation Rating

25. DPS SPF: Based on 2-Years of Data Example: TCAP Median Growth Percentile 2012: MGP=60 Meets 2011: MGP=40 Approaching 2012 Measure Rating: Approaching

26. Computation Process: Based on 2-Years of Data Cut-points Two-year rubric

27. DPS Sample Detail Scorecard: Measures Consider this: What does Measure 1.2 mean by “Similar School”?

28. DPS Similar Schools Clusters • The DPS SPF provides information on how each school performs relative to similar schools in the district. • Schools are then rank-ordered by Ed Level and compared with 10 schools that are closest to them. • Clusters are custom for each school. The School Characteristics Indicator is a weighted calculation: FRL (40%) + ELL (20%) + SpEd (20%) + Mobility*(20%) *Mobility is defined as the total number of students who entered or left the school after 10/1 divided by the number of students in the school as of 10/1.

29. Similar Schools Calculation: How it Works FRL(40%) + ELL(20%) + SpEd(20%) + Mobility(20%) = School Characteristics Indicator School F’s Cluster

30. DPS Sample Detail Scorecard: Measures Consider this: What is a Median Growth Percentile? What is Catch Up and Keep Up?

31. Growth Percentiles • In order to receive a growth percentile, students need a valid English CSAP/ TCAP score over two consecutive years with a typical grade level progression (e.g., third grade to fourth grade) • Each student receives a growth percentile indicating how much growth they achieved in the current year compared to other students who earned similar scores in prior years. A growth percentile of 50 is considered “typical” growth. • Every student’s growth percentile is then rank-ordered and the middle score, or median, for the population is identified. This is the median growth percentile (MGP). • For accountability purposes (i.e., inclusion in the SPF), students need to have been enrolled in the same school since October 1 of the same school year.

32. Catch-Up & Keep-Up Growth • Includes all students who took TCAP for two consecutive years. • Different from the state’s Catch-Up and Keep-Up. • DPS Catch-up: the percentage of students transitioning from a lower to higher performance level from one year to the next. • DPS Keep-up: the percentage of students staying in the proficient and advanced categories or moved from proficient to advanced. • State’s is progress needed to be proficient in 3 years or by 10th grade. • This measure is limited to TCAP Reading, Math, and Writing.

33. Excellent Training on MGPs, Keep Up and Catch Up can be found at the CDE website: http://www.cde.state.co.us/media/training/SPF_Online_Tutorial/player.html

34. DPS Sample Detail Scorecard: Measures Consider this: What measures look at your English Language Learners? Proficiency Gaps?

35. DPS SPF – Language of Assessment

36. Language of Assessment – Performance over timeCELA Proficiency Compared to TCAP Proficiency – Reading/Lectura %P+ Grade 5 TCAP Reading (English) %P+ Grade 4 TCAP Reading (English) 2nd Grade CELA Level Note: ELLs who were in 2nd grade in either 2006-07, 2007-08, or 2008-09 and took CELA were combined into one cohort and tracked forward to 3rd, 4th and 5th grades. Students opted out of ELA services by their parents were not included in the population.

37. Language of Assessment – Performance over timeCELA Proficiency Compared to TCAP Reading Growth (MGPs) Students who scored at CELA Levels 1, 2, or 3 and took TCAP in English showed lower than typical (50th percentile) growth in 4th grade. Data display the 4th grade MGPs for students who scored at CELA Levels 1, 2, or 3 in 2nd grade and took TCAP Reading (English test) in 3rd grade. The population includes 2nd graders in either 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010 with growth scores in 4th grade (2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012).

38. Language of Assessment – Dispelling the SPF Myth Accountability Measures • ELLs who take the TCAP Lectura in 3rd Grade, rather than the TCAP Reading, are more likely to have a positive impact on SPF scores. • TCAP Lectura scores count toward both DPS and state SPF Status measures as much as TCAP Reading scores. • Students who take the TCAP Lectura in 3rd Grade are removed from DPS and state SPF growth measures in 4th Grade (i.e., they do not count against a school). TCAP State Testing Requirements • Students qualify for the Lectura/Escritura and/or the Oral Translation accommodation if: • The student has been enrolled in a Colorado Public School for less than three years in first grade or later (kindergarten is not counted in the three years). • The student has been receiving native language instruction within the last 9 months. • Decisions regarding the language of assessment should be made based on a body of evidence and in accordance with what is best for the student.

39. State School Performance Framework (SPF)

40. What is the State SPF and DPF?Colorado Educational Accountability Act of 2009 (SB09-163) • Colorado Dept. of Education annually evaluates districts and schools based on student performance outcomes. • All districts receive a District Performance Framework (DPF). This determines their accreditation rating. • All schools receive a School Performance Framework (SPF). This determines their school plan types. • Provides a common framework through which to understand performance and focus improvement efforts – A statewide comparison that highlights performance strengths and areas for improvement.

41. State SPF:4 Possible Plan Types, 5 District Designations Plan Types • Performance Plan • Improvement Plan • Priority Improvement Plan • Turnaround Plan District Accreditation Designations • Accredited with Distinction • Accredited • Accredited with Improvement Plan • Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan (DPS 2012 Accreditation Rating) • Accredited with Turnaround Plan Consider this: How many times can a school or district be on Priority Improvement or Turnaround?

42. State SPF: Accountability Clock • Once a school is rated as either turnaround or priority improvement (red or orange) on CDE’s SPF they enter into a 5-year clock. • Schools may not implement a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan for longer than five consecutive years before facing action directed by the State Board: i.e., the district is required to restructure or close the school.

43. 2012 State SPF DPS Schools' Plan Types *Alternative Schools excluded

44. Achievement 2012 CDE Performance Indicators Growth Growth Gaps Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness • Growth Gaps • Median Student Growth Percentiles and Median Adequate Growth Percentiles for disaggregated groups: • Poverty • Race/Ethnicity • Disabilities • English Language Learners • Below proficient • Normative and Criterion- Referenced Growth • CSAP Reading, Writing and Math • CELApro • Median Student Growth Percentiles • Adequate Median Student Growth Percentiles • Percent proficient and advanced • Reading (CSAP, Lectura, and CSAPA) • Writing (CSAP, Escritura, and CSAPA) • Math (CSAP and CSAPA) • Science (CSAP and CSAPA) Colorado ACT Graduation Rate (overall and for disaggregated groups) Dropout Rate

45. State SPF: Performance Indicator Weights

46. State SPF: 1 year vs. 3 year data • CDE provides two different versions of the School Performance Framework Reports: • One Year SPF The most recent year of data • Three Year SPF The most recent three years • Only one report counts for official accountability purposes: • Higher number of the performance indicators, or • The one under which it received a higher total number of points.

47. CDE vs. DPS SPF

48. CDE vs. DPS SPF Key Differences • DPS framework includes metrics not collected by the state; • Evaluates growth using a broader definition, including measures that evaluate the growth of advanced students; and, • Rates each metric based on two consecutive years of performance as compared to CDE’s approach of using either one or three years of data.

49. CDE vs. DPS SPF Key Differences • Rating differences: Several schools receive lower ratings on the district’s framework than on the state’s framework. • Cut Points – “The Standard”: For the district, these cuts are based largely on the distribution of total points earned by all district schools. Since these cuts are informed by the district’s distribution, the placement of these cuts would invariably differ from cuts set by CDE using information from the distribution of all schools in the state.

50. DPS & CDE SPF Ratings Crosswalk • Looking at the 2011-12 SPF: • DPS’ SPF was higher than the state’s 10% of the times. • The state’s SPF was higher than DPS’ 28% of the times.