U-46 Benchmarks & Targets

1. U-46 Benchmarks & Targets April 26, 2010 Tony Sanders Ed DeYoung Nirav Mehta

2. Development Process • Charge from Superintendent • District Improvement Plan pillar • Cabinet Leader: Tony Sanders • Operations Committee • Coordinators: Anita Tjaden and Nirav Mehta • Consisting of all operational departments • Brainstorming sessions by Management Review Team • Student Performance • Coordinator: Ed DeYoung • Committee with elementary, middle, and high school representatives, and District Office personnel

3. Design Principle (Student Performance & Operational Benchmarks) Address questions • “How are we doing?” –in the context of our own history • Are we meeting our targets? • Are we improving (growing)? • “How are we doing?” –relative to others (data may not be available for some benchmarks) • What is our performance relative to the State of IL? • What is our performance relative to our neighbors? • What is our performance relative to similar districts?

4. Student Performance Benchmarks

5. Student Performance: Design Principle #1 • Focus on performance at end of each level • End of HS (HS graduates) • End of MS (8th grade) • End of ES (6th grade) • Middle of ES (3rd grade) • Additional internal benchmarks • School Improvement Plans/Restructuring Plans • Executive Summaries • Additional benchmarks for consideration for public reporting

6. Student Performance:Design Principle #2 Address the distribution of student performance –not just “one point” • Those least skilled students who need to learn at a faster rate in order to “catch-up” (3, 6, 8, & 12) • The “average” student • Definition varies with the level • Those “on-track” for admission to college in Illinois (6, 8, & 12) • Those doing college level work while in HS (AP program) (12 only) • Similar to Broad Foundation reporting design

7. HS Graduates #1 *Data for 2009-10 is not available for some measures; thus 2008-09 data is displayed for a consistent reference frame

8. HS Graduates #2

9. Potential Web Display of Data TBD TBD TBD

10. Eighth Grade #1 *Data for 2009-10 is not available for some measures; thus 2008-09 data is displayed for a consistent reference frame

11. Eighth Grade #2 *Data for 2009-10 is not available for some measures; thus 2008-09 data is displayed for a consistent reference frame

12. Sixth Grade *Data for 2009-10 is not available for some measures; thus 2008-09 data is displayed for a consistent reference frame

13. Third Grade *Data for 2009-10 is not available for some measures; thus 2008-09 data is displayed for a consistent reference frame

14. ELL Program Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives *Federal and State definition changed in 2009-10; thus target remains to be determined

15. Operational Benchmarks

16. Operational Benchmarking Process Was Collaborative • MRT members were provided an opportunity to share current benchmarks and develop new ones • Internal benchmarks • “Power indicator” benchmarks from Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) • Other benchmarks (The New Teacher Project) • All targets are designed to be aggressive • Operational benchmarks & targets included for external reporting are those that have strongest impact on student achievement

17. Operational Department Effectiveness

18. Performance And Growth For Operational Dept. Effectiveness Well above target Above target Meaningful growth Close to target Status quo Well below target Meaningful decline Annual Performance Model Annual Growth Model

19. Customer Satisfaction

20. Teacher and Administrator Effectiveness * Teacher Effectiveness can be measured in multiple ways, and the definition and 5 Yr Target for external reporting are currently being finalized * Administrator Effectiveness can be measured in multiple ways, and the definition and 5 Yr Target for external reporting are currently being finalized

21. Teacher Retention * Teacher Retention can be measured in multiple ways, and other metrics for external reporting are currently being finalized ** 09-10 data represent YTD amounts *** 5 Yr Targets are currently being finalized

22. National Board Certification * 5 Yr Target is currently being finalized

23. Teacher Attendance * Excludes professional development ** 09-10 data represent a YTD amount *** 5 Yr Target is currently being finalized

24. PBIS Implementation Quantity Quality * 5 Yr Target is currently being finalized

25. Student Attendance * External reporting will provide breakdown by elementary, middle school, and high school level ** 09-10 data represent a forecast estimate derived by taking average of 07-08 and 08-09 data *** 5 Yr Target is currently being finalized

26. High School Drop Outs * 09-10 data represents a forecast estimate derived by taking average of 07-08 and 08-09 data

27. Work Order Completion * 09-10 data is currently being analyzed ** 5 Yr Target is currently being finalized

28. Pupil Transportation * 09-10 data represent a YTD amount **09-10 data is in process of being analyzed *** 5 Yr Target is currently being finalized

29. Next Steps • Finalize targets • Use data to drive development of Accountability Plan (2010/2011 District Improvement Plan) • Communicate benchmarks and targets to employees and communities

30. COMPARABLE DISTRICTS April 26, 2010

31. Who are our neighbors – for high school graduates? Any high school which shares a boundary with U-46 Barrington HS Central HS (Burlington) Community HS (W. Chicago) Dundee Crown HS (Carpentersville) Glenbard North HS (Carol Stream) Hoffman Estates HS Jacobs HS (Algonquin) Lake Park HS (Roselle) Schaumburg HS St. Charles East HS St. Charles North HS

32. Who are our neighbors – for elementary and middle schools? Any school district which shares a boundary with U-46 (with major cities) CUSD 300 (Algonquin/Carpentersville, etc) Barrington CUSD 220 Schaumburg CCSD 54 Keeneyville SD 20 CCSD 93 (Carol Stream) SD 25 Benjamin (West Chicago) West Chicago SD 33 St. Charles CUSD 303 CCUSD 301 (Burlington)

33. What are similar districts – for high school graduates? • Selection criteria • Unit District (K-12) • Size: 10,000 to 70,000 students (U-46 is ~ 40,000) • Percent of Low-Income students: 10% to 90% (U-46 is ~ 50%) • Percent of LEP students: 5% to 50% (U-46 is ~ 20%) • 8 Districts met the criteria

34. What are similar districts – Elementary and Middle schools? • Selection criteria • Size: 10,000 to 70,000 students (U-46 is ~ 40,000) • Percent of Low-Income students: 10% to 90% (U-46 is ~ 50%) • Percent of LEP students: 5% to 50% (U-46 is ~ 20%)

35. COMPARABLE DISTRICTS April 26, 2010

36. Who are our neighbors – for high school graduates? Any high school which shares a boundary with U-46 Barrington HS Central HS (Burlington) Community HS (W. Chicago) Dundee Crown HS (Carpentersville) Glenbard North HS (Carol Stream) Hoffman Estates HS Jacobs HS (Algonquin) Lake Park HS (Roselle) Schaumburg HS St. Charles East HS St. Charles North HS

37. Who are our neighbors – for elementary and middle schools? Any school district which shares a boundary with U-46 (with major cities) CUSD 300 (Algonquin/Carpentersville, etc) Barrington CUSD 220 Schaumburg CCSD 54 Keeneyville SD 20 CCSD 93 (Carol Stream) SD 25 Benjamin (West Chicago) West Chicago SD 33 St. Charles CUSD 303 CCUSD 301 (Burlington)

38. What are similar districts – for high school graduates? • Selection criteria • Unit District (K-12) • Size: 10,000 to 70,000 students (U-46 is ~ 40,000) • Percent of Low-Income students: 10% to 90% (U-46 is ~ 50%) • Percent of LEP students: 5% to 50% (U-46 is ~ 20%) • 8 Districts met the criteria

39. What are similar districts – Elementary and Middle schools? • Selection criteria • Size: 10,000 to 70,000 students (U-46 is ~ 40,000) • Percent of Low-Income students: 10% to 90% (U-46 is ~ 50%) • Percent of LEP students: 5% to 50% (U-46 is ~ 20%)