Photos by Susie Fitzhugh

Seattles Investments in Performance Management, Assessment, and Academic Data Systems

Agenda
Overview
Eric Anderson, Research, Evaluation, & Assessment

Executive Director of Schools Perspective

Bree Dusseault, Southeast Region

School Leader Perspective

Katie Pearl, Principal, B.F. Day Elementary Christy Collins, Principal, Arbor Heights Elementary

Questions & Discussion

5-Year Strategic Plan (2008-2013)

District Strategic Plan specified the goals, infrastructure, and roadmap for SPS to fulfill its academic vision for all students

Vision of Vertically Aligned Goals

Goal setting cascades down through the organization
DISTRICT

Each level has tools for planning, progress monitoring and reporting
Level DISTRICT Planning & Goal-Setting Strategic Plan Analysis & Reporting District Scorecard

SCHOOL

CLASSROOM SCHOOL

Online CSIP

School Reports Segmentation

CLASSROOM

SMART Goals

Student Growth

Performance Management Cycle

PLAN
Specify goals and focus areas based on data

REPORT
Summative performance analysis and data reports

IMPLEMENT
Instructional strategies and professional development

ADJUST/RESPOND
Interim curricular planning, regrouping, interventions

MONITOR PROGRESS
Interim assessments and progress monitoring tools

District Academic Scorecard

District Scorecard released each Fall

Summarizes academic data aligned to the Strategic Plan Shows growth from baseline year (2007-08) and whether the District is on track to meet its 2013 goals

Annual School Reports

School Reports released each Fall Summarize three years of academic data aligned to the Strategic Plan Summarize results from climate surveys Provide information on strategies and focus areas for improvement
7

School Segmentation
Schools levels defined each year by status and growth performance metrics aligned to Strategic Plan
Purpose is to monitor progress toward 2013 goals and customize levels of support and autonomy

SCHOOL LEVELS Level 4-5 Schools are near or above the 2013 districtwide target goals LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 Level 1-2 Schools remain far below the 2013 goals and are not making significant annual growth/progress LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

100 90

Mercer MS Dearborn Park ES Maple ES

North Beach ES Whittier ES

Denny MS

Hamilton MS Lawton ES Thurgood Marshall ES Laurelhurst ES Nathan Hale HSBryant ES Loyal Heights ES Pathfinder K8 Catharine Blaine K8 John Hay ES John Stanford ES Madison MS West Woodland ES MHS cGilvra ES Greenwood ES Roosevelt Sacajawea ES Wedgwood ES McClure MS

80 70
Pinehurst K8 Olympic Hills ES Roxhill ES Leschi ES Aki Kurose MS West Seattle ES Northgate ES

Growth Score

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10

Emerson ES Hawthorne ES

Dunlap ES Madrona K8 Bailey Gatzert ES Martin Luther King Jr ES Highland Park ES

Whitman MS Lowell ES The Center Sch. HS Frantz Coe ES Alki ES Stevens ES Green Lake ES Montlake ES John Rogers ES Van Asselt ES DISTRICT Cleveland HS Jane Addams K8 Ballard HS Orca K8 Schmitz Park ES Kimball ES Bagley ES Ridge ES Franklin HS View Chief Sealth HS Adams ES John Muir ES A rbor Heights ES Eckstein MS Ingraham HS Nova HS West Seattle HS B.F. Day ES O lympic View ES Lafayette ES Graham Hill ES Washington MS Garfield HS Gatewood ES Beacon Hill ES Broadview-Thomson K8 South Shore K8 TOPS K8 Salmon Bay K8 Rainier Beach HS Sanislo ES Thornton Creek ES Wing Luke ES

Concord ES

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Absolute/Status Score
Absolute Score Low (0-30) Med-Low (30-59) Med-High (60-79) High (80-100) Segment Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 FRL gap < 25% Level 5 Other Criteria High Growth High Growth Segment Level 3 Level 3

Charting School Progress Over Time

Dearborn Park Elementary (3-Year History)

Growth Performance Index

Performance metrics (the goalposts) are fixed for the duration of the 5-year plan so that progress can be charted over time

100 90 80 70 60

Year 3

50
40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Year 2

Year 1
Absolute Performance Index

Rising Absolute Performance over time

10

School Levels by Year

100%

Percentage of Level 1 schools has declined from 20% to 9%

90% 80% 70%

15%

15%
24% 20% 19%

16%

60%

Level 5 Level 4

28%
50%

33% 35% 21% 17% 13%

Percentage of Level 5 schools has increased from 15% to 24%

Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

20%

16%

9%

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

Online CSIP Tool

Web-based Continuous School Improvement Plan (CSIP) tool was developed to help schools specify goals, measures, and strategies
12

Academic Data Warehouse

The Academic Data Warehouse (ADW) is a web-based tool that provides stakeholders with on-demand access to data reports Currently includes enrollment, attendance, MAP, and coursework.
13

MAP Benchmark Assessment

MAP is a nationally-normed assessment given district-wide in reading and math up to 3x per year. School and classroom data reports are available from the ADW or directly from the test vendor (NWEA).
14

Student Progress Reports (MAP)

Schools and families provided Individual Progress Reports for each student
Similar data is available online via the SOURCE, which families and school staff can access

15

Student Growth Ratings for Teachers

Test: MSP
Grade 7 8 8 7 8 7 7 7 7 Last Name Akers Greybeal Johnson Jordan Parton Portman Robinson Roche Rollings

PROTOTYPE For Illustrative Purposes Only

First Name Chris Alex Erik Stephnie Angelica Molly Jeffery David Samatha Actual Score 410 512 380 428 415 356 430 322 342 Predicted Score 400 520 383 427 412 350 432 320 346 Difference 10 -8 -3 1 3 6 -2 2 -4 SSGP 95 16 45 67 68 85 48 55 33

(Not actual student names)

Point Summary
Total Difference Point Equivalent 5 59/100 Median SSGP Point Equivalent 55 65/100

Beginning next fall, certain teachers will receive a summary report of student growth on common assessments. Overall growth averaged over two years is classified as Low, Typical, or High.
16

2013 & Beyond Strategic Plan Segmentation Academic Data Warehouse Assessments
Possible Refinements for Next Generation

Community/Stakeholder Input on Targets More Transparent Methodology Clear Focus on Achievement Gap Robust College Readiness Metrics

Common Core Aligned Systems of Assessments

Timely, Relevant, & Accessible Data (ADW 2.0)
17

Systems of Assessments
Summative tests (e.g., MSP) Normed global outcomes benchmarks (e.g., MAP)
IMPLEMENT Instructional strategies and professional development

PLAN Specify goals and focus areas based on data

REPORT Summative performance analysis and data reports

Interim standards-based tests aligned to curriculum map

Screeners/diagnostic tools to identify needs (e.g., SRI) Frequent progress monitoring intervention tools (e.g., DIBELS)

ADJUST/RESPOND Interim curricular planning, regrouping, interventions

MONITOR PROGRESS Interim assessments and progress monitoring tools

18

Focus Areas for 2012-13

Multi-Tier System of Supports & Data-Driven Instruction

Intentional instruction aligned to an explicit standardsbased curriculum map (WA state, CCSS)
Interim assessments aligned to the curriculum map Centrally-coordinated and supported interventions, screeners, and progress monitoring tools

Teacher & Principal Evaluation

Calibration, inter-rater reliability of evaluation rubrics

Student growth measures

19