GREENWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS Greenwich, Connecticut
GREENWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS Greenwich, Connecticut Date of Meeting: Title of Item: June 2, 2011 Progress Report from Success System Update Committee REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION OR PRESENTATION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEM Action Required X Informational Only Submitted By: Ms. Marianna Ponns Cohen and Mr. John P. Curtin I will be present at Board meeting to explain if called upon: X Yes _____ No Synopsis of Proposal: Summary from Ms. Marianna Ponns Cohen will follow via email. Recommended Action (if appropriate): None Greenwich Public Schools Proposed Success System Revisions Progress Report Tasks of the Board of Education Subcommittee Alignment • • • The Success System adopted by the Board of Education in March 2007 was derived from: o the May 2000 Mission and Vision statement, o the framework of Policy Governance as modified by the Greenwich Public Schools (see Policy E-010), and o a balanced scorecard approach measuring both outcomes (student achievement, whole student development) and processes that contribute to those outcomes (alignment of adults, teaching and learning, and resource management) In October 2008, the Board adopted a new Mission Statement. Over the next two years, the administration implemented a data team structure with measures grouped under two broad goals (core knowledge and skills/dispositions) derived from the October 2008 mission. The Success System needs to be revised to align with the new mission and data team structure. Policy E-010 needs to be revised to reflect this alignment. Frame of Reference • • • • The 2010-2011 improvement targets set for the Success System in March 2007 were based on the mean performance of DRG A districts during the 2005-2006 school year. The 2011-2012 targets set in the district improvement plan were based on a projection of reasonable improvement using 2008-2009 results as a baseline. The community continues to focus on District performance relative to DRG A and DRG B districts. We need to decide whether to display results relative to improvement targets or the performance of other districts. If we choose improvement targets, then the improvement targets and improvement cycle need to be aligned between the Success System and District Improvement Plan. Measures • • The measures selected for the Success System in March 2007 were based on data available during the 2005-2006 school year. The measures selected for the Student Achievement Arena clustered around four attributes: 1 June 2, 2011 Greenwich Public Schools Proposed Success System Revisions Progress Report • • o performance of students relative to grade level goals set by the Connecticut State Department of Education, o performance of students in areas not tested by the State, o the gap in performance between students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch and those not qualifying for free or reduced price lunch, and o performance of students at the highest levels. The issue of how to measure the achievement of students relative to their potential was not resolved. Student Achievement measures need to be reviewed and revised to ensure alignment with both the revised Mission Statement and the measures tracked by the District Improvement Plan. Number of Measures • • • • There are forty-seven measures in the current Success System grouped under five arenas. The Student Achievement arena of the Success System contains fourteen measures. Each of these measures is considered a leveraged indicator in that solid performance will “cascade” into other areas. Goal 1 (core knowledge) of the District Improvement Plan contains 60 measures grades K – 12. School Improvement Plans are accountable for each of these measures by level. Should the number of measures in the Success System be reduced? If so, using what criteria? Should the measures included in the Success System be layered into two groups? 2 June 2, 2011 Greenwich Public Schools Proposed Success System Revisions Progress Report Proposed Changes in the Student Achievement and Whole Student Development Arenas • • All test results in the Core Knowledge section of Student Achievement can be benchmarked against districts with student demographics similar to Greenwich (District Reference Group B and District Reference Group A). The benchmark bar indicates whether the district score is lower than the DRG B score (yellow) or between the DRG B and DRG A score (green). The district position on the benchmark bar is represented by the black square. The trend column displays test results over the last five years in a min-max graph. The green dot represents the five year high and the red dot represents the five year low. • The Target 11-12 bar indicates, based on the five year trend of test scores, whether or not the district is on track to meet the three year improvement target set by the Superintendent through the district data team. If the gray bar is in the light blue section of graph, the district is projected to fall short of the target. If the gray bar extends into the dark blue section of the graph, the district is on track to meet or exceed the 2011-2012 target. • The graphic to the left of the measure name indicates improvement priority. Scores that are both trending down and lagging the benchmark are indicated by an orange circle. Scores that are approaching the benchmark and improvement target are indicated by a yellow square. Scores that are projected to exceed the improvement target and meeting or exceeding the benchmark are indicated by a green triangle. • Changes in the Student Achievement: Core Knowledge measures include: o Adding DRP Grade 2 as a measure of reading in the primary grades. o Adding cohort growth measures in reading and mathematics. When eighth grade data is available, cohort will be Grades 3 - 8. . o World Language, Visual Arts and Social Studies Research move from Student Achievement: Core Knowledge to Student Achievement: Skills and Dispositions (currently Whole Student Development). o Free and Reduced Lunch measures are aligned with CMT goal measures along the same scale (higher is better) and benchmarked against DRG B districts rather the state. o The CMT advanced measures align with the CMT measures at goal. o The percentage of graduates with one or more Advanced Placement scores of 3 or better during their high school career mirrors the College Board Equity and 3 June 2, 2011 Greenwich Public Schools Proposed Success System Revisions Progress Report Excellence designation and measures both student performance on AP exams and participation in the AP program. • Changes in Whole Student Development include: o Changing the arena title to Student Achievement: Skills and Dispositions. o The addition of World Language, Visual Arts and Social Studies Research. o The deletion of non-achievement measures including overall student satisfaction, interscholastic athletic and performing music participation, attendance rates and suspension rates. Some of these measures will be included under a new “process” arena called student access to educational opportunities. o Splitting the physical education measure (percentage of students passing all four components of the state physical fitness test) into grade four and grade eight. o The addition of a technology literacy assessment in grades five and eight that measures student performance in areas such as critical thinking and problem solving, creativity and innovation, and research and information fluency. This assessment was administered for the first time this year and is scored on a scale similar to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). 4 June 2, 2011 Greenwich Public Schools Proposed Success System Revisions Progress Report Adopted in May 2000 Mission The mission of the Greenwich Public Schools is to educate all students to their highest level of academic potential and to teach them the skills and knowledge to become capable, creative, and responsible members of society. Vision The Greenwich Public Schools will set the standard for excellence in public education. Adopted in October 2008 Mission It is the Mission of the Greenwich Public Schools • to educate all students to the highest levels of academic achievement; • to enable them to reach and expand their potential; and • to prepare them to become productive, responsible, ethical, creative and compassionate members of society. 5 June 2, 2011 Greenwich Public Schools Success System Student Achievement Measures Proposed Student Achievement: Core Knowledge 09-10 Current 5 Year Trend Target 2011-2012 Target 09-10 Target CMT Reading Gr 3 (Goal) 76% 80% NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN N N NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN N CMT Math Gr 5 (Goal) 87% 86% CMT Writing Gr 8 (Goal) 78% 90% CAPT Science Gr 10 (Goal) 64% 76% Foreign Language Gr 5 (Mean) 3.8 4.2 Visual Arts Gr 5 (Goal) 80% 80% Social Studies Research Gr 10 (Goal) 54% 63% CMT Reading Gr 3-8 (F/R Lunch Gap) 31% 10% CAPT Science Gr 10 (F/R Lunch Gap) 36% 10% SAT 1 Math & Reading Gr 12 (Mean) 1134 1172 CAPT Writing Gr 10 (Goal) 81% 83% CMT Writing Gr 8 (Advanced) 37% 50% CMT Math Gr 8 (Advanced) 52% 53% Advanced Placement (Scores of 3+) 84% 90% Whole Student Development Target 09-10 Target DRP Reading Gr 2 (Goal) 79% CMT Reading Gr 3 (Goal) 76% CMT Math Gr 5 (Goal) 87% 78% 126 CMT Writing Gr 8 (Goal) CMT Math Growth Gr 3 - 7 (VSS) 99 65% CAPT Writing Gr 10 (Goal) 81% SAT Math & Reading Gr 12 (Mean) 1134 CMT Reading Gr 3 - 5 (F/R Lunch Goal) 42% CMT Math Gr 6 - 8 (F/R Lunch Goal) 49% CMT Reading Gr 3 (Advanced) 26% CMT Math Gr 5 (Advanced) 53% CMT Writing Gr 8 (Advanced) 37% AP Graduates (Score of 3+) 37% CMT Reading Growth Gr 3 - 7 (VSS) CAPT Science Gr 10 (Goal) Student Achievement: Skills and Dispositions Foreign Language Gr 5 (Mean) 09-10 80% 54% Social Studies Research Gr 10 (Goal) GPS vs Benchmark 3.3 Visual Arts Gr 5 (Goal) Student Achievement GPS vs Benchmark Physical Fitness Gr 4 (Goal) 72% Physical Fitness Gr 8 (Goal) 65% Technology Literacy Gr 5 (100 - 500) 399 Technology Literacy Gr 8 (100 - 500) 321 Elementary Student Satisfaction 7.9 8.5 Middle School Student Satisfaction 7.7 8.0 High School Student Satisfaction 7.5 7.9 GHS Interscholastic Athletics 51% 46% GHS Performing Music 20% 27% Physical Fitness Scores 69% 61% High School Attendance 93.9% 93.0% Secondary Suspension Rate 4.3% 5.0% Hispanic Secondary Suspension Rate 10.3% 5.0% SPED Secondary Suspension Rate 11.4% 5.0% Trend Target 11-12 NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN N N 05/25/2011 Trend NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN Trend N N N N N NNNNN NNNNN NNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNN NNNNNNN NNNNNNN NNNNNNN
© Copyright 2024