Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Board Special Meeting
2445 – 3rd
Avenue South, Seattle WA 98134
Work Session: District Scorecard/Operations Data Dashboard
Friday, November 6, 2015, 4:30 PM – 6:00 PM Auditorium, John Stanford Center
Agenda Call to Order 4:30pm Work Session: District Scorecard/Operations Data Dashboard
1. District Scorecard – Presentation, District Scorecard Sheet, District Scorecard Data Appendix
2. Operations Data Dashboard – Presentation, Operations Data Dashboard Sheet Adjourn 6:30pm
Photos by Susie Fitzhugh
Seattle Public Schools
2014-15 District Scorecard Eric M. Anderson, Ph.D.
Director, Research, Evaluation & Assessment
2013–2018 STRATEGIC PLAN
2
Three Goals
3
Ensure educational excellence and equity for every student
Improve systems district-wide to support academic outcomes
Strengthen school, family and community engagement
Process to Develop Scorecard
4
Scorecard Targets
5
2014-15 Overall Progress
6
• 2014-15 results generated for 25 of 31 measures
• New baseline established for 10 measures in 2014-15 • 6 measures based on Smarter Balanced • 4 new measures
• Only 15 measures have previously established baseline for reporting progress
• 5 of 15 made positive annual change • 4 of 15 on-track for minimum target • 1 of 15 on-track for stretch target
2014-15
Results
Available
Baseline
Previously
Established
Postive
Annual
Change
On-Track
2017-18
Minimum
Target
On-Track
2017-18
Stretch
Target
25 of 31 15 of 31 5 of 15 4 of 15 1 of 15
Progress Summary
On-Track for Stretch Target + On-Track for Minimum Target
Not On-Track to Meet Targets
Progress tracking not available *** --
Progress Key
Discussion of Results by Category
7
Academic Milestones
8
9
Early Learning Foundations
• Kindergarten readiness based on WaKIDS state assessment • Administered in state-funded all-day kindergarten programs • Results not representative of district student population as a whole • Results expected to improve in future as WaKIDS is increasingly
administered to a broader range of students across the district
• New baseline and targets established in 2014-15 for 3rd grade proficiency • Due to transition to Smarter Balanced assessments
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
Kindergarteners demonstrating readiness to be successful learners -- -- 47.5% -- --
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in Engl ish language arts ** -- -- 62.3% -- --
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics ** -- -- 64.0% -- --
Summary Annual Results
Measure
10
Kindergarteners demonstrating readiness (WaKIDS)
Early Learning Foundations
% Demonstrating readiness in Multiple Domains % Demonstrating readiness by Domain
N %
0 of 6 Domains 76 4.2%
1 of 6 Domains 100 5.5%
2 of 6 Domains 119 6.6%
3 of 6 Domains 129 7.1%
4 of 6 Domains 207 11.4%
5 of 6 Domains 321 17.7%
6 of 6 Domains 862 47.5%
Total 1,814 100.0%
N %
Social-Emotional 1,479 78.9%
Physical 1,512 80.8%
Language 1,404 75.1%
Cognitive 1,440 76.9%
Literacy 1,569 84.2%
Math 1,126 61.0%
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
11
Core Academic Development
• Significant drops in 5th and 8th grade science proficiency • Proficiency declined statewide, but drops in SPS were more pronounced • State science tests in 2014-15 were built from the same item bank as
previous years and equated to insure equivalent cut scores (OSPI) • Shift in curricular emphasis to Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
is possible factor; another possible factor is the angst and emphasis placed on ELA and Math in 2014-15 due to transition to Smarter Balanced
• New baseline and targets established in 2014-15 for 7th grade proficiency • Due to transition to Smarter Balanced assessments
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
5th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science 74.8% 75.6% 71.5% -4.1%
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in Engl ish language arts ** -- -- 62.5% -- --
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics ** -- -- 60.5% -- --
8th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science 75.0% 76.5% 66.5% -10.0%
Summary Annual Results
Measure
12
On-Time Graduation
• Significant annual increase in 9th graders earning sufficient credits • Explained in part by policy to promote 9th graders with insufficient credits
(2013-14 result would have risen to 84.0% if repeat 9th graders excluded) • Another factor is the increase of students entering 9th grade with HS
credits (for example, 66 additional 9th graders entered 9th grade with 0.5 CTE credits from the summer Skills Center program, which targeted entering 9th graders for the first time in the summer of 2014)
Continued on next slide
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
9th graders earning sufficient credits 81.6% 80.5% 87.1% 6.6% +10th graders pass ing a l l s tate exams required for graduation 60.4% 64.0% 58.0% -6.0%
High school s tudents graduating in four years or fewer 70.5% 74.1% 76.3% 2.2%
Summary Annual Results
Measure
13
On-Time Graduation
• Significant decrease in 10th graders passing all state exit exams • Science, ELA, and Math test requirements for graduation in WA State • Students often meet requirements by retaking exit exams in 11th and 12th
grade or state-approved alternatives to earn certificates of achievement • Decline driven by drops in students passing ELA and Science exams:
• EOC Biology proficiency rates declined by 5.3 percentage points • Percentage of students meeting ELA exit exam requirements
declined by 6.7 points with the transition from HSPE to SBA
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
9th graders earning sufficient credits 81.6% 80.5% 87.1% 6.6% +10th graders pass ing a l l s tate exams required for graduation 60.4% 64.0% 58.0% -6.0%
High school s tudents graduating in four years or fewer 70.5% 74.1% 76.3% 2.2%
Summary Annual Results
Measure
14
College & Career Readiness
• Annual increases in students passing algebra and college level courses • Still not on track to meet 2017-18 targets
• Data not available for 11th grade college-ready proficiency
• Due to high refusal/opt-out rates for Smarter Balanced testing • District and school results for 11th grade SBA testing available from the
OSPI Report Card website: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
Students taking and pass ing the dis trict a lgebra course by 8th grade 51.9% 49.5% 50.6% 1.1%
Students taking and pass ing a col lege level course by 12th grade 65.8% 66.9% 67.9% 1.0%
11th graders demonstrating col lege-ready proficiency in Engl ish language arts --
11th graders demonstrating col lege-ready proficiency in mathematics --
Summary Annual Results
Measure
Data not available for this measure *
Data not available for this measure *
15
11th graders demonstrating college-ready proficiency
College & Career Readiness
76.1%80.5%
48.9%52.8%
0.0%
100.0%
English Language Arts Mathematics
Seattle
WA State
% Students with no score reported for 11th grade SBA
Data not available for this measure due to low test participation. See chart below.
Commitment to Equity
16
Note on Reporting our Equity Gaps
17
Seattle Public Schools is committed to closing persistent equity gaps for historically underserved student populations, including students of color, students from low-income families, English language learners, and students with learning disabilities.
To establish a single equity measure for benchmarking annual progress in closing
equity gaps we use the difference in outcomes between the following two student groupings:
• Opportunity Gap students include our African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander students, which historically have had limited access to the opportunities and supports that lead to college, career and life success.
• White and Asian-American students historically have had greater access to the opportunities and supports that lead to college, career and life success.
Commitment to Equity
18
Commitment to Equity
• New baseline established for opportunity gaps in grade level proficiency • Due to transition to Smarter Balanced assessments
• Reported proportionality gap for suspensions continues to improve
• Caution should be exercised when interpreting suspension data due to potential inconsistencies in discipline reporting and actions taken by schools; SPS is committed to improving consistency across the district
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
Opportunity Gap in grade level Engl ish language arts proficiency (3rd-8th grades) ** -- -- 36.8% -- --
Opportunity Gap in grade level mathematics proficiency (3rd-8th grades) ** -- -- 37.5% -- --
Proportional i ty Gap for s tudents in specia l education programs (K-12th) 7.3% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0%
Proportional i ty Gap for secondary s tudents suspended or expel led (6th-12th grades) 10.0% 8.1% 8.3% 0.2%
Students participating in a l icensed pre-school program before kindergarten --
Summary Annual Results
Measure
Data not available for this measure *
19
Students participating in a licensed pre-school program before kindergarten
Equitable Access and Opportunity
• Data not available. Measure cannot be reliably reported • Licensed preschool information not consistently recorded during enrollment • 67% of SPS kindergarteners enrolled in 2014-15 had a value entered in the
“Previous School Information” field in PowerSchool from enrollment forms • However, the PowerSchool field storing this data is not validated, so an unknown
percentage of entries are not actually licensed pre-K programs
• Reliably producing this result would require: • Modified enrollment forms and training for enrollment staff • Validated fields in PowerSchool with links to database of licensed preschools
20
Students receiving instruction in arts/music and physical education (K-12th)
Equitable Access and Opportunity
• Data not available. Measure cannot be reliably reported • Course codes for Arts, music, and physical education are not consistently applied
across the district (especially for elementary schools)
• Reliably producing this result would require: • Teachers must be accurately linked to courses in PowerSchool and teacher
endorsement information must be up to date • Student attendance recorded by subject/course in elementary school
• Findings from 2014 BERC Group study for Creative Advantage initiative
• Arts learning has become a priority for the district and community at large • The initiative increased student access to the arts in 2013-14 in Central Region
(Estimated 1,659 elementary students in the Central Region attended music classes that would not have been available without the initiative)
Effective Teachers & Leaders
21
22
Effective Teachers and Leaders
• Measures cannot be reliably reported for these measures • Data quality issues and business definitions require further resolution • Exploratory data is provided for each measure in the next slides
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
Free/reduced priced meal s tudents taught by a highly effective teacher --
Annual retention rate for highly effective teachers and leaders --
Summary Annual Results
Measure
Data not available for this measure *
Data not available for this measure *
23
Effective Teachers and Leaders
--- EXPLORATORY DATA --- % Courses enrolled in 2014-15 taught by a Distinguished Teacher (on average)
Free/reduced priced meal students taught by a highly effective teacher
35.7%39.2%
27.7%
36.2%
42.6%46.0%
32.0%
44.3%
All Grades Elementary Middle School High School
FRL Students
Non-FRL Students
*Courses taught by teachers who do not have a ranking were excluded from analysis.
24
Effective Teachers and Leaders
--- EXPLORATORY DATA --- Estimated 2015-16 Retention rates of Certificated Nonsupervisory Staff
Number Employed
in 2014-15
Of those employed
in 2014-15, number
employed as of
10/1/2015 Retention Rate
Staff rated Unsatisfactory or Basic 68 59 86.8%
Staff rated Proficient 1655 1500 90.6%
Staff rated Distinguished 1125 1037 92.2%
All certificated staff with a 2014-15 rating 2848 2596 91.2%
Annual retention rate for highly effective teachers and leaders
Positive School Environments
25
26
Positive School Environments
• Increases in student motivation and engagement survey results offset by declines for school climate and professional culture • Lack of historically comparable data complicates trend analysis • Results for individual survey items provided in next slides
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
Pos itive s tudent responses to school cl imate survey -- 60.5% 59.2% -1.3%
Pos itive s tudent responses to motivation and engagement survey -- 73.0% 75.8% 2.8%
Pos itive school s taff responses to profess ional environment survey -- 72.9% 70.7% -2.2%
Summary Annual Results
Measure
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
27
28
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
• Annual decrease in positive responses recorded for family surveys • Lack of historically comparable data complicates trend analysis • Results for individual survey items provided in next slides
• Baseline established for two new survey-based measures
• School leader customer satisfaction with central office departments • Community partner satisfaction with school and central office staff and
district systems and processes to support partner organizations
Targets
2012-13
Baseline
2013-14
Year One
2014-15
Year Two
2014-15
Annual
Change
On Track
to Meet
Target?
Pos itive fami ly responses to fami ly engagement survey -- 71.8% 68.6% -3.2%
Percent of fami l ies responding to fami ly engagement survey -- -- 24.3% -- --
Pos i tive fami ly responses to dis trict satis faction survey -- 39.2% 36.6% -2.6%
Pos itive fami ly responses to school satis faction survey -- 78.0% 76.5% -1.5%
Pos itive school leader responses to customer satis faction survey -- -- 63.8% -- --
Pos i tive community organization responses to partner satis faction survey -- -- 60.7% -- --
Summary Annual Results
Measure
Appendix Data
29
84.6%88.8% 87.4%
74.0%
78.7% 77.7%
52.1%
57.6% 56.3%
72.9%
37.9%
62.3%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
30
3rd graders proficient in Literacy/ELA
Early Learning Foundations
35.0% GAP
Ne
w A
sse
ssm
en
t
Sample Chart
81.2%79.0%
82.6% 84.3%
74.1%70.5%
74.1%76.3%
61.7%
55.9%58.6%
62.1%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
31
High school students graduating in 4 years or fewer
On-Time Graduation
22.2% GAP
Sample Chart
32
Positive School Environments
2013-14 2014-15 Annual Change
I am treated with as much respect as other students 69.3% 73.6% 4.3%
Adults at school care about me 70.1% 69.9% -0.2%
Adults at school treat students fairly 64.3% 63.0% -1.3%
I feel proud of my school 65.7% 65.9% 0.2%
Students in my class(es) are friendly to each other 63.1% 58.1% -5.0%
Students in my class(es) are respectful to adults 56.8% 51.4% -5.4%
Students in my class(es) help each other learn 53.4% 55.2% 1.8%
Students in my class(es) are focused on learning 43.4% 42.8% -0.5%
I feel safe at my school 75.9% 76.0% 0.1%
Adults notice if someone is being bullied at school 48.4% 44.0% -4.5%
Adults at school are able to stop someone from being a bully 55.0% 50.6% -4.5%
Total for All Survey Questions 60.5% 59.2% -1.3%
Positive student responses to school climate survey
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
Sample Table
2014-15 Results
Available
Baseline Previously
Established
Postive Annual Change
On-Track 2017-18
Minimum Target
On-Track 2017-18 Stretch Target
25 of 31 15 of 31 5 of 15 4 of 15 1 of 15
Progress Summary
On-Track for Stretch Target + On-Track for Minimum Target Not On-Track to Meet Targets Progress tracking not available *** --
Progress Key
2012-13 Baseline
2013-14 Year One
2014-15 Year Two
2014-15 Annual Change
2017-18 Minimum
Target
Minimum Target
Average Increment
2017-18 Stretch Target
Stretch Target
Average Increment
On Track to Meet Target?
Kindergarteners demonstrating readiness to be success ful learners -- -- 47.5% -- 56.5% 3.0% 63.3% 5.3% --
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in Engl i sh language arts ** -- -- 62.3% -- 68.3% 2.0% 73.6% 3.8% --
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics ** -- -- 64.0% -- 70.0% 2.0% 74.8% 3.6% --
5th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science 74.8% 75.6% 71.5% -4.1% 82.3% 1.5% 87.4% 2.5% 7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in Engl i sh language arts ** -- -- 62.5% -- 68.5% 2.0% 73.8% 3.8% --
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics ** -- -- 60.5% -- 66.5% 2.0% 72.4% 4.0% --
8th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science 75.0% 76.5% 66.5% -10.0% 82.5% 1.5% 87.5% 2.5% 9th graders earning sufficient credi ts 81.6% 80.5% 87.1% 6.6% 86.6% 1.0% 90.8% 1.8% +10th graders pass ing a l l s tate exams required for graduation 60.4% 64.0% 58.0% -6.0% 67.9% 1.5% 75.2% 3.0% High school s tudents graduating in four years or fewer 70.5% 74.1% 76.3% 2.2% 78.0% 1.5% 85.3% 3.0% Students taking and pass ing the dis trict a lgebra course by 8th grade 51.9% 49.5% 50.6% 1.1% 61.9% 2.0% 71.0% 3.8% Students taking and pass ing a col lege level course by 12th grade 65.8% 66.9% 67.9% 1.0% 73.3% 1.5% 82.9% 3.4% 11th graders demonstrating col lege-ready proficiency in Engl i sh language arts
11th graders demonstrating col lege-ready proficiency in mathematics
Opportunity Gap in grade level Engl i sh language arts proficiency (3rd-8th grades) ** -- -- 36.8% -- 32.3% 1.5% 25.8% 3.7% --
Opportunity Gap in grade level mathematics proficiency (3rd-8th grades) ** -- -- 37.5% -- 33.0% 1.5% 26.3% 3.8% --
Proportional i ty Gap for s tudents in specia l education programs (K-12th) 7.3% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 4.8% 0.5% 3.7% 0.7% Proportional i ty Gap for secondary s tudents suspended or expel led (6th-12th grades) 10.0% 8.1% 8.3% 0.2% 7.5% 0.5% 5.0% 1.0% Students participating in a l i censed pre-school program before kindergarten
Students receiving instruction in arts/mus ic and phys ica l education (K-12th)
Equitable Access Free/reduced priced meal s tudents taught by a highly effective teacher
Annual Retention Annual retention rate for highly effective teachers and leaders
Cl imate/Learning Environment Pos i tive s tudent responses to school cl imate survey -- 60.5% 59.2% -1.3% 68.5% 2.0% 80.3% 4.9% Student Motivation/Engagement Pos i tive s tudent responses to motivation and engagement survey -- 73.0% 75.8% 2.8% 79.0% 1.5% 86.5% 3.4% School Profess ional Envi ronment Pos i tive school s taff responses to profess ional envi ronment survey -- 72.9% 70.7% -2.2% 78.9% 1.5% 86.5% 3.4%
Pos i tive fami ly responses to fami ly engagement survey -- 71.8% 68.6% -3.2% 77.8% 1.5% 85.9% 3.5% Percent of fami l ies responding to fami ly engagement survey -- -- 24.3% -- 30.3% 2.0% 41.0% 5.6% --
Pos i tive fami ly responses to dis trict sati s faction survey -- 39.2% 36.6% -2.6% 51.2% 3.0% 69.6% 7.6% Pos i tive fami ly responses to school sati s faction survey -- 78.0% 76.5% -1.5% 84.0% 1.5% 89.0% 2.8%
Qual i ty Customer Service Pos i tive school leader responses to customer satis faction survey -- -- 63.8% -- 69.8% 2.0% 74.7% 3.6% --
Community Partnerships Pos i tive community organization responses to partner satis faction survey -- -- 60.7% -- 66.7% 2.0% 72.5% 3.9% --
2017-18 Targets
Targets not available for this measure *
Targets not available for this measure *
Targets not available for this measure *
Targets not available for this measure *
Targets not available for this measure *
Targets not available for this measure *
SubcategoryCategory
Summary Annual Results
Measure
Data not available for this measure *
Early Learning Foundations
Core Academic Development
Academic Milestones
On-Time Graduation
Data not available for this measure *
Data not available for this measure *
Data not available for this measure *
Data not available for this measure *
Data not available for this measure *
Proportional i ty Gaps
Opportunity Gaps
Col lege & Career Readiness
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
Fami ly Engagement
Fami ly Satis faction
Effective Teachers and Leaders
Positive School Environments
Commitment to Equity
Equitable Access and Opportunity
2014-15 District Scorecard Dr. Larry Nyland, Superintendent
* See data glossary for explanation of why data and targets are not available for certain measures. * * New baseline and targets established in 2014-15 for proficiency measures based on Smarter Balanced state assessments * * * Progress tracking not available for measures without a baseline result from a previous year
District Result
Statewide Result
Difference Compared
to State
District Result
Statewide Result
Difference Compared
to State
District Result
Statewide Result
Difference Compared
to State
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in Engl i sh language arts 62.3% 52.1% 10.2% 20.5% 19.2% 1.3% 44.5% 26.7% 17.8%
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics 64.0% 56.7% 7.3% 31.5% 28.7% 2.8% 42.9% 29.3% 13.6%
5th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science 71.5% 63.4% 8.1% 24.4% 21.5% 2.9% 43.8% 35.5% 8.3%
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in Engl i sh language arts 62.5% 56.9% 5.6% 14.4% 9.8% 4.6% 28.5% 17.8% 10.7%
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics 60.5% 48.0% 12.5% 26.7% 10.2% 16.5% 26.8% 12.9% 13.9%
8th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science 66.5% 60.7% 5.8% 22.1% 11.9% 10.2% 36.7% 24.1% 12.6%
9th graders earning sufficient credi ts 87.1% n/a -- 73.2% n/a -- 76.1% n/a --
10th graders pass ing a l l s tate exams required for graduation 58.0% n/a -- 11.9% n/a -- 25.8% n/a --
High school s tudents graduating in four years or fewer 76.3% n/a -- 47.4% n/a -- 55.0% n/a --
Students taking and pass ing the dis trict a lgebra course by 8th grade 50.6% n/a -- 13.6% n/a -- 14.1% n/a --
Students taking and pass ing a col lege level course by 12th grade 67.9% n/a -- 23.8% n/a -- 29.2% n/a --
Grade level Engl i sh language arts proficiency (3rd-8th grades) 63.4% n/a -- 18.7% n/a -- 37.8% n/a --
Grade level mathematics proficiency (3rd-8th grades) 60.0% n/a -- 25.4% n/a -- 32.5% n/a --
Students in specia l education programs (K-12th) 13.1% n/a -- 17.3% n/a -- 100.0% n/a --
Secondary s tudents suspended or expel led (6th-12th grades) 5.6% n/a -- 8.7% n/a -- 12.9% n/a --
ALL STUDENTS English Language Learners Special Education
Category Subcategory Measure
Commitment to Equity
Opportunity Gaps
Proportional i ty Gaps
Academic Milestones
Core Academic Development
On-Time Graduation
Col lege & Career Readiness
All Students
African American
(East African)
African American (English)
Asian American
Hispanic/ Latino
Multi-Racial
Native American
Pacific Islander
White
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in Engl i sh language arts 62.3% 29.6% 36.5% 58.8% 43.4% 65.2% 39.1% 33.3% 76.6%
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics 64.0% 36.1% 38.9% 70.3% 44.5% 66.5% 47.8% 33.3% 75.1%
5th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science 71.5% 32.1% 38.7% 72.2% 55.0% 75.2% 37.8% 31.6% 88.0%
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in Engl i sh language arts 62.5% 27.3% 35.8% 71.7% 46.7% 61.2% 36.7% 38.9% 75.8%
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics 60.5% 28.6% 34.5% 74.8% 40.6% 58.0% 25.8% 22.2% 73.2%
8th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science 66.5% 29.1% 37.2% 76.0% 48.3% 66.8% 43.8% 52.6% 80.5%
9th graders earning sufficient credi ts 87.1% 81.2% 74.3% 93.0% 76.4% 87.5% 67.6% 76.5% 92.0%
10th graders pass ing a l l s tate exams required for graduation 58.0% 27.0% 33.9% 67.0% 42.6% 69.3% 28.2% 53.8% 70.7%
High school s tudents graduating in four years or fewer 76.3% 69.2% 63.9% 83.4% 57.9% 72.7% 51.5% 75.0% 84.7%
Students taking and pass ing the dis trict a lgebra course by 8th grade 50.6% 18.3% 26.0% 60.4% 26.6% 50.8% 29.4% 10.0% 64.7%
Students taking and pass ing a col lege level course by 12th grade 67.9% 51.0% 49.9% 70.9% 53.9% 70.7% 51.4% 46.2% 80.3%
Grade level Engl i sh language arts proficiency (3rd-8th grades) 63.4% 29.8% 34.7% 69.0% 46.1% 67.1% 32.7% 32.1% 77.0%
Grade level mathematics proficiency (3rd-8th grades) 60.0% 30.8% 29.7% 70.4% 40.5% 62.7% 31.6% 29.2% 72.3%
Students in specia l education programs (K-12th) 13.1% 9.9% 22.9% 8.4% 18.2% 11.3% 32.0% 10.7% 11.7%
Secondary s tudents suspended or expel led (6th-12th grades) 5.6% 9.4% 16.0% 2.5% 7.8% 5.3% 9.8% 10.7% 2.9%
Category Subcategory Measure
District Results by Race/Ethnicity
Commitment to Equity
Opportunity Gaps
Proportional i ty Gaps
Academic Milestones
Core Academic Development
On-Time Graduation
Col lege & Career Readiness
2014-15 District Scorecard Disaggregated Student Outcomes
District Scorecard Glossary of Terms
Category Subcategory Measure Definition
Academic Milestones
Early Learning Foundations Kindergarteners demonstrating readiness to be successful learners
Of kindergarten students who were tested in all six domains of the Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS) assessment in the fall of their kindergarten year, the percentage who demonstrated characteristics of entering kindergarteners in all six domains. More information about the WaKIDS assessment can be found here: http://www.k12.wa.us/wakids/
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in English language arts Washington students are tested regularly by the state to assess their progress as they move through school. State tests include Smarter Balanced assessments (SBA) for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics and the Measurements of Student Progress (MSP) for science. For each test and grade level listed, the percent of students demonstrating grade level proficiency is equal to the number of students who earned passing scores (based on the cutoff the state defines as “meeting standard”) divided by the total number of students required to take the test (not including students with valid exemptions). Grade levels are students’ grades as of June 1 of the testing year.
3rd graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics
Core Academic Development 5th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in English language arts
7th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in mathematics
8th graders demonstrating grade level proficiency in science
On-Time Graduation 9th graders earning sufficient credits This measure is calculated by dividing the number of 9th grade students who earned at least 5 credits
during the school year by the total number of 9th graders.
10th graders passing all state exams required for graduation
Of students who were in 10th grade as of June 1, the percentage that have passed all state tests or state-approved alternatives to testing required for graduation in the areas of math, English language arts, and science. For more information about testing requirements for graduation see: http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspx
High school students graduating in four years or fewer
The percentage of students who graduate within 4 years as determined by their ‘Class Of’ or ‘cohort’ year, which is set when students first enter 9th grade. It is calculated by dividing the number of students who graduated within 4 years (or the ‘on time’ cohort) by the total number of students in each high school cohort of the given reporting year. (Students who transfer out of the district are not included in the total number.)
College & Career Readiness Students taking and passing the district algebra course by 8th grade Of students who were in 8th grade as of June 1, the percentage who took and passed Algebra 1B in any
year during middle school.
Students taking and passing a college level course by 12th grade Of students who were in 12th grade on June 1, the percentage who received a passing grade in one or more of the following types of courses in any year during high school: Advanced Placement (AP), International baccalaureate (IB), Running Start, and College in High School.
11th graders demonstrating college and career readiness in English language arts No baseline figure is produced on the District Scorecard due to low participation rates on the 11th grade Smarter Balanced state assessment in 2014-15. This measure should be available in future years after these assessments become graduation requirements and participation rates increase. Results for 11th grade state assessments are reported for each school and the district as a whole on OSPI’s Washington State Report Card website and on SPS School Reports (available in December 2015).
11th graders demonstrating college and career readiness in mathematics
District Scorecard Glossary of Terms
Category Subcategory Measure Definition
Commitment to Equity
Opportunity Gaps
Opportunity Gap in grade level English language arts proficiency (3rd-8th grades)
To establish a single equity measure to benchmark our annual progress in closing opportunity and proportionality gaps, we use the difference in outcomes between the following two student groups:
• Opportunity Gap Students — African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander students — belong to historically underserved race/ethnic groups that have had limited access to the opportunities and supports that lead to college, career and life success.
• White and Asian-American students belong to race/ethnic groups that historically have had greater access to the opportunities and support that lead to college, career and life success.
Opportunity gaps in math and English language arts are based on combined average proficiency rates on state assessments for students in 3rd through 8th grade on June 1 of the reporting year. The opportunity gap measure is the aggregate proficiency rate for White and Asian students minus the aggregate proficiency rate for students belonging to an Opportunity Gap race/ethnicity (as defined above).
Opportunity Gap in grade level mathematics proficiency (3rd-8th grades)
Proportionality Gaps Proportionality Gap for students in special education programs (K-12th)
The percentage of students served by special education programs. The Proportionality Gap measure is the percentage for students with Opportunity Gap race/ethnicities minus the percentage for White or Asian students. (See above for definition of students included as Opportunity Gap ethnicities.)
Proportionality Gap for students suspended or expelled (6th-12th grades)
Of students who were in 6th to 12th grade on June 1, the percentage who were suspended or expelled (suspensions include in-school suspensions). The Proportionality Gap measure is this percentage for students with Opportunity Gap race/ethnicities minus this percentage for White or Asian students. (See above for definition of students included as Opportunity Gap ethnicities.)
Equitable Access and Opportunity
Students participating in a licensed pre-school program before kindergarten
No baseline figure was calculated this year, as business rules and data quality issues are being thoroughly reviewed to ensure accuracy and consistency in annual reporting.
Students receiving instruction in arts/music and physical education (K-12th)
Effective Teachers and Leaders
Equitable Access Free/reduced priced meal students taught by a highly effective teacher
Annual Retention Annual retention rate for highly effective teachers and leaders
Positive School Environments
Climate/Learning Environment Positive student responses to school climate survey The district administers annual climate surveys to all students, staff and families during the second
semester of each reporting year. All students and staff take a paper survey in school whereas families are surveyed by phone or e-mail through the district School Messenger system. Each survey-based category represents the average positive responses for a subset of questions. The specific questions used for each measure are provided in the Appendix attached to the District Scorecard. Detailed climate survey results for each school including additional survey questions can be found at the School Reports web page: www.seattleschools.org /district/district_scorecards The percent of families responding to family engagement survey: Of households receiving a family survey through School Messenger, the percentage who responded to a survey for at least one student. The district also administers an annual customer satisfaction survey to school leaders (principals and assistant principals) and an annual community partner survey to direct service providers with formal contracts or memoranda of understanding through the Community Alignment Initiative or the School and Community Partnership Department.
Student Motivation/ Engagement Positive student responses to motivation and engagement survey
School Professional Environment Positive school staff responses to professional environment survey
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
Family Engagement Positive family responses to family engagement survey
Percent of families responding to family engagement survey Family Satisfaction Positive family responses to district satisfaction survey
Positive family responses to school satisfaction survey Quality Customer Service Positive school leader responses to customer satisfaction survey
Community Partnerships Positive community organization responses to partner satisfaction survey
Photos by Susie Fitzhugh
2014-15 District Scorecard Data Appendix
Note on Reporting our Equity Gaps
2
Seattle Public Schools is committed to closing persistent equity gaps for historically underserved student populations, including students of color, students from low-income families, English language learners, and students with learning disabilities. To establish a single equity measure for benchmarking annual progress in closing equity gaps we use the difference in outcomes between the following two student groupings:
• Opportunity Gap students include our African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander students, which historically have had limited access to the opportunities and supports that lead to college, career and life success.
• White and Asian-American students historically have had greater access to the opportunities and supports that lead to college, career and life success.
Part 1. Trend Charts for Student Outcome Measures
3
84.6%88.8% 87.4%
74.0%78.7% 77.7%
52.1%57.6% 56.3%
72.9%
37.9%
62.3%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
4
3rd graders proficient in Literacy/ELA
Early Learning Foundations
35.0% GAP
New
Ass
essm
ent
83.7% 84.3% 83.4%
70.7%73.8% 72.3%
44.3%
50.4% 48.2%
74.1%
40.6%
64.0%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
5
3rd graders proficient in Mathematics
Early Learning Foundations
33.5% GAP
New
Ass
essm
ent
85.4% 86.7% 87.5%84.1%
72.5% 74.8% 75.6%71.5%
45.4%50.1% 49.5%
43.9%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
6
5th graders proficient in Science
Core Academic Development
40.2% GAP
84.7% 83.8% 85.4%
74.6% 74.2% 74.7%
56.1%53.7% 53.7%
74.7%
38.5%
62.5%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
7
7th graders proficient in Literacy/ELA
Core Academic Development
36.2% GAP
New
Ass
essm
ent
79.8%83.6% 83.2%
67.4%71.6% 70.0%
44.5% 45.8%42.9%
73.6%
35.1%
60.5%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
8
7th graders proficient in Mathematics
38.5% GAP
New
Ass
essm
ent
Core Academic Development
86.3% 87.3% 88.4%
79.2%
74.8% 75.0% 76.5%
66.5%
53.0% 52.4% 50.4%
40.4%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
9
8th graders proficient in Science
Core Academic Development
38.8% GAP
89.3% 88.2% 87.7%92.3%
81.1% 81.6% 80.5%
87.1%
68.0% 70.3% 69.5%
76.4%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
10
9th graders earning sufficient credits
15.9% GAP
On-Time Graduation
76.1%72.1%
75.4%
69.5%
62.5% 60.4%64.0%
58.0%
37.8% 39.1%41.7%
35.9%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
11
10th graders passing all state exams for graduation
33.6% GAP
On-Time Graduation
81.2% 79.0%82.6% 84.3%
74.1%70.5%
74.1% 76.3%
61.7%55.9%
58.6%62.1%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
12
High school students graduating in 4 years or fewer
On-Time Graduation
22.2% GAP
52.0%
63.3% 60.9% 63.4%
41.2%
51.9% 49.5% 50.6%
21.0%
31.2%25.7% 24.4%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
13
Students passing algebra course by 8th grade
39.0% GAP
College & Career Readiness
72.0%74.9% 76.2% 77.0%
63.1% 65.8% 66.9% 67.9%
46.5% 48.5% 49.0% 51.3%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
14
Students passing a college level course by 12th grade
25.7% GAP
College & Career Readiness
84.1%86.6% 86.4%
74.0%77.2% 76.7%
53.8%57.5% 56.1%
75.0%
38.2%
63.4%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
15
Grade level Literacy/ELA proficiency (3rd-8th)
Opportunity Gaps
36.8% GAP
New
Ass
essm
ent
Opportunity Gap measure reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
81.0% 82.7% 83.0%
68.1%70.8% 71.3%
42.8%46.4% 46.6%
71.8%
34.3%
60.0%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
White and Asian students
All students
Opportunity gap students
16
Grade level Mathematics proficiency (3rd-8th)
37.5% GAP
New
Ass
essm
ent
Opportunity Gaps
Opportunity Gap measure reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
17.5% 17.7% 17.7% 18.0%
12.7% 12.8% 12.9% 13.1%
10.2% 10.4% 10.6% 10.9%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Opportunity gap students
All students
White and Asian students
17
Students in a special education (K-12th)
Proportionality Gaps
7.1% GAP
Proportionality Gap measure reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
14.7%13.7%
11.6% 11.1%
8.4%7.5%
6.4%5.6%
4.6%3.7% 3.5%
2.8%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Opportunity gap students
All students
White and Asian students
18
Students suspended or expelled (6th-12th)
Proportionality Gaps
8.3% GAP
Proportionality Gap measure reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
Part 2. Detailed Results for Survey-Based Measures
19
20
Positive School Environments
2013-14 2014-15 Annual ChangeI am treated with as much respect as other students 69.3% 73.6% 4.3%
Adults at school care about me 70.1% 69.9% -0.2%Adults at school treat students fairly 64.3% 63.0% -1.3%
I feel proud of my school 65.7% 65.9% 0.2%Students in my class(es) are friendly to each other 63.1% 58.1% -5.0%
Students in my class(es) are respectful to adults 56.8% 51.4% -5.4%Students in my class(es) help each other learn 53.4% 55.2% 1.8%
Students in my class(es) are focused on learning 43.4% 42.8% -0.5%I feel safe at my school 75.9% 76.0% 0.1%
Adults notice if someone is being bullied at school 48.4% 44.0% -4.5%Adults at school are able to stop someone from being a bully 55.0% 50.6% -4.5%
Total for All Survey Questions 60.5% 59.2% -1.3%
Positive student responses to school climate survey
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
2013-14 2014-15 Annual ChangeI enjoy going to school most days 57.0% 60.4% 3.4%
I work hard at school 81.0% 84.4% 3.4%I complete my schoolwork regularly 75.8% 77.7% 1.9%
I am good at staying focused on my goals 69.0% 71.0% 2.0%I finish whatever I begin 62.7% 62.8% 0.1%
I can do almost all the work in class if I don't give up 80.6% 87.7% 7.1%What we do in school will help me succeed in life 71.0% 72.8% 1.8%
How smart I am is something that I can change 75.5% 78.0% 2.5%It's important to me that I improve my skills this year 85.3% 87.6% 2.3%
Total for All Survey Questions 73.0% 75.8% 2.8%
21
Positive School Environments
Positive student responses to motivation and engagement survey
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
2013-14 2014-15 Annual ChangeThe school does a good job sharing information about my child's academic progress 71.5% 65.8% -5.7%
The school is responsive to the input and concerns of families 65.3% 62.4% -2.9%I am greeted warmly when I call or visit the school 75.9% 75.8% -0.1%
My home culture and home language are valued by the school 70.7% 69.2% -1.5%I know what my child will learn this year at school 69.1% 61.9% -7.2%
I feel confident discussing my child's education with teachers at school 81.9% 79.6% -2.3%The school reaches out to families when decisions important to families need to be made 67.6% 65.4% -2.2%
Total for All Survey Questions 71.8% 68.6% -3.2%
22
Positive family responses to family engagement survey
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
2013-14 2014-15 Annual ChangeThe district central office is responsive to the input and concerns of families 27.9% 26.0% -1.9%
It is easy to find useful information on the district website 39.8% 33.6% -6.2%The district reaches out to parents when decisions important to families need to be made 48.9% 49.4% 0.5%
Total for All Survey Questions 39.2% 36.6% -2.6%
23
Positive family responses to district satisfaction survey
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
2013-14 2014-15 Annual ChangeAdults at school care a lot about my child's academic success and personal well being 83.0% 81.1% -1.9%
My child is treated with as much respect as other students 85.7% 83.1% -2.6%Adults at school are knowledgeable and respectful of different cultures and races 75.6% 74.1% -1.5%
I feel my child is safe at school 80.8% 82.0% 1.2%The school is preparing my child well for the future 73.8% 72.3% -1.5%
Teachers at my school know how to meet the specific learning needs of my child 68.4% 66.3% -2.1%Total for All Survey Questions 78.0% 76.5% -1.5%
24
Positive family responses to school satisfaction survey
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
2013-14 2014-15 Annual ChangeMy school receives effective responsive customer service from the _____ department -- 69.8% --
District systems and processes for _____ are clear and well managed by central office -- 59.4% --My school receives useful information and/or training from the _____ department -- 60.3% --
Total for All Survey Questions -- 63.8% --
25
Positive school leader responses to customer satisfaction survey **
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
** Scorecard reports summary of responses about all central office departments combined; results for individual central office departments available upon request.
2013-14 2014-15 Annual ChangePositive and productive interactions with district central office -- 73.8% --
Positive and productive interactions with school staff -- 69.0% --Effective systems and processes to support community partnerships -- 46.7% --
Total for All Survey Questions -- 60.7% --
26
Positive community organization responses to partner satisfaction survey **
Result reported on Scorecard for 2014-15
Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction
** Results reported by question category; results for individual survey questions available upon request.
2014-2015 District Annual Operations Data Dashboard
November 6, 2015
1
Dr. Larry Nyland Superintendent
Background
2
Why are we here?
• The district annual operations data dashboard (DAODD) is mandated by Policy No. 1010 – Board Oversight of Management. The policy goals are:
– Evaluate each oversight area’s implementation plans, goals and objectives.
– Enable the board to perform appropriate oversight of management of each oversight area by monitoring progress toward performance indicators.
– Ensure the district has qualified personnel overseeing its programs.
– Ensure compliance with state law and board policies and procedures.
• Policy No. 1010 states that the board will develop and use a district annual operations data dashboard for monitoring all oversight areas, which shall be separate from and in addition to the district academic scorecard.
• The operations data dashboard consists of a limited number of carefully selected indicators that communicate the operational health of the district. The dashboard shall include key performance indicators for each Oversight Area
• District annual operations data dashboard is one of the tools mandated by Policy No. 1010. This policy also identifies other ways the School Board is able to maintain management oversight including Oversight Work Sessions, Committees, receiving monthly financial statements, internal audit reports, other annual program oversight and performance reports, and others.
3
Planned Improvements & Summary of Changes
What is on the horizon?
• Staff intended to propose an updated 2014-2015 operations data dashboard by April 2015 including determining whether metrics should be updated or revised to provide a better sense of the district’s operational health and to be consistent with priorities identified in the strategic plan and school board goals.
• Due to different priorities, this work was not accomplished for the 2014-2015 Operations scorecard
• For the 2015-2016 operations data dashboard, Staff intend to propose an updated operations data dashboard in March-April. Staff will discuss the process and timeline for going forward with the new executive committee in Dec/Jan
4
Summary of Changes in the 2014-15 Operations Data Dashboard
• One new performance metric was added in the High Performing Staff section, metric 3, Principal leadership metric.
• One metric definition was modified slightly in the Fiscal Integrity section regarding audit findings.
Operations data dashboard goals
Number of metrics
2013-2014 2014-2015
Goal 1. High Performing Staff 8 9 • 1 new metric (1)
Goal 2. Community Support 6 6
Goal 3. Fiscal Integrity 8 8 • 1 metric modified (2)
Goal 4. Efficient Processes (3) 13 13
Total 35 36
Notes: (1): Metric 3: 'Principal leadership metric’, part of the Center for Excellence Education CEE principal leadership survey, to assess the effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors, aligned to the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) leadership framework adopted statewide for principal evaluation. Target was defined as a 2% yearly increase from baseline (2013-2014). (2): Metric 20: Only change is to remove the word “state”. Original metric name: ‘Audit findings resolved as determined by subsequent state audits’. The new metric’s name: ‘Audit findings resolved as determined by subsequent audits’. The District’s new Audit Response Manager feels the consolidated measure address the core of the issue: How timely the district closes out audit issues. (3): There are two metrics with two parts: 26.1 and 26.2 Percent of emergency and high priority facility work orders completed on time and 30.1 and 30.2 Percent of Breakfast and Lunch Participation
2014-2015 Results Highlights
5
• The results highlighted in the operations data dashboard show that the district did not hit the majority of its targets. Staff are currently assessing the results to develop an understanding of why targets were not met (identify root causes).
• In preparation for this process, staff, new to the process, observed that a data dictionary that explains methodology for how metrics were calculated does not exist nor a summary of the strategies intended to achieve the targeted outcomes. Staff will be working to develop a data dictionary over the next few months.
• Several leaders expressed a desire to strengthen the processes and measures used to identify the operational health of the district.
Progress Summary
2014 - 2015 results available 36 of 36 100%
Baseline and target previously established
35 of 36 (a) 97%
Positive annual change(b) 21 of 35 60%
On target 14 of 35 40%
Did not achieve target 21 of 35 60%
Notes: (a): Baseline was not previously established for metric number 3 (new), Principal leadership metric under Goal 1: High performing staff (b): It includes the metrics that have a positive change (towards target), even if it did not achieve the target value. It also include metrics values that were the same as last year, in the case where the target was achieved.
Goal 1. High Performing Staff
6
Nbr Performance Measure 09-10 Actual
10-11 Actual
11-12 Actual
12-13 Actual
13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
1 Percent of school leaders returning to their schools
Brent Jones N/A 83% 79% 75% 72% 76% 75% - 85% 4.0%
2 Percent of principals' evaluations completed on time
Brent Jones N/A 41% 81% 100% 93% 99.5% 100% 6.50%
3 Principal leadership metric (a) (b)
Michael Tolley, Brent Jones New metric, 2014-2015 will be baseline data and
target will be defined for 2015-16 62.8% (a) N/A (b)
4 Five year retention rate of teachers
Brent Jones 69% 70% 74% 72% 70% 63% 75% -7.0%
5 Percent of teachers' evaluations completed on time
Michael Tolley, Brent Jones N/A 81% 91% 96% 95% 97.1% 100% 2.10%
Notes: (a): This is a metric created in 2013-2014, part of the Center for Excellence Education CEE principal leadership survey, to assess the effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors, aligned to the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) leadership framework adopted statewide for principal evaluation. The summary overall % positive responses for 2014-2015 was 62.8%. (b): This is a new metric reported for 2014-2015, baseline will be established in 2014-2015 (62.8%) and target in 2015-2016. No 2014-2015 target.
7
Nbr Performance Measure 09-10 Actual
10-11 Actual
11-12 Actual
12-13 Actual
13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
6
Percent of positive responses from staff indicating that they have access to strategies and materials to support all learners in our classes (c)
Michael Tolley
60.3% 61.5% 72.0% 65.3% 56.1% 61.5% 75.0% 5.4%
7 Percent of lost instructional days due to teacher absences (d) (e)
Brent Jones 3.3% 3.1% 3.0% 3.1% 7.0% 3.4% 2.7% 3.6%
8 Annual retention rate for central office employees
Brent Jones 91% 92% 90% 74% 88% 76% 90%
-12.0%
9 Percent of central office evaluations completed on time
Brent Jones 57% N/A 90% 96% 72% 94% (1) 100% 22.0%
Goal 1. High Performing Staff
Notes: (c): Data is collected from the climate survey administered every year to all teachers (d): A lower number indicates better performance or result (e): Percent of lost instructional days due to teacher absences is calculated as the annual average of daily sick leave requested through the substitute office divided by the number of certificated staff (1): Preliminary data
Goal 2. Community Support
8
Nbr Performance Measure Actual 13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
10
Percent of positive responses “The school is preparing my child well for the future” (f) (g)
Michael Tolley
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014
Target was established in 2014-2015 73.9% 72.3%
75.9%
(r): -1.6%
11
Percent of families indicating that teachers know how to meet the specific learning needs of their child (f) (g)
Michael Tolley
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014
Target was established in 2014-2015 68.4% 66.3%
70.4%
(r): -2.1%
12 Positive family responses to family engagement survey
Bernardo Ruiz
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014
Target was established in 2014-2015 71.8% 68.6%
73.8%
(r): -3.2%
Notes: (f): New metric for 2013-2014, part of the Center for Excellence Education CEE principal leadership survey, used to help assess the effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors. The survey questions are aligned to the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) leadership framework adopted statewide for principal evaluation. (g): Part of climate survey (r): Targets were defined as a 2% yearly increase from 2013-2014 baseline .
Goal 2. Community Support
9
Nbr Performance Measure 09-10 Actual
10-11 Actual
11-12 Actual
12-13 Actual
13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
13
Schools meeting their objectives as outlined in their Family Engagement Action Team plan
Bernardo Ruiz
83.8% (31 of 37)
85.4% (35 of 41)
95.1% (39 of 41)
95.3% (41 of 43)
93% (43 of 46)
89%
(41 of 46) (i)
100% -4.0%
14
The district central office is responsive to the input and concerns of families (j) (k) (r)
Charles Wright
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014
Target was established in 2014-2015 27.9% 26.0% (d)
29.9%
(r) -1.9%
15 Percent of students responding that they feel safe in a school (r)
Pegi McEvoy
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014
Target was established in 2014-2015 75.9% 76.0%
77.9%
(r): 0.1%
Notes: (i): For 2014-2015, 41 (89%) of the 46 FEAT schools met their Family Engagement Team plan objectives . We did not meet our 100% target because we added two schools from for the 2014-2015 school year as we lost a staff member whom we reassigned to support families of children with special needs. (j): Metric 14 was developed in 2013-2014, part of the Center for Excellence Education CEE principal leadership survey, used to help assess the effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors. The survey questions are aligned to the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) leadership framework adopted statewide for principal evaluation. (k): Result based on responses to the following survey item on the our annual family climate survey: The district central office is responsive to the input and concerns of families. For 2014-2015: total responses = 7,698; total positive responses = 2,000; Percent positive responses = 26.0% (r): Targets were defined as a 2% yearly increase from 2013-2014 baseline.
Goal 3. Fiscal Integrity
10
Nbr Performance Measure 09-10 Actual
10-11 Actual
11-12 Actual
12-13 Actual
13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
16 Percent of budget spent on instruction
Ken Gotsch 77.8% 77.2% 77.8% 77.4% 77.6% 78.0% 80.5% 0.4%
17 Percent of Fund Balance - General Fund
Ken Gotsch 4.1% 4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 4.1% 4.4% 3.3% 0.3%
18 Central office administration as a percent of total expenditures (d)
Ken Gotsch 8.9% 7.1% 5.8% 6.0% 5.8% 6.4% 5.7% 0.6%
19 Percent of Prior Years' Audit issues resolved
Ken Gotsch N/A 96.0% 89.0% 89.0% 81.0% 62.5% 100.0% -18.5%
20
Audit findings resolved as determined by subsequent audits (2) (3)
Ken Gotsch
25.0%
(1.5 of 6)
79.2%
(9.5 of 12)
64%
(4.5 of 7)
64.0% 86.0% 73.0% 100.0% -13.0%
Notes: (d): A lower number indicates better performance or result (2): Metric 20: Only change is to remove the word “state”. Original metric name: ‘Audit findings resolved as determined by subsequent state audits’. The new metric’s name: ‘Audit findings resolved as determined by subsequent audits’. The District’s new Audit Response Manager feels the consolidated measure address the core of the issue: How timely the district closes out audit issues. (3): Metric 20 definition: Audit issues include all Financial, Federal, Accountability, Performance, and Investigative findings as measured by Audit Reports issued by the State Auditor's Office (SAO) and by the Seattle Public Schools internal auditor. Per Audit Standards the District must report on the status of prior audit findings. The data comes from the Audit Log prepared by the Audit Response Manager.
Goal 3. Fiscal Integrity
11
Nbr Performance Measure 09-10 Actual
10-11 Actual
11-12 Actual
12-13 Actual
13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
21 Strategic sourcing as a percent of total spend
Ken Gotsch 6.3% 8.0% 18.0% 16.0% 17% 21.6% 21.0% 4.6%
22
Standard & Poor's non-tax vs tax; Moody's non-tax vs tax bond ratings
Ken Gotsch
AA/AA+ Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+ Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+ Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+ Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+ Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+ Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+ Aa1/Aaa
23 OSPI Financial Indicator Index - Below 1.5 is "Financial Warning“
Ken Gotsch 3.00 3.00 3.40 2.85 3.25 3.25 2.50
Goal 4. Efficient Processes
12
Nbr Performance Measure 09-10 Actual
10-11 Actual
11-12 Actual
12-13 Actual
13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
24 Percent of teacher vacancy on 1st day of school (g) (l)
Brent Jones
1.6% (45 p)
1.4% (39 p)
1.7% (48 p)
1.4% (39.5 p)
3.1% (89.9 p)
2.4% (77 p)
1.4% 0.7%
25
Percent of schools with comprehensive safety inspection completed
Pegi McEvoy
N/A 25.8% 23% (m) 100% (n) 100% 100.0% 85.0%
26.1 Percent of emergency facility work orders completed on time
Flip Herndon N/A 92.6% 96.6% 98.6% 99.0% 99.9% 98.0% 0.9%
26.2 Percent of high priority facility work orders completed on time
Flip Herndon 68.8% 73.7% 76.6% 80.0% 84.6% 82.0% 4.6%
27 Percent of capital projects on schedule and on budget
Flip Herndon 100% 96.7% 95.9% 95.7% 88.2% 81.0% 95.0% -7.2%
Notes: (g): A lower number indicates better performance or result (l): p: number of positions (m): Safety Inspection timeline moved to school year instead of summer (n): In 2012-2013, a comprehensive security audit was completed in place of the general safety inspections of the prior years.
13
Nbr Performance Measure
09-10 Actual
10-11 Actual
11-12 Actual
12-13 Actual
13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
28
Percent of students enrolled prior to 1st day of school
Flip Herndon
N/A 93.4% 96.8% 99.2% 96.3% 98.8% 97.0% 2.5%
29
Accuracy of District enrollment projection
Flip Herndon
99.0% 98.6% 98.9% 99.2% 99.65% 99.30% 99.20% -0.35%
30.1
Breakfast participation (o) (p)
Pegi McEvoy
Breakfast 15.9% (o)
Free: 33.7%(p) Redcd: 27.6%
Paid: 3.3%
Breakfast 15.2% (o)
Free: 32.6%(p) Redcd: 25.8%
Paid : 2.9%
Breakfast 14.9% (o)
Free: 32.2%(p) Redcd: 24.9%
Paid: 2.8%
Breakfast 13.8%(o)
Free: 30.7%(p) Redcd: 23% Paid: 2.4%
Breakfast 12.4% (o)
Free: 28.4%(p) Redcd: 21.7%
Paid: 2.1%
Breakfast 12.1% (o)
Free: 28.7%(p), Redcd: 21.0%,
Paid: 2.4%
Breakfast 15.1%
-0.30%
30.2 Lunch Participation (o) (p)
Pegi McEvoy
Lunch 41.5%(a)
Free: 69.6%(b) Redcd: 67.9% Paid: 20.6%
Lunch 40.4%(a)
Free: 69.7%(b) Redcd: 67.6% Paid: 18.3%
Lunch 39.0%(a)
Free: 69.0%(b) Redcd: 66.0% Paid : 16.8%
Lunch 36.6%(a)
Free: 66.8%(b) Redcd: 63.8%
Paid:14.8%
Lunch 34.4%(a)
Free: 64.3%(b)
Redcd: 63.7% Paid: 13.9%
Lunch 32.6%
Free: 62.8%, Redcd: 59.9%,
Paid: 13.8%
Lunch 40%
-1.80%
Notes: (o): Percentage of total enrolled students had breakfast or lunch in school (p): Percentages of all students who qualify for free, reduced (Redcd) or paid meals that had breakfast or lunch in school. For example in 13-14 SY, of all students that qualify for free meals, 28.4% had breakfast in school.
Goal 4. Efficient Processes
14
Nbr Performance Measure 09-10 Actual
10-11 Actual
11-12 Actual
12-13 Actual
13-14 Actual
14-15 Actual
Target Annual change
Achieve target?
31
Safe driving - Miles driven between accidents (q)
Pegi McEvoy
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014
Target was established in 2014-2015 63,430 79,063 72,000 15,633
32
Technology Help Desk first contact resolution rate
Carmen Rahm
73.0% 78.2% 76.5% 72.6% 73.9% 76.0% 70.0% 2.1%
33
Percent of schools within Space Utilization tolerance levels - includes the use of portables
Flip Herndon
N/A
District: 69.7%
ES: 76%; MS: 33%; HS: 62%
District: 72.7%
ES: 97%; MS 94%; HS: 73%
District: 75%
ES: 78%; MS 56%; HS: 73%
District: 92.3%
ES: 90%; MS 60%; HS: 83%
District 75%
17.3%
34
District Wireless Proliferation (% of schools with full Wi-Fi)
Carmen Rahm
0% 3% 5% 20% 60% 100% 100%
Notes: (q): Metric 31 is reported both to State of Washington and the Council of Great City Schools CGCS. Metric definition: Total number of annual miles driven divided by the number of annual accidents
Goal 4. Efficient Processes
Appendix
15
Historical data: 5 Questions were replaced in 2013-2014 Goal 2. Community Support
16
School Year 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13
Nbr Performance Measure Actual Actual Actual Actual Target
10
Percent of positive responses from families indicating satisfaction with the leadership provided by the school principal
Bernardo Ruiz
80.2% 79.5% 82.0% 79.1% 85.0%
11
Percent of positive responses from families indicating that they are satisfied with the overall quality of instruction provided by teachers
Michael Tolley
80.5% 81.7% 84.0% 84.2% 85.0%
12
Percent of positive responses from families indicating that they feel positive about family engagement
Bernardo Ruiz
83.6% 86.0% 85.0% 81.6% 88.0%
14
Responses to Family Survey relating to "when I have a concern I know whom to contact." (Climate Survey)
Michael Tolley
N/A NA 84.0% 83.6% 85.0%
15 Percent of students responding that they feel unsafe in a school (Climate Survey) (a)
Pegi McEvoy 33.0% 30.9% 17.3% 18.2% 0.0%
Notes: (a): A lower number indicates better performance or result
2014-2015 SPS District Annual Operations Data Dashboard Dr. Larry Nyland, Superintendent
Goal Nbr Performance Measure2009-2010
Actual
2010-2011
Actual
2011-2012
Actual
2012-2013
Actual
2013-2014
Actual
2014-2015
Actual
2014-2015
TargetAnnual Change
Achieved
Target?
1 Percent of school leaders returning to their schools N/A 83% 79% 75% 72% 76% 75% - 85% 4.0% ����
2 Percent of Principals' evaluations completed on time N/A 41% 81% 100% 93% 99.5% 100.0% 6.50% ����
3 Principal leadership metric (a) (b) 62.8% N/A (e) N/A (e) N/A (e)
4 Five year retention rate of teachers 69% 70% 74% 72% 70% 63% 75% -7.0% ����
5 Percent of Teachers' evaluations completed on time N/A 81% 91% 96% 95% 97.1% 100.0% 2.10% ����
6Percent of positive responses from staff indicating that they have access to strategies and materials to
support all learners in our classes (c) 60.3% 61.5% 72.0% 65.3% 56.1% 61.5% 75.0% 5.4% ����
7Percent of lost instructional days due to teacher absences (d)
3.3% 3.1% 3.0% 3.1% 7.0% 3.4% 2.7% 3.6% ����
8 Annual retention rate for central office employees 91% 92% 90% 74% 88% 76% 90% -12.0% ����
9 Percent of Central Office evaluations completed on time 57% NA 90% 96% 72% 94% (1) 100% 22.0% ����
10 Percent of positive responses “The school is preparing my child well for the future” (f) (g) 73.9% 72.3% 75.9%
(r) -1.6% ����
11 Percent of families indicating that teachers know how to meet the specific learning needs of their child (f) (g) 68.4% 66.3% 70.4%
(r) -2.1% ����
12 Positive family responses to family engagement survey (g) 71.8% 68.6% 73.8%
(r) -3.2% ����
13 Schools meeting their objectives as outlined in their Family Engagement Team plan83.8%
(31 of 37)
85.4%
(35 of 41)
95.1%
(39 of 41)
95.3%
(41 of 43)
93%
(43 of 46) (h)
89%
(41 of 46) (i)100.0% -4.0% ����
14 The district central office is responsive to the input and concerns of families (g) 27.9% 26.0% 29.9%
(r) -1.9% ����
15 Percent of students responding that they feel safe in a school (g) 75.9% 76.0% 77.9%
(r) 0.1% ����
16 Percent of budget spent on instruction 77.8% 77.2% 77.8% 77.4% 77.6% 78.0% 80.5% 0.4% ����
17 Percent of Fund Balance - General Fund 4.1% 4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 4.1% 4.4% 3.3% 0.3% ����
18 Central Office administration as a percent of total expenditures (d) 8.9% 7.1% 5.8% 6.0% 5.8% 6.4% 5.7% 0.6% ����
19 Percent of Prior Years' Audit issues resolved N/A 96.0% 89.0% 89.0% 81.0% 62.5% 100.0% -18.5% ����
20 Audit findings resolved as determined by subsequent audits (2) (3) 25.0%
(1.5 of 6)
79.2%
(9.5 of 12)
64%
(4.5 of 7)64.0% 86.0% 73.0% 100.0% -13.0% ����
21 Strategic sourcing as a percent of total spend 6.3% 8.0% 18.0% 16.0% 17.0% 21.6% 21.0% 4.6% ����
22 Standard & Poor's non-tax vs tax; Moody's non-tax vs tax bond ratingsAA/AA+
Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+
Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+
Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+
Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+
Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+
Aa1/Aaa
AA/AA+
Aa1/Aaa- ����
23 OSPI Financial Indicator Index - Below 1.5 is "Financial Warning" 3.00 3.00 3.40 2.85 3.25 3.25 2.50 - ����
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014,
Target was established in 2014-2015
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014,
Target was established in 2014-2015
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014,
Target was established in 2014-2015
Baseline for this measure was established in 2014-2015
Goal 1. High
Performing Staff
Goal 3. Fiscal
Integrity
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014,
Target was established in 2014-2015
Baseline for this measure was established in 2013-2014,
Target was established in 2014-2015
Goal 2. Community
Support
2014-2015 District Annual Operations Data Dashboard November 6, 2015 Page: 1 / 3
2014-2015 SPS District Annual Operations Data Dashboard Dr. Larry Nyland, Superintendent
Goal Nbr Performance Measure2009-2010
Actual
2010-2011
Actual
2011-2012
Actual
2012-2013
Actual
2013-2014
Actual
2014-2015
Actual
2014-2015
TargetAnnual Change
Achieved
Target?
24 Percent of Teacher vacancy on 1st day of school (d) (g) 1.6% (45 p) 1.4% (39 p) 1.7% (48 p) 1.4% (39.5 p) 3.1% (89.9 p) 2.4% (77 p) 1.4% 0.7% ����
25 Percent of schools with comprehensive safety inspection completed (m) (n) N/A 25.8% 23% (m) 100% (n) 100.0% 100.0% 85.0% - ����
26.1 Percent of emergency facility work orders completed on time N/A 92.6% 96.6% 98.6% 99.0% 99.9% 98.0% 0.9% ����
26.2 Percent of high priority facility work orders completed on time N/A 68.8% 73.7% 76.6% 80.0% 84.6% 82.0% 4.6% ����
27 Percent of capital projects on schedule and on budget 100.0% 96.7% 95.9% 95.7% 88.2% 81.0% 95.0% -7.2% ����
28 Percent of students enrolled prior to first day of school N/A 93.4% 96.8% 99.2% 96.3% 98.8% 97.0% 2.5% ����
29 Accuracy of District enrollment projection 99.05% 98.60% 98.9% 99.20% 99.65% 99.30% 99.20% -0.35% ����
30.1 Percent of Breakfast Participation (o), (p)
Breakfast 15.9%
Free: 33.7%
Reduced: 27.6%
Paid: 3.3%
Breakfast 15.2%
Free: 32.6%
Reduced: 25.8%
Paid: 2.9%
Breakfast 14.9%
Free: 32.2%
Reduced: 24.9%
Paid: 2.8%
Breakfast 13.8%
Free: 30.7%
Reduced: 23%
Paid: 2.4%
Breakfast 12.4%
Free: 28.4%,
Reduced: 21.7%,
Paid: 2.1%
Breakfast 12.1%
Free: 28.7%,
Reduced: 21.0%,
Paid: 2.4%
Breakfast
15.1%-0.30% ����
30.2 Percent of Lunch Participation (o), (p)
Lunch 41.5%
Free: 69.6%
Reduced: 67.9%
Paid: 20.6%
Lunch 40.4%
Free: 69.7%
Reduced: 67.6%
Paid: 18.3%
Lunch 39.0%
Free: 69.0%
Reduced: 66.0%
Paid: 16.8%
Lunch 36.6%
Free: 66.8%
Reduced: 63.8%
Paid: 14.8%
Lunch 34.4%
Free: 64.3%,
Reduced: 63.7%,
Paid: 13.9%
Lunch 32.6%
Free: 62.8%,
Reduced: 59.9%,
Paid: 13.8%
Lunch
40% -1.80% ����
31 Safe driving – Miles driven between accidents 63,430 79,063 72,000 15,633 ����
32 Technology Help Desk first contact resolution rate 73.0% 78.2% 76.5% 72.6% 73.9% 76.0% 70.0% 2.1% ����
33 Percent of schools within Space Utilization tolerance levels - includes the use of portables N/A N/A
District: 69.7%
ES: 76%;
MS: 33%;
HS: 62%
District: 72.7%
ES: 97%;
MS 94%;
HS: 73%
District: 75%
ES: 78%;
MS 56%;
HS: 73%
District: 92.3%
ES: 90%;
MS 60%;
HS: 83%
District 75% 17.3% ����
34 District Wireless Proliferation (% of schools with full Wi-Fi) 0% 3% 5% 20% 60% 100% 100% - ����
Baseline for this measure established in 2014-2015
Goal 4. Efficient
Processes
2014-2015 District Annual Operations Data Dashboard November 6, 2015 Page: 2 / 3
2014-2015 SPS District Annual Operations Data Dashboard Dr. Larry Nyland, Superintendent
62.50%
Notes:
(2): Metric 20: Minor change is to remove the word “state”. Original metric name: ‘Audit findings resolved as determined by subsequent state audits’. The new metric’s name: ‘Audit findings resolved as determined by subsequent audits’. The District’s new Audit Response Manager feels the consolidated measure address the core of the issue: How timely the district closes out audit issues.
(3): Metric 20 definition: Audit issues include all Financial, Federal, Accountability, Performance, and Investigative findings as measured by Audit Reports issued by the State Auditor's Office (SAO) and by the Seattle Public Schools internal auditor. Per Audit Standards the District must report on the status of prior audit findings. The data comes from the Audit Log prepared by the Audit
Response Manager.
(r): Targets were defined as a 2% yearly increase from 2013-2014 baseline.A19
(l): p: number of positions
(m): Safety Inspection timeline moved to school year instead of summer
(n) : In 2012-2013, a comprehensive security audit was completed in place of the general safety inspections of the prior years
(o): Percentage of total enrolled students had breakfast or lunch in school
(p): Percentages of all students who qualify for free, reduced (Redcd) or paid meals that had breakfast or lunch in school. For example in 13-14 SY, of all students that qualify for free meals, 28.4% had breakfast in school
(g): Part of climate survey
(h): For 2013-2014, 43 of the 46 or 93% Family Engagement Action Team (FEAT) schools met their FEAT plan objectives. We did not meet our 100% target because we added two new schools from for the 13-14 SY. We only had 43 FEATs when we created the 100% target metric at the beginning of the 13-14 SY.
(i): For 2014-2015, 41 (89%) of the 46 FEAT schools met their Family Engagement Team plan objectives . We did not meet our 100% target because we added two schools for the 2014-2015 school year as we lost a staff member whom we reassigned to support families of children with special needs.
(j): Metric 14 was developed in 2013-2014, part of the Center for Excellence Education CEE principal leadership survey, used to help assess the effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors. The survey questions are aligned to the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) leadership framework adopted statewide for principal evaluation.
(k): Result based on responses to the following survey item on the our annual family climate survey: The district central office is responsive to the input and concerns of families. For 2014-2015: total responses = 7,698; total positive responses = 2,000; Percent positive responses = 26.0%
(b): This is a new metric reported for 2014-2015, baseline will be established in 2014-2015 (62.8%) and target in 2015-2016. No 2014-2015 target.
(c): Data is collected from the climate survey administered every year to all teachers
(d): A lower number indicates better performance or result
(f): New metric, part of the Center for Excellence Education CEE principal leadership survey, used to help assess the effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors. The survey questions are aligned to the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) leadership framework adopted statewide for principal evaluation.
(a): This is a metric created in 2013-2014, part of the Center for Excellence Education CEE principal leadership survey, to assess the effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors, aligned to the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) leadership framework adopted statewide for principal evaluation. The summary overall % positive responses for 2014-2015
was 62.8%.
(q): Metric 31 is reported both to State of Washington and the Council of Great City Schools CGCS. Metric definition: Total number of annual miles driven divided by the number of annual accidents
(1): Preliminary data
2014-2015 District Annual Operations Data Dashboard November 6, 2015 Page: 3 / 3