board special meeting - seattle public schools · board special meeting ... (2013-14 result would...

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)


% 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%


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%


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%


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 --


Measure

Data not available for this measure *


http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/



15

11th graders demonstrating college-ready proficiency


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.


18


• 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 --


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)


• 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 --


Measure



23


--- 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


--- 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


• 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%


Measure

Stakeholder Engagement & Satisfaction

27

28


• 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% -- --


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


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


All students


31

High school students graduating in 4 years or fewer

On-Time Graduation

22.2% GAP

Sample Chart

32


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


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 *






SubcategoryCategory


Measure




Academic Milestones

On-Time Graduation






Proportional i ty Gaps

Opportunity Gaps

Col lege & Career Readiness


Fami ly Engagement

Fami ly Satis faction





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%


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


Opportunity Gaps


Academic Milestones


On-Time Graduation


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%


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%


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


Opportunity Gaps


Academic Milestones


On-Time Graduation


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


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.)


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)


Equitable Access Free/reduced priced meal students taught by a highly effective teacher

Annual Retention Annual retention rate for highly effective teachers and leaders


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


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


All students


4

3rd graders proficient in Literacy/ELA


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


All students


5

3rd graders proficient in Mathematics


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


All students


6

5th graders proficient in Science


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


All students


7

7th graders proficient in Literacy/ELA


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


All students


8

7th graders proficient in Mathematics

38.5% GAP

New

Ass

essm

ent


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


All students


9

8th graders proficient in Science


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


All 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


All 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


All 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


All students


13

Students passing algebra course by 8th grade

39.0% GAP


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


All students


14

Students passing a college level course by 12th grade

25.7% GAP


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


All 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


All 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


All 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


All 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


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%


Positive student responses to school climate survey


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 student responses to motivation and engagement survey


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%


22

Positive family responses to family engagement survey



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%


23

Positive family responses to district satisfaction survey



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



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 **



** 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 **



** 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


10-11 Actual

11-12 Actual

12-13 Actual

13-14 Actual

14-15 Actual


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


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



70.4%

(r): -2.1%

12 Positive family responses to family engagement survey

Bernardo Ruiz



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


10-11 Actual

11-12 Actual

12-13 Actual

13-14 Actual

14-15 Actual


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


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



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


10-11 Actual

11-12 Actual

12-13 Actual

13-14 Actual

14-15 Actual


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


10-11 Actual

11-12 Actual

12-13 Actual

13-14 Actual

14-15 Actual


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


10-11 Actual

11-12 Actual

12-13 Actual

13-14 Actual

14-15 Actual


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


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.


14


10-11 Actual

11-12 Actual

12-13 Actual

13-14 Actual

14-15 Actual


Achieve target?

31

Safe driving - Miles driven between accidents (q)

Pegi McEvoy


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


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






Goal 1. High

Performing Staff

Goal 3. Fiscal

Integrity





Goal 2. Community

Support

2014-2015 District Annual Operations Data Dashboard November 6, 2015 Page: 1 / 3


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



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


board special meeting - seattle public schools · board special meeting ... (2013-14 result would...

Documents