|
School Performance Compact Update: Changes Considered
On the heels of its first year implementing the School Performance Compact (SPC), the Board of Education tonight discussed possible changes to improve the policy going forward.
The goal of the SPC was to create a transparent and consistent policy to identify and designate for restart or closure the most persistently low-performing schools, to ensure that all students have access to high quality schools that prepare them to succeed. The three criteria currently under the SPC are:
- School Performance Framework ratings over multiple years
- Student academic growth in the most recent year
- Results of a School Quality Review (SQR)
Stakeholder Feedback
Portfolio Management Executive Director Jennifer Holladay informed the board of stakeholder feedback about the policy. Key areas of concern included the subjective nature of the SQRs; the short nature of the timeline for decisions, which made community engagement efforts extra challenging and resulted in confusion for families; and a strong sense that the current year's SPF rating should play more of a role in decisions.
The board briefly discussed the district's suggestion to establish a clear cut point on the School Performance Framework as the main element in the policy. Currently, the policy considers the lowest-performing 5% of schools by their average SPF rating over multiple years. Holladay said stakeholders felt the use of the bottom 5% in place of a clear performance threshold undermined the policy's transparency and made it hard for schools to predict whether they might be designated under the policy. Using a percentage also means a school's potential for eligibility is based on how other schools perform. Holladay suggested the district could instead "define persistently low-performing" as a school with back-to-back red SPF ratings, or a red rating in the most recent school year and a red or orange rating in preceding years.
School Quality Reviews
Board members spent the majority of the meeting discussing whether to make changes to how the district uses the SQR in restart/closure decisions. Options included removing the SQR from the SPC altogether; shifting the timing of the SQR to the spring as an informative tool for school improvement planning and context for SPC eligibility; and maintaining the timing but converting the SQR to one piece of a body of evidence, rather than the third and final step in the policy.
"I've seen firsthand how SQRs are used in school planning and the tremendous value they added: at Centennial Elementary where the principal walked through results at multiple packed community meetings ... and walking into the West Early College principal's office full of flip chart paper as she really aggressively engaged with the SQR results for improvement purposes," said Board Member Lisa Flores. "And I look at the utilization [of the SQRs] within the context of the SPC, and instead of talking about where those schools received lower ratings and need to focus their attention, we are instead talking about how close they are to a score of 25. We have moved away from the conversations we need to be having."
School Supports and Community Engagement
Board President Anne Rowe agreed, saying she was disappointed with the repercussions of the SQR being used as an accountability tool in the SPC. "I'm still left with the question that other board members have asked about where the tiered supports fit into this.
When we have a school that is stuck for four and more years without improved results, I need context about what are the resources and interventions, and community engagement with families and the board to ensure we understand what efforts we have made."
The board stressed its concern around better ensuring communities understand where their school is in the process, what is to come, and what actions and supports a school leader has chosen to improve so that families are not surprised if their school comes under consideration for restart under the SPC.
"Tough Decisions"
Board Member Barbara O'Brien expressed concern about the policy becoming so rigid that the board doesn't have the flexibility to make case-by-case decisions.
"We should never use a policy or formula to substitute for us making tough decisions," said Board Member Happy Haynes. "At the end of the day, we vote anyway. The problem is that the transparency we want to achieve erodes if we consistently make decisions that are contrary to the policies we've set forth."
You can learn more about the SPC and its role in creating Great Schools in Every Neighborhood at greatschools.dpsk12.org. Read the full board presentation here.
|
