More on SchoolView

The state's SchoolView website has new information again. Now there's a Data Lab feature that allows the user to choose various filters in order to do unique comparisons and reports.

Using the Colorado Growth Model (CGM), it's possible to determine the range a student would need to score in order to be in the "Catch Up, Keep Up and Move Up" categories. These are three categories for students' proposed achievement trajectories. The Catch Up category is for students scoring Unsatisfactory or Partially Proficient on the CSAP. Their proposed trajectory would take them into the Proficient range of scores. Likewise, students in the Keep Up category would be Proficient or Advanced and need to at least keep making a year's progress in order to move forward rather than backward. Move Up is for students in the Proficient category that move into the Advanced.

The Data Center allows for all kinds of exploration and comparisons. There's information on the number of students enrolled, the type of Accreditation ranking districts received, the percentage of Highly Qualified staff, and profiles on individual schools. New information is being added all the time.

Number of Charter School Students in the State Almost Matches Denver's Enrollment

Just a couple hundred more students enrolled in charter schools and the total would surpass Denver's enrollment. The funded count of charter school students, using Oct 2010 data, is 69,951.5 and Denver's enrollment is 70,160.5. This means charter school students, collectively, represent the third largest school district in the state, right behind Denver and Jefferson County.

Last year the Adams 12 school district had the largest percentage of charter school students, but this year they slipped to third place. Brighton rose to the top again with 18.71% of their students enrolled in charter schools and Falcon 49 was second with 18.37% enrolled in charter schools. Adams 12 had 16.72% in charter schools.

Jefferson County, the largest school district in the state with 80,044 students ranked 19th in the list of districts with charter school students. Jeffco charter schools enroll 5,307 students for 6.63% of the total enrollment.

One of the eligibility criteria for a school district to qualify for exclusive chartering authority is having more than 3% of charter school students than the state average. This year that state average grew to 8.97%, up from 8.20% last year. Nine districts have enrollments above 3% over the state average: in addition to the three districts already mentioned, Cheyenne Mountain has 16.03%, Greeley 15.32%, Harrison 14.36%, Academy 14.04%, Lewis-Palmer 13.21% and Douglas 11.99%.

Taking these comparisons to the national perspective (using 2009 data) Adams 12 ties for twelfth place in school district market share (Source: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, A Growing Movement: America's Largest Charter School Communities, 2010).

In the same report Brighton ties for 13th place, Falcon ranks 15th, and Pueblo 60 ranks 17th. Colorado has a total of ten districts with more than 10% market share according to the report. Denver Public Schools has 10% in this report. Now that DPS has exceeded 30 charter schools their percentage is sure to increase in the future.

The top two school districts with the highest market share of charter school students are 1) New Orleans Public School System and 2) District of Columbia Public Schools. New Orleans has 61% of their students enrolled in charter schools. After Hurricane Katrina many of the region's schools were replaced with public charter schools in an effort to use the restructuring required due to hurricane damage to also reform the school system. The District of Columbia has 38% of its students in charter schools.

Why Does Data Matter?

Data only matters when someone is looking at it. Previously school districts in the state reported some data that didn't have any consequences. Now with the new District Performance Framework and School Performance Framework impacting Accreditation, all of a sudden bad data is being exposed. In the past it didn't need to be corrected or watched carefully, but now it's in the spotlight.

Districts and individual public schools are reviewing their framework reports now before they're made available to the public. Quirky things are coming out of the data used to make these calculations.

It's possible the data used to calculate the four performance indicators can be appealed to the State Board of Education. But the data that's used is all final and cannot be changed.

It'll be interesting to see how faulty data is addressed at the state level, but even more interesting will be watching the new interest school and district-level staff take in making sure the data is correctly reported in the first place.

A Wealth of Information for Parents: SchoolView

CDE has a wealth of information for parents through the SchoolView portal. The Colorado Growth Model provides information on achievement and growth. There are videos and powerpoint presentations to explain terms, how to use the tools and stakeholder roles.

To begin, watch the tutorial. If you don't understand why the state uses the growth model to examine student achievement, watch this video.

Not along ago each school district in the state received their data for the District Performance Framework and each individual public school's School Performance Framework. The data in these reports generate different levels of Accreditation. The State Board of Education accredits each school district in the state. In the past the Accreditation process could be a bit subjective. By using the District Performance Framework (DPF), the Accreditation level is based strictly on data.

The type of data used to determine Accreditation level is different for elementary, middle and high schools. By October 15th, districts must assign an Accreditation category to each of their public schools. By November 15th the State Board and Commissioner of Education will approve the school Accreditation categories and the related plans associated with underperforming schools.

There are four key indicators for School Performance Frameworks (SPFs). These are:

1. Academic achievement: the percent proficient or advanced
2. Academic growth: the median student growth
3. Gaps in academic growth: median growth for subgroups
4. Postsecondary & workforce readiness: graduation rate, drop-out rate, and the ACT composite

High schools are accredited on all four indicators while elementary and middle schools are only accredited on the first three indicators.

The School Accountability Reports are obsolete and the state is now using SchoolView to provide information to parents about their child's school. Parents can compare a variety of schools, using the Growth Model, and get specific information about each school through the School Performance Framework.

Many educators have been learning about the Growth Model and SPF at their trainings conducted before school began this month. Schools will have individual student achievement data to use in making decisions on the types of interventions each student may need. Parents should ask to see this information either at Parent/Teacher conferences or by visiting the school office.