School Quality Framework

Dr. Hardin Coleman, Boston School Committee

Monica Roberts, Chief Engagement Officer

Jake Stern, Director of Performance Management

2

Purpose

▪ The School Quality Work Group (SQWG) was charged by School Committee 2013 with developing a Framework that includes the core indicators of quality

▪ This Framework includes both measures of quality and features or attributes of a school that may play a role in school quality for families and students

▪ The Framework has several purposes:

▪ To inform school choice by giving families more information about schools and helping to determine the school choices available to students

▪ To ensure transparency around school quality in order to promote greater public accountability

▪ To educate stakeholders about the many aspects of school quality

▪ Recommendations from the External Advisory Committee

▪ Existing BPS policies and practices:

▪ Policy on Eliminating the Achievement Gap (2006)

▪ Seven Essentials of Whole-School Improvement (2007)

▪ Five Core Elements of Family and Student Engagement

▪ Recommendations from the 2004-2005 Quality Work Group

▪ Work from BPS and other districts to create a school performance index

▪ Feedback from students, parents, and community members collected during 2013-2014

Foundations of SQF

4 What does the Performance e mean for schools?

A Holistic Measure of School Quality

▪ Each domain is measured by a number of metrics (specific data points, such as graduation rate or climate survey results)

▪ We use these metrics to calculate an overall score on the domains, then assign each school to an assignment tier based on its score

▪ Gives student growth more weight

▪ Rewards schools for making progress w/ low performing students

▪ Allows voice of entire school community to be taken into consideration (students, teachers, parents)

▪ Explicitly measures achievement gaps

▪ Criterion referenced, allowing all schools the opportunity to reach Tier 1

5

School Quality Domains

Planned

Implementation

Steps for 19–20

6 Boston Public Schools

Opportunity & Access Domain

7

Current State: The Access and Opportunities domain is incomplete due to a lack of

data sources that accurately measure the outcomes delineated.

Planned Implementation: Begin to collect data on opportunities and access centrally. Display list of available metrics, and make information available to families. Continue work with Opportunity Gaps Office to develop domain, outcomes, and metrics.

Opportunities and Access – Examples of Data Considered

• Advanced Coursework (HS)• Advanced Work Class/

Excellence For All• Arts Index• Career & Technical Ed Programs• Dual Language Program• Dual Enrollment (HS)• Early Learning (K0, K1)• Extended Learning Time

• International Baccalaureate (HS)• Health Awards• Librarian (FT/PT/Para)• Partnership Programming

• Academic, Enrichment, Arts• College & Career Readiness• SEL/Well

• Psychologist and Counselors• 10 Boys/10 Girls

High School Tiers in DiscoverBPS

8

Current State: The existing SQF policy does not call for differentiated implementation for high schools versus non-high schools, even though high schools do not require tiers for student assignment. However during the initial implementation of SQF Tiers in 2017 high school tiers were not displayed in DiscoverBPS.

Planned Implementation: High School tiers will be displayed in DiscoverBPS.

Current Display:

Proposed Policy

Changes

9 Boston Public Schools

10

1. Affirm that tiers will be updated annually, with considerations for stability of choices for families.

1. Update policy language to provide ability to improve calculation and scoring methodologies

1. Removal of Turnaround Override, so that all schools’ tiers will display as calculated

Overview of Proposed Changes

11Proposal 1: Tier Update Interval

Current State: Policy did not indicate update frequency, and tasked district and School Quality Working Group to review the appropriate update frequency.

Planned Implementation: Update assignment tiers every year, and provide families all schools from the two most recent calculations. Costs and benefits of this approach will be assessed on an ongoing basis.

Abridged 2018 School List Example: 2300 Washington St, Roxbury, 02119

School 2017 Tier 2018 TierOrchard Gardens K-8 School 2 2

Hale Elementary 1 1Hurley K-8 School 1 1

Mason Elementary 2 3Tobin K-8 School 2 1Blackstone Innovation School 4 2Winthrop Elementary 4 3Ellis Elementary 2 4

12 What does the Performance r mean for schools?

Proposal 2: Update Calculation Policy

Current Policy: Details calculation and scoring methodology for each individual metric.

Proposed Change: Maintain SQF policy and framework structure; domains and outcomes, but provide flexibility for the district to adjust metrics based on data source changes and opportunities to refine metrics. The School Quality working group will continue to meet quarterly to monitor and provide feedback to the BPS implementation team.

Example Changes for Future Calculations

• Target setting for proficiency metrics

• Climate survey participation scoring metrics

• Attendance metric

• Student Growth Percentile (SGP) - Mean

• Drop-Out Metric Scoring

• New Science Proficiency Metric

13 What does the Performater mean for schools?

Proposal 3: Removal of Turnaround Override

Current Policy: The SQF policy from 2014 states:

“Regardless of Quality Score, any school determined by the State to be a level 4 or 5 will automatically be given Tier 4 status in the Quality Framework.”

Proposed Change: Display tiers as calculated like all other schools.

Example of Schools Impacted in SY18-19

Turnaround Schools not impacted in 18-19: Brighton, Dearborn, Excel, Dever

School Tier without Override

UP Academy Holland 1

English High School 2

Madison Park 3

Grew Elementary 3

Channing Elementary 3

14

1. More accurate and up-to-date information about schools for BPS community

2. Increased ability for BPS to improve calculation and scoring methodologies to improve the SQF

3. Removal of Turnaround Override, so that all schools tiers will display as calculated

Equity Impact▫ Increased transparency and better information about school

quality for the BPS community

▫ Allow schools that disproportionately serve traditionally marginalized populations to be acknowledged for improvements that are made

A ‘Yes’ vote means...

Thank You!

15

Boston Public Schools

Appendix

16 Boston Public Schools

17 External Advisory Committee on Student Assignment

(March 2012 – Feb. 2013)

• Heard from more than 5,100 community members across the city, and one of the key messages was the importance of school quality

• Recommended a system of student assignment that includes four tiers of schools (with tiers determined by MCAS scores/growth)

• Also recommended creating a working group to develop a more comprehensive way to examine school quality and determine school tiers

School Quality Working Group

(May 2013 – present)

Creation of

the School

Quality Work Group

2012

External Advisory Committee

Developed student assignment system and identified need to assess school quality

2013

School Quality Working Group

Research and policy committee developed School Quality Framework

2014

SQF Passed by Boston School Committee

Policy passed outlining more holistic measure of school quality

2015

Implementation Delayed

Internal communication to school leaders, but SQF not rolled out publicly

2016

School Committee Re-engaged SQWG

SQWG tasked with providing input to district with respect to implementation

2017

SQF utilized for registration

Tiers calculated with 2015 & 2016 data used for enrollment

2018

SQF utilized for registration

Tiers calculated with 2017 & 2018 data used for enrollment

SQF Implementation Timeline

19

School Quality Working Group II

Dr. Hardin Coleman (chair)

Student RepresentativeAlexis Gonzalez

Parent RepresentativesFranklin PeraltaJosh WeissMichelle CannonGloria West

Other StakeholdersCraig LankhorstMarinell RousmanierePaul Tritter

School Leader RepresentativesTony KingSteve Cirasuolo

BPS Primary Supporting StaffColin Rose (Opportunity Gaps)Jake Stern (Data & Accountability)Lisa Harvey (Engagement)Mary Dillman (Data & Accountability)Mary Driscoll (Academic Superintendents)Monica Roberts (Engagement)

20 Structure of the SQF

21

SQF

Reports

discover.bostonpublicschools.org