ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2015-2016
COLORADO CHARTER SCHOOL INSTITUTE
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
1
OUR MISSION The mission of the Charter School Institute shall be to foster high-quality public school choices offered through Institute charter schools that deliver rigorous academic content and high academic performance in a safe environment and on par with the highest performing schools, including particularly schools for at-risk students.
OUR VISION The vision of CSI is to be a national leader as a highly effective Charter school authorizer by building a portfolio of high performing public charter schools through authorizing practices that promote a variety of successful and innovative educational designs, including an emphasis on schools that serve at-risk youth.
Colorado Charter School Institute 1580 Logan Street Suite 210 | Denver, CO 90203 P: (303) 866-3299 | www.csi.state.co.us
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
2
Table of Contents CSI Annual Review of Schools (CARS) Summary .......................................................................... 1 How to Use the Annual Performance Report (APR) ..................................................................... 2 CSI Performance Frameworks .................................................................................................... 3 CSI Annual Review of Schools (CARS) Rating ............................................................................... 4 Academic Performance......................................................................................................... 5 Financial Performance ........................................................................................................ 13 Organizational Performance .............................................................................................. 15
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
3
CSI Annual Review of Schools (CARS) Summary CSI’s Annual Review of Schools (CARS) is a system to evaluate a school’s annual performance and ultimately leads to the determination of a school’s accreditation rating. The CARS evaluation system evaluates schools against Performance Frameworks in academics, finance, and organization. This evaluation is detailed in the Annual Performance Report (APR) and summarized briefly in the accreditation dashboard. CSI Performance Frameworks CSI Performance Frameworks exist for Academics, Finance, and Organization. They cover the primary areas of performance and compliance, detailing the measures and metrics by which CSI holds schools accountable. The CSI Performance Frameworks serve as a guide for schools Annual Performance Reports (APRs) The Annual Performance Report summarizes the school’s cumulative performance data and compliance information collected in line with the CSI Performance Frameworks. These quantitative and qualitative analyses provide guidance and direction for the school throughout its lifespan. Further, the report process includes a feedback loop, which allows schools to request clarifying information where necessary, as well as provide additional, school-specific information to CSI for consideration in its evaluation process. CARS Accreditation Rating Each school’s accreditation rating will be determined annually by the CSI Board based on a recommendation from CDE through the School Performance Framework (SPF) report, and in conjunction with the CARS accreditation rating determined by key indicators within the CSI Performance Frameworks. The 2016 CARS Accreditation rating will be primarily be based upon the academic data provided by the state through the School Performance Framework (SPF) report. However, any schools that do not meet TABOR or have a negative, unrestricted fund balance as well as any schools that have more than four Notices of Concern in a school year may have their accreditation rating dropped to Priority Improvement.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
1
How to Use the Annual Performance Report (APR) This Annual Performance Report summarizes the school’s cumulative performance and compliance data from required and agreed-upon sources, as collected by the Institute over the term of the school’s charter. The data collected and presented within this report reflect outcomes along the academic, financial, and organizational measures outlined within the CSI Performance Frameworks. In order to summarize each section, the Institute will include a brief narrative providing feedback on the school’s progress within the indicators and/or metrics where applicable. Schools have the opportunity to provide a brief narrative for each section as well. Any additional claims within the school narrative must be substantiated with supplemental evidence that can be verified by the Institute. The school narrative should focus on outputs and outcomes. Factors such as culture, curriculum, and PD, for example, are important in your internal evaluations and root cause analyses, but are not considered by CSI as part of your annual evaluation. Schools should be looking at trends in the data and using the feedback provided within the report as evidence of success, as well as to identify areas that may need the allocation of additional resources and attention. This can be a useful tool to use in conjunction with the Unified Improvement Plan (UIP). A majority of the metrics within this report will be collected by the Institute on a yearly basis and presented to each school in November. As this is the preliminary draft, please review all data collected for accuracy. Should you find any incorrect or inaccurate data (as opposed to findings or conclusions that you simply disagree with), please contact the appropriate director: Academic Performance: Ryan Marks Financial Performance: Ginger Lusty Organizational Performance: Clare Vickland –State / Federal Programs | Trish Krajniak—Compliance Monitoring If you wish to supplement any area of your report with additional evidence, these proposed changes or additions must be returned to the Institute no later than November 21st. Once all data have been reviewed (and where applicable incorporated into the report), the Institute will send each school a final report in December. This final version will also contain financial information that is unavailable during the preliminary drafting process. You may use the tables, graphs and narrative of this final report in your UIP.
Please note: Interim and formative assessment data submitted by schools as supplemental evidence should be presented in the form of official reports generated by the test vendor, or in the case of locally developed assessments, generated through the official reporting system (e.g., Edusoft). Where this is not possible, exported flat files must be provided. Criteria for submitting additional assessment data include: Testing administration date(s), total number of test takers, and total number of enrolled students at the time of administration should be noted with each report. Growth data should reflect gains made using the beginning of the year as baseline and the end of the academic year as compared to national, state or pre-approved norms. If seasonal gains are submitted, these must also be accompanied with norms recognized by the nation, state or pre-approved by CSI. Regarding other supplemental evidence you wish to submit, it should be noted that: Any outputs or outcomes submitted that are not calculated and reported by CSI or the State must be accompanied by a Mission-Specific Measures Form, specifying how you quantify the measure (including methodology used to determine, document and calculate your measure).
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
2
CSI Performance Frameworks ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORKS 1. Academic Achievement a. Are students achieving proficiency on state examinations in reading, math, writing, and science? b. Are student proficiency levels higher than in previous years? c. Are students performing well on state examinations in comparison to other schools in their geographic home district? d. Are students performing well on state examinations in comparison to other similar schools statewide? 2. Academic Growth a. Are students making sufficient annual growth? b. Is the percentage of students making adequate levels of growth higher than in previous years? c. Is student growth high on state examinations in comparison to other schools in their geographic home district? d. Is student growth high on state examinations in comparison to similar schools statewide? 3. Academic Gaps a. Are subgroup populations outperforming the state average for the same subgroup on proficiency? b. Are subgroup populations outperforming the state average on student growth? 4. Postsecondary Readiness (required for high schools only) a. Is the school’s composite ACT score at or above the state average? b. Are students graduating high school? c. Is the school’s dropout rate at or below the state average? FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORKS 1. Near Term Measures a. Current Ratio (Working Capital Ratio): Current Assets divided by Current Liabilities b. Unrestricted Days Cash: Unrestricted Cash divided by (Total Expenses/365) c. Enrollment Variance: Actual Enrollment divided by Enrollment Projection in Charter School BoardApproved Budget d. Default e. General Fund Balance Ratio: Total Fund Balance (including unrestricted funds and funds (or real property) restricted for emergencies) divided by State Per Pupil Revenue (PPR) –meet TABOR 2. Sustainability Measures a. Total Margin: Net Income divided by Total Revenue and Aggregated Total Margin: Total 3 Year Net Income divided by Total 3 Year Revenues b. Debt to Asset Ratio: Total Liabilities divided by Total Assets c. Cash Flow d. Debt Service Coverage Ratio: (Net Income + Depreciation + Interest Expense)/(Principal and Interest Payments) ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORKS 1. Students and the Education Program a. Is the school implementing the essential terms of the education program as defined in the current charter agreement? b. Is the school complying with applicable state education requirements, unless waived? c. Is the school protecting the rights of all students? 2. Governance and Financial Management a. Is the school complying with governance requirements? b. Is the school meeting financial reporting and compliance requirements, including Generally Accepted Accounting Principles? 3. Health, Safety, and the School Environment a. Is the school complying with health, safety, and facilities requirements? b. Is the school handling information appropriately? c. Is the school complying with employment law and credentialing requirements? 4. Additional Obligations a. Is the school complying with all other obligations?
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
3
CSI Annual Review of Schools (CARS) Rating The CSI School Performance Frameworks serve to hold schools accountable for performance on the same, single set of indicators. The CSI frameworks build upon the evaluation lens by the State to include measures that may provide a more detailed and comprehensive summary of charter school performance. CSI’s frameworks align with the state frameworks in that they also evaluate schools across the four key performance indicators of academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, and postsecondary and workforce readiness. The distinguishing feature between the CDE School Performance Framework (SPF) and CSI’s Academic framework is the incorporation of trend data, as it is important to ask how a school is performing over time as well as whether the school is better serving the needs of students than area schools. Additionally, the CSI frameworks also include measures outside of the academic realm that are strong predictors of charter viability such as financial health and organizational sustainability.
The 2016 CARS Accreditation rating will be primarily be based upon the Academic data provided by the state through the School Performance Framework (SPF) report. However, any schools that do not meet TABOR or have a negative, unrestricted fund balance (Finance) as well as any schools that have more than four Notices of Concern (Organization) may have their accreditation rating dropped to Priority Improvement.
Framework
Rating
Academics
Performance Plan
Finance
Meets
Organizational
Meets
Overall Rating
Performance with Distinction
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
4
Academic Performance Proficiency Over Time Are students achieving proficiency over time on the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS/PARCC)? Achievement on the State Assessment over Time in Reading/ELA CSAP/TCAP (Reading) 2011-2012 N P/A%
Grade/Level
2012-2013 N P/A%
CMAS/PARCC (Reading Subscore) 2013-2014 N P/A%
2014-2015 M/E%
N
2015-2016 M/E%
N
3 4
Schoolwide Reading/ELA Achievement Trends 100.0%
90.0% 80.0% 70.0%
5 Elementary School
60.0%
6
52
88.5%
45
88.9%
32
96.9%
49
44.9%
57
64.9%
7 8
52 48
82.7% 68.8%
51 47
78.4% 76.6%
48 45
89.6% 91.1%
54 46
46.3% 34.78%
56 52
57.1% 51.9%
Middle School 9
152
80.3%
143
81.1%
125
92.0%
149
42.3%
165
58.2%
50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%
10.0% 0.0%
10 11 High School
2011-2012
Overall
152
80.3%
143
81.1%
125
92.0%
149
42.3%
165
Are subgroups achieving proficiency over time on the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS PARCC)? TCAP Reading P/A%
Subgroup Reading/ELA Achievement Trends
CMAS/PARCC ELA M/E%
80.0% 70.0%
2013
2014
2015
2016
60.0%
F/R Lunch
n<16
n<16
100.0%
n<16
n<16
50.0%
Minority
50.0%
63.6%
90.9%
n<16
n<16
IEP
16.7%
7.7%
50.0%
n<16
n<16
ELL
n<16
n<16
100.0%
n<16
n<16
10.0%
GT
n<16
n<16
100.0%
90.9%
n<16
0.0%
Catch-Up
29.4%
15.0%
43.8%
N/A
N/A
Schoolwide
80.3%
81.1%
92.0%
42.3%
58.2%
Maintenance of Proficiency*
40.0% 30.0% 20.0%
2012 Overall
18%
2014 Minority
IEP
2015 ELL
2016 GT
Are students who were characterized by the state as Catching Up (being Unsatisfactory or Partially Proficient in the prior year) moving towards
Maintenance of Proficiency
11
2013 F/R Lunch
Mobility of Proficiency*
Are students who were characterized by the state as Keeping Up (being Proficient or Advanced in the prior year) maintaining their proficiency? Non-Proficient n %
2015-2016
90.0%
2012
Prior Year Proficiency N
2014-2015
Middle School
100.0%
Subgroup Proficiency Over Time Student Subgroup
2013-2014
58.2%
Proficiency by Subgroup Over Time
62
2012-2013 Overall
Mobility of Proficiency Proficient n % 51
82%
*For the CMAS/PARCC a s s es s ment, Profi ci ent a nd Adva nced a re defi ned a s Performa nce Level s 4 a nd 5
N 73
Non-Proficient n % 58
79%
n 15
Proficient % 21%
*For the CMAS/PARCC a s s es s ment, Ca tchi ng Up i s a re defi ned a s Performa nce Level s 1,2, a nd 3
Proficiency by Enrollment Duration** Does enrollment duration (i.e. new versus returning students) affect proficiency? Level Elementary
Proficiency by Enrollment Duration Returning New
Middle High Overall **Mea s ure wi l l be compl eted upon reques t due a cha nge i n the s ta te defi ni ti on of Conti nuous l y Enrol l ed.
Reading Achievement Narrative Overall, the middleschool meets expectations and produced scores above the geographic district. There was an overall increase in performance fro m 2014-15 to 2015-16 and this increase is statistically significant (p=.02). While comparisons cannot be made across assessments, comparisons can be made using trends and the middle school hasshown a upward trend across the most recent set of assessment data as well as for the last two years of TCAP assessments. Similarly, all grade levels saw increases in performance from 2014-15 to 2015-16. Student subgroup populations are too small to be compared publically. The school has demonstrated success in moving students to proficiency and 21% of students that had not met expectations in 2014-15 into proficiency in 2015-16. Additionally, the school has demonstrated success in maintaining student proficiency, and 82% of students who met expectations in 2014-15 continued to meet expectations in 2015-16.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
5
Reading Growth Growth Over Time Is the school making adequate* levels of growth higher than in previous years the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS/PARCC)? Growth on the State Assessment over Time in Reading/ELA CSAP/TCAP (Reading) 2010-2011
2011-2012
2013-2014
2015-2016
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
6
42
32
15
Yes
38
31
15
Yes
32
55.5
16
Yes
42
39
7
42
37
16
Yes
47
63
19
Yes
48
48
14
Yes
46
52
8 Middle School
40 124
20 33
16 15
Yes Yes
47 132
34 47
15 17
Yes Yes
45 125
52 52
16 16
Yes Yes
47 135
79 56
124
33
15
Yes
132
47
17
Yes
125
52
16
Yes
135
56
N
Grade
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
CMAS/PARCC (ELA)
2012-2013
4 5 Elementary School
9 10 High School Overall
*adequate growth was reported for CSAP/TCAP but is not reported for CMAS/PARCC
Median Growth
Levels of Growth
Are students outperforming the state median on growth?
What levels of growth are students making on the state assessment (PARCC/CMAS)?
Schoolwide Reading/ELA Median Growth Trends 100
Levels of Growth Growth Category % of Students
90
80 70 60
50 40 30 20 10 0 2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013 Overall
2013-2014 Middle School
Low (below 35)
31.1%
Typical (35-65)
28.1%
High (above 65
40.7%
2015-2016
Growth by Subgroup Over Time Are subgroups making adequate levels of growth higher than in previous years the state assessment?
Subgroup Reading/ELA Growth Trends 90
Subgroup Growth Over Time (MGP/AGP) Student Subgroup
CSAP/TCAP Reading MGP/AGP 2012 2013
2011 MGP
AGP
80
2014
CMAS ELA 2015 2016
70 60
MGP N/A 21
AGP N/A 42
MGP N/A 63
AGP N/A 40
MGP 78 67
AGP 22 27
MGP N/A N/A
MGP n<20 n<20
50
IEP
40
57
57
66
70
66
N/A
n<20
20
ELL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
67
52
N/A
n<20
10
GT Catch-Up Schoolwide
N/A 50 33
N/A 63 15
N/A 57 47
N/A 65 17
56 64 52
6 66 16
N/A N/A N/A
n<20 58 56
0
F/R Lunch Minority
Adequate Growth** Are students making adequate levels of growth higher than in previous years the state assessment? **Adequate growth was not reported for the 2015-2016 school year and is not included as a CDE or CSI measure
40 30
2011
2012 Schoolwide
2013 F/R Lunch
2014 Minority IEP
2015 ELL
GT
2016 Catch-Up
Growth by Enrollment Duration*** Does enrollment duration (i.e. new versus returning students) affect on growth? Growth by Enrollment Duration Level
Returning
New
Elementary Middle High Overall
Reading Growth Narrative
***Measure will be completed upon request due a change in the state definition of Continuously Enrolled
Overall, the middle school meets expectations and produced growth that is slightly below the geographic district. Median growth percentiles can be compared across assessments and there has been an overall longitudinal increase in growth across the last four assessments but the levels of growth across the year are not statistical ly different (p=.14). Overall, the school produced growth in 2015-16 that is equivalent to more than one year's growth in one year's time but this is moderated by grade level. There is a significant difference between the levels of growth produced by students in the seventh and eighth grade when compared to the levels of growth produced by students in the sixth grade. The MGP for the sixth grade falls below the 50th percentile and wou ld be rated as approaching expectations if evaluated separately. Similarly, students in the eighth grade produced levels of growth that would be rated as exceeding expectations if evaluated separately. The school demo nstrated success with students that are below benchmark and students in that subgroup produced higher levels of growth than students above benchmark. Schoolwide, 40.7% of students produced high levels of growth and almost 1/2 produced growth equivalent to one year's growth in one year's time.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
6
Writing Achievement Proficiency Over Time Are students achieving proficiency over time on the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS/PARCC)? Achievement on the State Assessment over Time in Writing/ELA CSAP/TCAP (Writing) CMAS/PARCC (Writing Subscore) 2011-2012 N P/A%
Grade/Level
2012-2013 N P/A%
2013-2014 N P/A%
2014-2015 N M/E%
2015-2016 N M/E%
3
Schoolwide Writing/ELA Achievement Trends 100.0% 90.0% 80.0%
4 5
70.0% 60.0%
Elementary School 6
52
63.5%
46
73.9%
32
75.0%
49
32.7%
57
49.1%
7
52
76.9%
51
74.5%
49
83.7%
8 Middle School
48 152
47.9% 63.2%
47 144
59.6% 69.4%
45 126
77.8% 79.4%
54
27.8%
56
33.9%
46 149
26.09% 28.9%
52 165
50.0% 44.2%
9 10 11
50.0% 40.0% 30.0%
20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
Overall
High School Overall
152
63.2%
144
69.4%
126
79.4%
149
28.9%
165
2014-2015
2015-2016
Middle School
44.2%
Proficiency by Subgroup Over Time Are subgroups achieving proficiency over time on the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS PARCC)?
Student Subgroup
90.0%
CMAS/PARCC ELA M/E%
TCAP Writing P/A%
Subgroup Writing/ELA Achievement Trends 100.0%
Subgroup Proficiency Over Time
80.0% 70.0%
2012 n<16
2013 n<16
2014 100.0%
2015 n<16
2016 n<16
60.0%
Minority IEP ELL
30.0%
33.3%
66.7%
n<16
n<16
40.0%
16.7%
7.7%
30.0%
n<16
n<16
30.0%
n<16
n<16
0.0%
n<16
n<16
20.0%
GT
n<16
n<16
100.0%
63.6%
n<16
10.0%
Catch-Up
13.8%
30.0%
37.9%
N/A
N/A
Schoolwide
63.2%
69.4%
79.4%
28.9%
44.2%
F/R Lunch
Maintenance of Proficiency*
50.0%
0.0% 2012 Overall
IEP
2015 ELL
2016 GT
Are students who were characterized by the state as Catching Up (being Unsatisfactory or Partially Proficient in the prior year) moving towards
Maintenance of Proficiency Non-Proficient n %
2014 Minority
Mobility of Proficiency*
Are students who were characterized by the state as Keeping Up (being Proficient or Advanced in the prior year) maintaining their proficiency? Prior Year Proficiency N
2013 F/R Lunch
Mobility of Proficiency Proficient n %
*CMAS/PARCC ELA a s s es s ment combi nes rea di ng a nd wri ti ng. See rea di ng s ecti on for da ta .
N
Non-Proficient n %
n
Proficient %
*CMAS/PARCC ELA a s s es s ment combi nes rea di ng a nd wri ti ng. See rea di ng s ecti on for da ta .
Proficiency by Enrollment Duration** Does enrollment duration (i.e. new versus returning students) affect proficiency? Proficiency by Enrollment Duration Level
Returning
New
Elementary Middle High Overall **Mea s ure wi l l be compl eted upon reques t due a cha nge i n the s ta te defi ni ti on of Conti nuous l y Enrol l ed.
Writing Achievement Narrative The school saw an increase in achievement levels in writing. Due to changes in the assessment and a combined ELA assessment, writing narrative is limited.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
7
Writing Growth Growth Over Time Is the school making adequate* levels of growth higher than in previous years the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS/PARCC)? Growth on the State Assessment over Time in Writing/ELA CSAP/TCAP (Writing) 2010-2011
CMAS/PARCC (ELA)
2011-2012
2013-2014
2015-2016
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
6
42
37
21
Yes
39
48
25
Yes
32
42
24.5
Yes
42
39
7
42
27
31
No
47
54
32
Yes
49
53
39
Yes
46
52
8 Middle School
40
13
40
No
47
30
34
Yes
45
59
29
Yes
47
79
124
26
34
No
133
45
31
Yes
126
52
31.5
Yes
135
56
124
26
34
No
133
45
31
Yes
126
52
31.5
Yes
135
56
N
Grade
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
2012-2013
4 5 Elementary
9 10 High School Overall
*adequate growth was reported for CSAP/TCAP but is not reported for CMAS/PARCC
Median Growth
Levels of Growth*
Are students outperforming the state median on growth?
What levels of growth are students making on the state assessment (PARCC/CMAS)?
Schoolwide Writing/ELA Median Growth Trends 100
Levels of Growth Growth Category % of Students
90
80 70
Low (below 35)
60
50
Typical (35-65)
40 30 20
High (above 65
10 0 2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013 Overall
2013-2014 Middle School
*CMAS/PARCC ELA assessment combines reading and writing. See reading section for data.
2015-2016
Growth by Subgroup Over Time Are subgroups making adequate levels of growth higher than in previous years the state assessment?
Subgroup Writing/ELA Growth Trends 90
Subgroup Growth Over Time (MGP/AGP) Student Subgroup
2011 MGP
AGP
F/R Lunch Minority IEP ELL GT Catch-Up Schoolwide
80
CSAP/TCAP Writing MGP/AGP 2012 2013
2014
CMAS ELA 2015 2016
70 60
MGP N/A 16
AGP N/A 65
MGP N/A 42
AGP N/A 49
MGP 80 50
AGP 34 49
MGP N/A N/A
MGP n<20 n<20
50
17
92
47
81
82
88
N/A
n<20
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60
74
N/A
n<20
10
N/A 25
N/A 80
N/A 48
N/A 68
72 75
16 69
N/A N/A
n<20 58
0
26
34
45
31
52
32
N/A
56
Adequate Growth** Are students making adequate levels of growth higher than in previous years the state assessment? **Adequate growth was not reported for the 2015-2016 school year and is not included as a CDE or CSI measure
40 30
2011
2012 Schoolwide
2013 F/R Lunch
2014 Minority IEP
2015 ELL
GT
2016 Catch-Up
Growth by Enrollment Duration*** Does enrollment duration (i.e. new versus returning students) affect on growth? Growth by Enrollment Duration Level
Returning
New
Elementary Middle High Overall
Writing Growth Narrative
***Measure will be completed upon request due a change in the state definition of Continuously Enrolled
The writing subscore was not produced for student growth and reading/writing growth data represents growth in English Language Ar ts.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
8
Math Achievement Proficiency Over Time Are students achieving proficiency over time on the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS/PARCC)? Achievement on the State Assessment over Time in Mathematics CSAP/TCAP (Math) CMAS/PARCC (Math Subscore) 2011-2012 N P/A%
Grade/Level
2012-2013 N P/A%
2013-2014 N P/A%
2014-2015 N M/E%
Subject
Schoolwide Math Achievement Trends
2015-2016 N M/E%
100.0% 90.0%
3
80.0%
4 5
70.0% 60.0%
Elementary
Elementary
50.0%
6
52
69.2%
48
60.4%
32
75.0% 6
48
7
52
67.3%
51
58.8%
51
52.9% 7
8 Middle School
47 151
40.4% 59.6%
48 147
56.3% 58.5%
45 128
73.3% 8 65.6% Middle School
9 10 11
25.0%
57
45.6%
54
18.5%
56
28.6%
46 148
19.57% 20.9%
52 165
38.5% 37.6%
Algebra I Geometry Algebra II
40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0% 2011-2012
2012-2013
Overall
2013-2014
2014-2015
Middle School
2015-2016
Elementary
Integrated I Integrated II Integrated III High School
High School
Overall
151
59.6%
147
58.5%
128
65.6%
Total
148
20.9%
165
37.6%
Proficiency by Subgroup Over Time
Subgroup Math Achievement Trends
Are subgroups achieving proficiency over time on the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS PARCC)?
100.0%
Subgroup Proficiency Over Time
90.0%
TCAP Math P/A%
Student Subgroup
CMAS/PARCC Math M/E%
80.0% 70.0%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
60.0%
F/R Lunch
n<16
n<16
66.7%
n<16
n<16
50.0%
Minority
27.3%
7.7%
30.8%
n<16
n<16
40.0%
IEP
8.3%
7.7%
25.0%
n<16
n<16
ELL
n<16
n<16
0.0%
n<16
n<16
GT
n<16
n<16
100.0%
72.7%
n<16
Catch-Up
6.3%
5.1%
14.6%
N/A
N/A
Schoolwide
59.6%
58.5%
65.6%
20.9%
37.6%
Maintenance of Proficiency*
Maintenance of Proficiency Prior Year Proficiency Non-Proficient Proficient N n % n % 8
24%
20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2012 Overall
2013 F/R Lunch
2014 Minority
IEP
2015 ELL
2016 GT
Mobility of Proficiency*
Are students who were characterized by the state as Keeping Up (being Proficient or Advanced in the prior year) maintaining their proficiency?
34
30.0%
26
76%
*For the CMAS/PARCC a s s es s ment, Profi ci ent a nd Adva nced a re defi ned a s Performa nce Level s 4 a nd 5
Are students who were characterized by the state as Catching Up (being Unsatisfactory or Partially Proficient in the prior year) moving towards proficiency?
N 100
Mobility of Proficiency Non-Proficient Proficient n % n % 80
80%
20
20%
*For the CMAS/PARCC a s s es s ment, Ca tchi ng Up i s a re defi ned a s Performa nce Level s 1,2, a nd 3
Proficiency by Enrollment Duration** Does enrollment duration (i.e. new versus returning students) affect proficiency? Proficiency by Enrollment Duration Level Returning New Elementary Middle High Overall **Mea s ure wi l l be compl eted upon reques t due a cha nge i n the s ta te defi ni ti on of Conti nuous l y Enrol l ed.
Math Achievement Narrative Overall, the middle school meets expectations and produced scores slightly below the geographic district. There was an overall increase in performance from 2014-15 to 2015-16 and this increase is statistically significant (p=.01). While comparisons cannot be made across assessments, comparisons can be made using trends and the middle school has shown a upward trend across the most recent set of assessment data as well as for the last two years of TCAP assessments. Similarly, all grade levels saw increases in performance from 2014-15 to 2015-16; however, students in the seventh grade did produce scores significantly below students in other grades (p=.04). Student subgroup populations are too small to be compared publically. The school has demonstrated success in moving students to proficiency and 20% of students that had not met expectations in 2014-15 into proficiency in 2015-16. Additionally, the school has demonstrated limited success in maintaining student proficiency and 76% of students who met expectations in 2014-15 continued to meet expectations in 2015-16.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
9
Math Growth Growth Over Time Is the school making adequate* levels of growth higher than in previous years the state examinations (CSAP/TCAP & CMAS/PARCC)? Growth on the State Assessment over Time in Mathematics CSAP/TCAP (Math) 2010-2011
CMAS/PARCC (Math)
2011-2012
2013-2014
2015-2016
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
N
MGP%
6
42
41
38
Yes
41
15
47
No
32
49.5
48
Yes
42
56
7
42
29
47
No
46
42
56
No
51
40
58
No
45
46
8 Middle School
39
26
71
No
47
40
60
No
45
68
49
Yes
47
57
123
32
50
No
134
36
56
No
128
52.5
52
Yes
134
54
123
32
50
No
134
36
56
No
128
52.5
52
Yes
134
54
N
Grade
MGP%
AGP%
Made Adequate?
2012-2013
4 5 Elementary
9 10 High School Overall
*adequate growth was reported for CSAP/TCAP but is not reported for CMAS/PARCC
Median Growth
Levels of Growth
Are students outperforming the state median on growth?
What levels of growth are students making on the state assessment (PARCC/CMAS)?
Schoolwide Math Median Growth Trends 100
Levels of Growth Growth Category % of Students
90
80 70 60
50 40 30 20 10 0 2010-2011
2011-2012 Overall
2012-2013 Elementary
Low (below 35)
29.9%
Typical (35-65)
28.4%
High (above 65
41.8%
2013-2014 2015-2016 Middle School
Growth by Subgroup Over Time Are subgroups making adequate levels of growth higher than in previous years the state assessment?
Subgroup Math Growth Trends 80
Subgroup Growth Over Time (MGP/AGP) Student Subgroup
70
CSAP/TCAP Mathematics MGP/AGP 2011 MGP
AGP
2012
CMAS Math
2013
2014
2015
2016
60 50
MGP N/A 15
AGP N/A 71
MGP N/A 31
AGP N/A 81
MGP 59 48
AGP 66 83
MGP N/A N/A
MGP n<20 n<20
IEP
36
95
43
96
73
96
N/A
n<20
20
ELL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
55
90
N/A
n<20
10
GT Catch-Up
N/A 26
N/A 93
N/A 41
N/A 90
63 56
20 87
N/A N/A
n<20 55
0
32
50
36
56
52
52
N/A
54
F/R Lunch Minority
Schoolwide
Adequate Growth** Are students making adequate levels of growth higher than in previous years the state assessment? **Adequate growth was not reported for the 2015-2016 school year and is not included as a CDE or CSI measure
40 30
2011
2012 Schoolwide
2013 F/R Lunch
2014 Minority IEP
2015 ELL
GT
2016 Catch-Up
Growth by Enrollment Duration*** Does enrollment duration (i.e. new versus returning students) affect on growth? Growth by Enrollment Duration Level
Returning
New
Elementary Middle High Overall
Math Growth Narrative
***Measure will be completed upon request due a change in the state definition of Continuously Enrolled
Overall, the middle school meets expectations and produced growth that is slightly above the geographic district. Median growth percentiles can be compared across assessments and there has been an overall longitudinal increase in growth across the last four assessments but the levels of growth across the year are not statistical ly different (p=.2). Overall, the school produced growth in 2015-16 that is equivalent to more than one year's growth in one year's time but this is moderated by grade level. There is a significant difference between the levels of growth produced by students in the sixth and eighth grade when compared to the levels of growth produced by students in the seventh grade. The MGP for the seventh grade falls below the 50th percentile and would be rated as approaching expectations if evaluated separately. Similarly, students in the sixth and eighth grades produced levels of growth that would be rated as meeting expectations if evaluated separately. Th e school demonstrated success with students that are below benchmark and students in that subgroup produced higher levels of growth than students above benchmark. Schoolwide, 41.8% of students produced high lev els of growth and about 1/2 produced growth equivalent to one year's growth in one year's time.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
10
Geographic Comparison Achievement Comparison Are students performing well on state examinations in comparison to other schools in their geographic district and surrounding schools? *This measure will be populated in December when individual school performance and accreditation ratings are released after approval by the State Board of Education School Achievement on the State Assessment over Time in ELA
49 54 46 149
44.9% 46.3% 34.78% 42.3%
2015-2016 N M/E%
57 56 52 165
64.9% 57.1% 51.9% 58.2%
70.0% % Meets or Exceeds
2014-2015 N M/E%
Grade/Level 3 4 5 Elementary 6 7 8 MMS Middle 9 10 11 High School MMS Overall
ELA Achievement Comparison by Level 60.0%
50.0% 40.0%
30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Middle
149 42.3% 165 Geographic Comparison
58.2%
Growth Comparison Achievement Comparison
Overall 2014-15 MMS
Middle
Overall 2015-16
Durango 9-R
Geographic District Achievement on the State Assessment over Time in ELA 2014-2015 2015-2016 Grade/Level N M/E% N M/E% 3 4 5 Elementary 6 336 39.6 264 49.2 7 279 46.2 334 47.3 8 274 47.8 269 54.6 Durango Middle 889 44.2% 867 50.2% 9 10 11 High School Durango Overall 889 44.2% 867 50.2%
School Achievement on the State Assessment District Achievement on the State Assessment over Are students growing at similar ratesover onTime stateinexaminations in comparison to other schools in their geographic district and Geographic surrounding schools? Time in Math 2014-2015 2015-2016 Grade/Level Grade/Level N M/E% N M/E% N M/E% N M/E% 40.0% 3 3 35.0% 4 4 30.0% 5 5 25.0% Elementary Elementary 20.0% 6 48 25.0% 57 46% 6 340 29.4 265 26.8 15.0% 7 54 18.5% 56 29% 7 277 22.4 324 22.8 10.0% 8 46 20% 52 38% 8 204 10.3 198 12.1 MMS Middle 148 20.9% 165 37.6% Durango Middle 821 26.2% 787 38.8% 5.0% 9 9 0.0% 10 10 Middle Overall Middle Overall 11 11 2014-15 2015-16 High School High School MMS Durango 9-R MMS Overall 148 20.9% 165 37.6% Durango Overall 821 26.2% 787 38.8% % Meets or Exceeds
Are students performing well on state examinations in comparison to other schools in their geographic district and surrounding schools? Achievement Comparison by Level Math *This measure will be populated in December when individual school performance andMath accreditation ratings are released after approval by the State Board of Education *This measure will be populated in December when individual school performance and accreditation ratings are released after approval by the State Board of Education 2014-2015 2015-2016 45.0%
Geographic Comparison
Achievement Comparison
Accreditation
Are students performing well on state examinations in comparison to other schools in their geographic district and surrounding schools? Growth Comparison
*This measure will be populated Accreditation Over Timein December when individual school performance and accreditation ratings are released after approval by the State Board of Education
Are students growing at similar rates on state examinations in comparison to other schools in their geographic district and surrounding schools?
is the school’s accreditation overindividual time? How the school’s accreditation compare to similar schools statewide? *ThisWhat measure will be populated in December when schooldoes performance and accreditation ratingsrating are released after approval by the State Board of Education School Growth State Assessment *This measure willonbethe populated in Decemberin when individual school performance and accreditation ratings are released after approval by the State Board of Education ELA Growth Comparison by Level
ELA
64.0
Grade/Level 4 5 Elementary 6 7 8 MMS Middle 9 High School MMS Comparison Overall Growth
42 46 47 135
135
62.0
Median Growth Percentile
2015-2016 N MGP
39 52 79 56
4 5 Elementary 6 7 8 Durango Middle 9 High School Durango Overall
60.0 58.0
56.0 54.0 52.0 Middle
Overall 2015-16 Durango 9-R
MMS
56
Geographic District Growth on the State Assessment in ELA 2015-2016 Grade/Level N MGP
228 298 238 764
51 61.5 65 59
1,593
62
Accreditation AreGrowth students growing at similar rates School on the State Assessment in on state examinations in comparison to other schools in their geographic district and surrounding schools? Geographic District Growth on the State
Accreditation Over Time
Median Growth Percentile
*This measure will be populated in December when individual school performance and accreditation ratingsComparison are released after approval by the State Board of Education Math Growth by Level Math What is the school’s accreditation over time?55.0 How does the school’s accreditation rating compare to similar schools statewide? 2015-2016 Grade/Level *This measure will be populated in December when individual school performance and accreditation ratings are released after approval by the State Board of Education 54.0 N MGP 53.0 4 52.0 5 51.0 Elementary 50.0 6 42 56 49.0 48.0 7 45 46 47.0 8 47 57 46.0 MMS Middle 134 54 Middle Overall 9
High School MMS Overall
134
MMS
54
2015-16 Durango 9-R
Assessment in Math 2015-2016 N MGP
Grade/Level
4 5 Elementary 6 7 8 Durango Middle 9 High School Durango Overall
232 288 169 689
43.5 57 37 49
1,448
53
Accreditation
Accreditation Over Time What is the school’s accreditation over time? How does the school’s accreditation rating compare to similar schools statewide? *This measure will be populated in December when individual school performance and accreditation ratings are released after approval by the State Board of Education Performance Accreditation Summary Over Time on the SPF 2011 2012 2013 2014** School % Pts. Statewide % Pts. Statewide % Pts. Statewide % Pts. Rating Rating Rating Rating Earned Percentile Earned Percentile Earned Percentile Earned MOUNTAIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
Performance: New School
N/A
N/A
Priority Improvement
40.2
5.8
Improvement
62.6
35.9
Performance with Distinction
80.2
Statewide Percentile
Rating
80.1
Performance with Distinction
2016* % Pts. Statewide Earned Percentile 75
77.7
Note: Accreditation ratings and plan types were not released in 2015 due to the legislatively mandated "pause" year *SPF rating and the percent of points earned in 2016 cannot be compared to the percentage of points earned from 2010-2014
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
11
Additional Performance Information Interim Assessments Do interim test results (e.g. NWEA) provide any additional insight into student achievement? Do interim test results (e.g. NWEA) provide any additional insight into student growth? Do interim test results (e.g. NWEA) provide any additional insight into the student growth of subgroups? *Note: If you wish to submit supplemental information, please refer to the INTRODUCTION section of this report for submission requirements. Additional data will not become a part of the final report until it has been reviewed and approved by CSI.
School Academic Performance Observations and Narrative Math summary: On average each grade performed above the national average for their grade level on the Spring NWEA test. The 6th grade performed at an 8th grade average. The 7th grade performed at a 9th grade average. Our 8th graders performed at an average that is 3 RIT points above the end of 11th grade year norm. The 8th grade average is off the NWEA norm chart. Overall, all three grades average math performance scores, are two to three grade levels above the national average. Reading summary: Our RIT score average for each grade level is above the national average for their grade level on the Spring NWEA test. The 6th grade spring RIT score average indicates that they read above an 11th grade level average. Their score of 224.3 is 1.7 points above the RIT norm for the spring 11th grade RIT. The 7th grade RIT score is equivalent to the RIT norm for the end of an 11th grade year. The 8th grade spring RIT score is again well above (4.1points) the RIT norms for the 11th grade and once again off the chart. Overall, all three grades average reading performance scores, are three to five grade levels above the national average.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
12
Financial Performance
MOUNTAIN MIDDLE SCHOOL Fiscal Years 2014-2016 Financial Results Government-Wide Financial Statement Metrics
2014
Debt to As s et Ra ti o
2015
0.06
2016
3.19
1.50
Cha nge i n Net Pos i ti on
-7%
-424%
-142%
Defa ul t
NA
NA
NA
Governmental Fund Financial Statement Metrics Positive Unassigned Fund Balance (TABOR) Months of Cash on Hand Months of Unassigned Fund Balance on Hand Current Ratio Operating Margin Proprietary Fund Financial Statement Metrics
YES 2.98 2.43 11.37 2%
YES 3.71 2.29 13.22 8%
YES 2.14 1.55 6.19 -11%
Months of Ca s h on Ha nd
NA
NA
18.55
Current Ra ti o
NA
NA
0.14
Debt to As s et Ra ti o
NA
NA
Cha nge i n Net Pos i ti on
NA
NA
98%
Funded Pupi l Count (FPC) Current-Yea r Va ri a nce
-2%
0%
1%
Cha nge i n FPC from Pri or-Yea r
-2%
7%
3%
0.15
Enrollment
Governmental Fund Financial Metrics Over Time 14.00
12.00 10.00
8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 2014
2015
2016
Comments Mountain Middle School continues to have over two months of cash on hand and sufficient assets to cover its liabilities; however, the school's unassigned fund balance and operating margin declined. This is a result of Mountain Foundation for Education's (MFE) purchase of the existing facility, enabling MFE to initiate construction for expansion of the facility for future growth. While Mountain Middle School's enrollment increased, its actual expenses came in under budget by $80,109, largely due to savings in general administrative fees and expenses, maintenance and repairs, and leasehold improvements. As expected of all PERA employers, the school has a high debt to asset ratio and saw a significant drop in net position due to the inclusion of the PERA Net Pension Liability per GASB No. 68. The school reported no statutory violations in the Assurances for Financial Accreditation report.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
13
Financial Narrative (School observations): *OPTIONAL* To be populated by the school and provided to CIS For review and possible inclusion prior to the distribution of the final APR in December.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
14
Organizational Performance 1. Students and the Education Program
•
Is the school implementing the essential terms of the education program as defined in the current charter agreement? The essential delivery of the education program in all material respects and operation reflects the essential terms of the program as defined in the charter agreement Instructional days or minutes requirements Graduation and promotion requirements Alignment with content standards, including Common Core State-required assessments Implementation of mandated programming as a result of state or federal funding
20152016 Meets
Meets
Protecting student rights pursuant to:
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act relating to the treatment of students with identified disabilities and those suspected of having a disability, consistent with the school’s status and responsibilities as a school in a district LEA Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and US Department of Education authorities relating to English Language Learner requirements Law, policies and practices related to admissions, lottery, waiting lists, fair and open recruitment, enrollment, the collection and protection of student information Conduct of discipline procedures, including discipline hearings and suspension and expulsion policies and practices, in compliance with CRS 22-33-105 and 22-33-106 Recognition of due process protections, privacy, civil rights and student liberties requirements, including 1st Amendment protections and the Establishment Clause restrictions prohibiting public schools from engaging in religious instruction
Meets
2. Governance and Financial Management Is the school complying with governance requirements?
Adequate Board policies and by laws, including those related to oversight of an education service provider, if applicable (CRS 2230.5-509(s)), and those regarding conflicts of interest, anti-nepotism, excessive compensation, and board composition Compliance with State open meetings law Maintaining authority over management, holding it accountable for performance as agreed under a written performance agreement, if applicable Requiring annual financial reports of the education service
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
20152016
Meets
15
provider (CRS 22-30.5-509(s)), if applicable.
Compliance with the Financial Transparency Act (CRS 22-44-301) Complete and on-time submission of financial reports, including financial audit, corrective action plans, annual budget, revised budgets (if applicable), periodic financial reports as required by the authorizer, and any reporting requirements if the board contracts with an education service provider Meeting all reporting requirements related to the use of public funds The school’s audit is an unqualified audit opinion and devoid of significant findings and conditions, material weaknesses, or significant internal control weaknesses
Meets
3. Health, Safety, and the School Environment Is the school complying with health, safety, and facilities requirements?
20152016
Up to date fire inspections and related records Viable certificate of occupancy or other required building use authorization Documentation of requisite insurance coverage Student transportation safety requirements, if applicable Provision of appropriate nursing services and dispensing of pharmaceuticals, including compliance with 1 CCR 301-68 Compliance with food services requirements, if applicable Up to date emergency response plan, including compliance with NIMS requirements Maintaining the security of and provide access to student records under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Access to documents maintained by the school protected under the state’s freedom of information law Timely transfer of student records Proper and secure maintenance of testing materials Highly Qualified Teacher and Paraprofessional requirements within Title II of the ESEA relating to state certification requirements, unless waived Performing background checks of all applicable individuals Complying with state employment requirements
Meets
Meets
Meets
4. Additional Obligations Is the school identified for a notice of noncompliance?
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
20152016 Meets
16
Organizational Narrative (School observations): *OPTIONAL* To be populated by the school and provided to CIS For review and possible inclusion prior to the distribution of the final APR in December.
2015-2016 Annual Performance Report
17
