Position Statement Overview Sheridan School District No. 2

Position Statement
Sheridan School District No. 2
Accreditation Appeal to the State Board of Education
Overview
The Colorado Department of Education cannot recommend approval of Sheridan School District No. 2’s appeal, in order
to maintain the fairness and integrity of the state’s accountability ratings. Sheridan School District No. 2 made certain
choices in how they chose to report (and not report) students who have met graduation requirements in the End of Year
student data collections for calculating graduation and dropout rates. These choices impacted the district’s accreditation
rating, leading to a final 2013 rating of Accredited with Priority Improvement. The district is now asking to make a
different choice in considering their graduation data.
CDE guidance states that requests to adjust ratings based on data validation errors on the part of school districts are not
considered. Other districts, in similar accountability situations, did not pursue requests to reconsider based on this
guidance. Additionally, the Department has not approved requests around inaccurate graduation and dropout rate
submissions.
CDE acknowledges that based on the actual (not certified) 2013 outcomes for students, and taking into consideration the
performance of the Alternative Education Campus students, the district would have earned an Accredited with
Improvement Plan rating. CDE was unable to confirm this impact during the request to reconsider timeline (OctoberNovember) as 2013 graduation rate data is not finalized until January, annually. Once the data became final, CDE was
able to calculate the impact of these considerations to the District Performance Framework and the accreditation rating.
In making a determination around this appeal, it is essential for the State Board of Education to be aware of three
important implications.
1.
With approval, a precedent will be set that allows districts to revise the students considered as graduates, even
after official data is certified by the district. This has not been approved for any other school or district, nor is it
supported in CDE’s guidance.
2.
With approval, the precedent will be set that districts may choose to appeal their district accreditation rating in
order to use more recent graduation and dropout rates. Per rule, district accreditation ratings must be determined
by November of each year, but with this approval of this decision, districts would be permitted to appeal the
ratings to incorporate the graduation and dropout data that is finalized in January.
3.
The district's request to consider included the identification of nineteen students that had met the district's
graduation requirements, as evidenced by the submittals of student diplomas for seventeen of those students.
This results in the district no longer being eligible to receive funding for sixteen of the nineteen students who are
enrolled in the 2013-14 school year in Sheridan School District No. 2, per the Public School Finance Act and
Concurrent Enrollment Act. This will be reconciled through the School Finance auditing process.
It is important to be explicit about these implications through this appeal process.
Background
Sheridan School District No. 2 submitted a request to reconsider the district’s accreditation rating on October 14th, 2013
(see Appendix A). The district requested that the accreditation rating be changed from Accredited with a Priority
Improvement Plan to Accredited with an Improvement Plan, based on four arguments:
February 28, 2014
CDE POSITION STATEMENT SHERIDAN ACCREDITATION APPEAL
1.
2
The English language proficiency growth sub-indicators at the elementary and middle schools should not be
considered as the ACCESS for ELLs (Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for
English Language Learners) assessment was not properly administered at those levels.
2.
The preliminary 2013 graduation rate and dropout rates should be used instead of the 2012 final rates that are
used for all other districts and schools.
3.
Students who were issued diplomas by the district in 2013, but not reported as graduates by the district through
the End of Year reporting process, should be counted as graduates. (See Appendix B for redacted diplomas).
4.
Students enrolled in the district’s Alternative Education Campus (AEC), SOAR Academy, should be removed
from the district calculations.
The department denied the district’s request based on the following factors:
1.
There was no evidence in the ACCESS for ELLs assessment data that the assessment was not properly
administered at the elementary and middle levels.
2.
The 2013 graduation and dropout rates were preliminary at that time and subject to change as state-wide
adjustments were still in process.
3.
The district requested to include students that met graduation requirements, but were continuing on in their
education through the school district, in their 4-year graduation rate for accountability purposes. CDE counts
students as graduates when they are reported as such by the district. For students who need additional time to
graduate, the accountability frameworks use the best of the 4, 5, 6 or 7 year graduation rates, in order to
acknowledge the success of these students.
4.
Removing the students from SOAR, which CDE would allow due to the fact that SOAR received an AEC:
Performance rating, did not, alone, make enough impact to change the district’s rating.
CDE’s response to the request is included in Appendix C. Additional details are posted here:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/2013RequesttoReconsiderSummaries.pdf.
On November 13th, the State Board received the district accreditation ratings. Sheridan School District No. 2 decided to
appeal this decision to the State Board of Education, submitting an initial letter of intent on November 27th. The final 2013
graduation and dropout rate data became available on January 23, 2014. At that point, CDE had the information needed
to validate the data in this appeal.
Necessary Data and Conditions for Improvement Rating
Sheridan School District No. 2 requested for CDE staff to validate the data the district submitted through the request to
reconsider process (see Appendix A). With the final 2013 graduation and dropout rate data, CDE confirmed that all of the
following would need to occur in order for Sheridan School District to earn an Improvement rating on the 2013 District
Performance Framework:

Use the final 2013 graduation rate and dropout rate data, instead of the 2012 rates used for all other districts.
CDE POSITION STATEMENT SHERIDAN ACCREDITATION APPEAL

3
Include nineteen students who Sheridan stated had met graduation requirements that the district chose not to
report as graduated in the 2013 End of Year file (see Appendix B for diplomas submitted by the district).1

Remove the results from SOAR, the district’s Alternative Education Campus (AEC) from the district results.
(SOAR earned an AEC: Performance rating for 2013, and would continue to earn an AEC: Performance rating
with the 2013 completer and dropout rate data included).
The first two bullets are considerations that have not been approved by CDE for other districts. The third bullet has been
approved for other districts during the fall of 2013. Appendix D shows the 2013 graduation and dropout rates based on
these different scenarios. (Appendix E includes the official 2013 District Performance Framework, for reference).
Response to Sheridan School District No. 2’s Position Statement
Based on the district’s position statement and previous request to reconsider, it appears that the district is requesting the
State Board of Education (SBE) take into account the three conditions stated above and accredit the district with an
Improvement rating. As stated previously, these conditions do allow the district to earn enough points on the framework
to be Accredited with an Improvement Plan. However, CDE has not previously approved the first two conditions for
other districts (that is, use 2013 graduation rates and permit districts to change the graduation status of students after the
data has been certified as correct by the district).
The following bullets address several key points in the district’s position statement for the SBE.



1
The graduation and dropout rates are certified by the district superintendent. These rates are then used for
accountability purposes. The district chose which specific students to report as graduates to CDE. The district
stated that nineteen students who the district chose not to report to CDE as graduates during the End of Year
student data collection were in fact qualified to graduate. The district provided CDE with copies of the 2013
diplomas for seventeen of these nineteen students during the request to reconsider process last fall, along with
four additional diplomas (Appendix B). The district certified the inaccurate data on December 12, 2013. (See
Appendix F for Sheridan’s 2013 certification documentation).
The district did not report the nineteen students who were identified as qualified to graduate as graduates, and
thus the students were not counted in the numerator for the 2013-14 4-year graduation rate. If the district wanted
these students to count as graduates for accountability purposes, the district could have reported them as
graduates. That the district created diplomas for seventeen of the nineteen students is evidence that they had met
the district’s requirements for graduation and should have been reported as graduates.
If the district had reported the nineteen students as graduates, the sixteen who were reported in the 2013-14
Student October collection for funding would not have been eligible to receive funds. (Please see Appendix G,
which contains an informal opinion from the Attorney General’s Office concerning this situation).
Sixteen of these students are still enrolled in the district and funded as of the October 1, 2013 data collection. If the
district had chosen to report them as 2013 graduates, the students would not be able to receive funding in 2013-14, per
the Public School Finance Act and the Concurrent Enrollment Act. (CDE uses the graduation rate data in the prior
district certified End of Year report to ensure students submitted for funding in the current Student October report
have not yet met graduation requirements). See Appendix F for an informal opinion from the Attorney General’s
Office concerning this.
CDE POSITION STATEMENT SHERIDAN ACCREDITATION APPEAL
4
Policy Implications
The scope of the State Board of Education’s decision in this case goes well beyond this particular appeal because of the
precedent-setting nature of the decision. Approval of this request would set aside specific processes and procedures that
all district appeals have been subject to in the past, bringing inconsistency to the ratings and questioning the integrity of
the accountability process. These issues are summarized below:

Districts are required to report and certify accurate graduation and dropout data. This appeal would recognize
that sometimes districts do not report accurate data and would allow districts to revise the results, for
accountability purposes. CDE has not approved, nor allows in guidance, district requests for reconsideration
based on district data submitted to CDE incorrectly.

Other districts, following the policy guidance, did not submit requests to reconsider to CDE for errors in
graduation and dropout rate submissions. Approval of this appeal would create inconsistent and unfair
accountability ratings, and bring the integrity of the accountability ratings into question.

Approval would allow districts to request to use the most recent graduation and dropout rate data. (Per rule,
district accreditation ratings must be determined by November of each year. CDE would need to adjust the
timeline so that districts could submit a request to reconsider based on the more recent data, which becomes
available in January. This would create an extended request to reconsider timeline).
District Implications
With this appeal, there are also implications for the district (and any other district that could be approved under these
conditions in the future). CDE wants to ensure that these implications are clear for both the State Board of Education and
the district.

If evidence is presented that students have met graduation requirements and yet are still enrolled in the district
(not in an ASCENT program), then the district funding for ineligible students would be reconciled through the
audit process.

If evidence is presented that students have met graduation requirements, districts must report these students as
graduates at the next possible End of Year data collection.

If this appeal is approved, updates to the official 2013 graduation rate will not be made in the data warehouse or
in public reporting (as no changes are made once the data is certified). The subsequent 2014 District Performance
Framework will still show the official 2013 results.
Recommendation
The Department recognizes that if the district had chosen to report accurate graduation data to CDE and the most recent
results (2013) were included and the results of students in the Alternative Education Campus were excluded, then the
district would have earned an Accredited with Improvement Plan rating.
While the Colorado Department of Education cannot support approval of this appeal, staff believes that the State Board of
Education has two options.
1.
Deny the appeal based on the original 2012 and 2013 graduation and dropout rate data, certified by the district.
The district chose to report specific students as graduates and certified that data, which resulted in a Priority
CDE POSITION STATEMENT SHERIDAN ACCREDITATION APPEAL
Improvement rating. CDE has not allowed requests based on inaccurately submitted data. (If, as a result of this
action, the district enters Year 5 in July 2015, then at that time decisions around the accountability clock can take
additional information into account).
2.
Approve the appeal based on a change to the certified data reported on the part of the district, use of 2013
graduation and dropout results and removal of the Alternative Education Campus students.
With a full understanding of the accountability, policy and financial implications of the ruling, it is now up to the State
Board to make the final determination regarding this appeal.
5
CDE POSITION STATEMENT SHERIDAN ACCREDITATION APPEAL
Appendices
Appendix A: Sheridan School District No. 2 Request to Reconsider
Appendix B: Sheridan School District No. 2 Diplomas for Additional Graduates
Appendix C: Colorado Department of Education Response Letter to Sheridan School District No. 2
Appendix D: 2013 Graduation and Dropout Rates- Overall and with Adjustments
Appendix E: 2013 District Performance Framework – Sheridan School District No. 2
Appendix F: 2013 End of Year Report Certification Page
Appendix G: Informal Opinion – Attorney General
6
Appendix A
October 14, 2013
Commissioner of Education
Mr. Robert Hammond
201 East Colfax
Denver, CO 80203
Commissioner Hammond,
Please accept this letter as Sheridan School District 2’s appeal for reconsideration of the 2013
Accreditation Rating from “Priority Improvement” to “Improvement.” We believe the following
documentation will assist you in your analysis and help provide the most accurate rating
possible to the community of Sheridan and to taxpayers and parents at large.
Sheridan School District has pursued a reform-minded agenda since 2008. Over the last five
years, the district has demonstrated genuine progress, and the students have posted solid
gains. The needs of all students are being considered. The district has strengthened service to
gifted and talented learners at the same time as it has ensured that our schools and classrooms
welcome students who are making multiple attempts at completing high school.
Programs at Sheridan have been heralded by the United States Department of Education,
national and local media, and various state organizations. We have forged a strong partnership
with the Colorado Department of Education. Sheridan School District 2 is grateful for the
support it has received through grants, technical assistance, the University of Virginia
Turnaround Leadership Program, and the commissioner’s office.
As you will see in this detailed explanation, our requests are based, with one exception, on
what is allowable in the current policy guidance. The exception is that we are asking to include
current graduation and dropout data as validation of data collected in the 2011-2012 school
year. The current data has been vetted by the district on a student-by-student basis and will
provide context for our appeal of the “Post-Secondary” portion of our request. We believe the
data provides an accurate picture of accountability regarding the ability of Sheridan School
District 2 to produce high school graduates.
Sheridan School District is unique in providing post-secondary opportunities for all students.
The district, working in close concert with the Colorado Department of Education, has analyzed
each of the students from the 2012 and 2013 cohorts. The analysis has given us great cause to
celebrate both our high graduation rate and our low dropout rate, in spite of the highest freeand-reduced rate of any metro area school district.
Thank you for your consideration of our request; please feel free to address me directly if there
is need for clarification. I would welcome the chance to meet with you or Dr. Keith Owen, if
necessary, to discuss this request.
Sincerely,
Michael Clough, Superintendent
Sheridan School District
Ron Carter, President
Sheridan School Board
Sheridan School District
DPF Reconsideration Document
Sheridan School District requests a reconsideration to the Colorado Department of Education to
the District Performance Rating from “Accredited with Priority Improvement” to “Accredited
with Improvement.” As outlined below, the total number of additional points will increase the
DPF from 45.8 points to 55 points and change the accreditation category to one that is an
accurate reflection of the current performance.
The Sheridan District appeal is based on two performance indicators:
1) Academic Growth
2) Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
Academic Growth
Within the area of academic growth, the district is requesting an appeal for elementary and
middle school English Language Proficiency based on the ACCESS assessment, which Sheridan
leadership understands is allowable under current rules.
English Language Proficiency (ACCESS)
SSD2 requests that the ELA proficiency sub-indicator be removed from the performance
framework for elementary and middle school. The ACCESS results do not reflect the student
performance levels or the growth percentiles in English Language Proficiency for Second
Language Learners. This is due to the fact that students at these levels were assessed using Test
form C, which was too advanced. The difference in the administration of the tests at the
elementary and middle school levels was the decision-making process determining the form to
be given to students. At the elementary and middle school levels, this decision was made by
central office administration. The decision at the high school, however, was made by both
central administration and a teacher team. The resulting data from the elementary and middle
school made it impossible to accurately measure growth going forward.
We have two reasons to believe that, had the assessment been correctly administered, MGP
growth would have been higher:
1) Using TCAP data, three of the four content assessments of the English Language
Learners were above the expected growth of 55 MGP at elementary and middle school
levels in reading and writing.
2) The form at the high school that was accurately administered demonstrated growth of
51 MGP on the WIDA ACCESS assessment.
If these two numbers are dropped from the DPF, the score for Academic Growth would
increase from an 18.8 to a 19.8 (56.6 percent).
The table below demonstrates Median Growth Percentiles (MGP) and Adequate Growth
Percentiles (AGP) in reading and writing for English Language Learners for 2012 and 2013, as
measured by TCAP and English Language Proficiency as measured by CELA/ACCESS.
Sheridan Elementary- ELL
Content Growth -TCAP
Reading
Writing
Sheridan Elementary English
Language Proficiency
Growth–CELA/ACCESS
Sheridan Middle School-ELL
Content Growth-TCAP
Reading
Writing
SMS English Language
Proficiency GrowthCELA/ACCESS
Sheridan High School-ELL
Content Growth-TCAP
Reading
Writing
SMS English Language
Proficiency GrowthCELA/ACCESS
2012
2013
56 MGP/62 AGP
53 MGP/64 MGP
55 MGP/45 AGP
41 MGP/55 AGP
54 MGP/39 AGP
29 MGP
2012
2013
56 MGP/60 AGP
65 MGP/77 AGP
57 MGP/61 AGP
64 MGP/73 AGP
50 MGP/51 AGP
34 MGP
2012
2013
49 MGP/63 AGP
52 MGP/ 92 AGP
45 MGP/75 AGP
52 MGP/95 AGP
58 MGP/ 77 AGP
51 MGP
What the tables above make clear is that the ACCESS results in 2013 for the middle school and
elementary were an aberration. The 2013 ACCESS growth results were at least 12 points
greater than other assessments with similar students.
Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
With Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness, there are two issues to consider:
1) Graduation Rate
2) Dropout Rate
The 2013 District Performance Framework reflects current performance in the areas of
achievement, academic growth, growth gaps, and portions of Postsecondary and Workforce
Readiness. The exception to this is in the area of graduation rate and dropout rate. The data
that are reflected lag one year behind. The data included in the framework are from the
students who graduated and dropped out in 2012. The Unified Improvement Plan is
established to plan and implement based on areas where the district is underperforming and
focus on improvement actions to address these issues. Following is data that will substantiate
the success of these actions and provide Sheridan School District with the ability to
communicate to stakeholders and the community.
Graduation Rate
The district is requesting that the current 2013 data, which is not reflected in the 2013 District
Performance Framework, be used to validate the continuing improvements in the district’s
graduation rate. Problems with the graduation rate in 2012 have been addressed. The class of
2013 reflects the Turnaround measures that were put into place with the hiring of a new
principal in 2009. Following are the outcomes for the freshman class of 2009-2010:
2013 Graduation (freshmen in 2009-2010)
Outcome Count
Count
Graduates
45
Qualified to Graduate
19
st
Continuing in 21 Century
and Bridge
Sub-Total: Class of 2013
64
Graduates
Non-Completers
9
TOTAL Class of 2013
*Above state average
73
Percent
61.6%
26.7%
87.7%*
12.3%
100%
Students that are counted in the category of “Qualified to Graduate” have met the graduation
requirements set forth by the Sheridan Board of Education (student documentation included).
These requirements mirror those for the students who are counted in the graduate count.
Sheridan’s rigorous requirements include 240 credits. The actual graduation rate would have
demonstrated a “meets requirements” on the DPF for the graduation indicator, which would
have earned an additional 1 point on the DPF.
Disaggregated 2013 Graduation Data
N
FRL
Minority
Students with
Disabilities
ELL students
58
58
N<20
28
Number of
Graduates +
Qualified to
Graduate
56
54
Graduation Rate
Points Earned
94%
93%
1
1
N/A
27
96%
1
The disaggregated graduation rate based on the above table would have increased the number
of points earned from 1.72 to 3 out of 3 points possible (number for Students with Disabilities is
less than 20.
In order to validate the positive trend in graduation and dropout data, Sheridan District also
examined and updated the graduation data from 2012. The graduation data is disaggregated
by students attending Sheridan High School and the students who attended an alternative
program established at SHS. Prior to the 2012-2013 school year, Sheridan started an
alternative program titled SOAR (Student Outreach and Recovery). The purpose of SOAR is to
provide an alternative educational programming for students who do not fit within the
traditional high school setting. The SOAR program has re-engaged many previous dropouts
from the Sheridan system and from across Metro Denver.
When Sheridan developed SOAR, it was organized as a program within Sheridan High School.
Beginning in school year 2012-2013, however, SOAR became a separate school. In its first year
as a school, SOAR received an accreditation rating of “Performance.” Because of the difference
in the expected outcomes for Alternative Educational Campuses, it is within state rule for
districts to exclude the data from the District Performance Framework. The student data
sheets from 2011-2012 (attached) demonstrate that the graduation rate for Sheridan High
School, without incorporating the graduation data from SOAR, stood at 87.7 percent. See
tables below.
2013 Graduation Data
Outcome Count
Graduates
Qualified to Graduate
Continuing in 21st Century
and Bridge
Sub-Total: Class of 2013
Graduates
Non-Completers
TOTAL Class of 2013
*Above state average
2012 Graduation Data
Outcome Count
Graduates
Qualified to Graduate
Continuing in 21st Century
and Bridge
Sub-Total: Class of 2013
Graduates
Non-Completers
TOTAL Class of 2013
Count
45
19
Percent
61.6%
26.7%
64
87.7%*
9
12.3%
73
100%
Count
28
25
Percent
44%
39.6%
53
83.6%*
10
15.8%
63
100%
Dropout Rate
The current 2013 District Performance Framework demonstrates a dropout rate of 4.6 percent,
which is below state expectation. Once again, the data lag by one year. The data is from the
2011-2012 school year rather than the 2012-2013 school year. Utilizing updated tracking
measures as outlined in the District Unified Improvement Plan, the actual dropout rate for
2011-2012 is at a 2.7 percent. Utilizing accurate data, Sheridan’s 2011-2012 dropout rate was
below 3 percent because students who went to private schools or moved out of state/out of
country were being counted as dropouts. Additionally, many of the students who had
previously dropped out are now re-engaged through the SOAR Academy. The total student
count in grades 7-12 is 915 and the actual number of dropouts is 25. (See attached 2011-2012
student data sheet.)
Furthermore, the data collected from students who graduated in 2013 validate this positive
trend. Current data demonstrate that the dropout rate for the 2012-2013 school year is at 1.8
percent for Sheridan High School and 4.1 percent for students attending the SOAR Alternative
Education Campus. Both of these statistics meet the state expectation as outlined in the
District Performance Framework. (SOAR data will be excluded from the calculation as allowed
in state rule.) See attached data sheets. Utilizing the EOY data for the dropout indicator would
increase the rating from “Approaching” to “Meets,” and the points earned would increase from
2 to 3.
Conclusions
These changes under the postsecondary and workforce readiness would increase the points
earned from 6.75 to 10 out of 15, which has a chain reaction of increases in other categories.
The percentage points would change from 42.2 to 66, and postsecondary and workforce
readiness would move up to a 23.
The total number of additional points earned as outlined above will increase the DPF from the
current 45.8 out of 100 points to 55 out of 100 points, which changes the district accreditation
category from “Priority Improvement” to “Improvement.”
Summary of Requested Change in Accreditation Points
Category
Initial Accreditation
Requested
Points Awarded
Additional Points
Academic Growth
18.8
1.00
Postsecondary and
14.8
8.2
workforce readiness
Achievement
3.8
0
Academic Growth
8.4
0
Gaps
Total Points
45.8
9.2
Final Total Points
19.8
23.0
3.8
8.4
55
Appendix B
Appendix C
November 11, 2013
Michael Clough
Sheridan School District No. 2
P.O. Box 1198
Englewood, CO 80150
Dear Superintendent Clough,
Thank you for the dedication you and your staff have shown to provide better educational opportunities
for students in Sheridan School District. Over the last several years we have been able to see firsthand the
passion and focus evident in all the work that is being done in your district. I have had the opportunity
to review the request to reconsider Sheridan School District submitted for the 2013 preliminary district
accreditation rating. I understand the amount of work and effort that you and your team put into this
process and I want to assure you that we looked at every avenue available to us to try and accommodate
your request.
However, based on the data shared in the district’s request, the department’s data analysis, state law and
the department’s current policies, CDE does not approve Sheridan School District’s request. For a
detailed explanation, please reference the attached document.
Sincerely,
Robert K. Hammond
Commissioner of Education
Enclosures: (1)
CC:
Keith Owen, Deputy Commissioner, CDE
Elliott Asp, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, CDE
Alyssa Pearson, Executive Director-Accountability and Data Analysis, CDE
Cindy Ward, Performance Manager, CDE
Sheridan School District No. 2
Request for Reconsideration-Decision Explanation
November 11, 2013
This document provides a detailed explanation to Sheridan School District regarding the Colorado Department of
Education’s decision to deny Sheridan’s request for reconsideration of the 2013 preliminary district accreditation rating.
The department understands that the request is based on four assertions:
1.
The 2013 preliminary graduation and dropout rates more accurately reflect the student performance in the district
compared to the 2012 graduation and dropout rates.
2.
Additional students qualified to graduate in 2013, but did not choose to receive their diplomas, in order to continue
with their education. The district believes those students should be counted as graduates for accountability purposes.
3.
The students enrolled in the AEC, SOAR, should be excluded from the post-secondary workforce indicators, per the
flexibility CDE has been given. SOAR has an AEC: Performance rating, which allows the district to be eligible for a
higher rating when the students enrolled in the AEC are removed.
4.
The English language proficiency growth sub-indicator at the elementary and middle school levels does not
accurately represent the growth of English learners in English proficiency due to challenges with the transition to the
ACCESS assessment.
CDE has considered each of the four assertions individually and in combination. We will share the policy decisions around
each one and then explain how those individual decisions role up to the overall recommendation.
Using 2013 Preliminary Graduation and Dropout Data
As of the October 15th request for reconsideration submission date, the Colorado Department of Education was still collecting
End of Year data from LEAs across the state for the 2012-2013 school year. These are the data used to calculate official
graduation and dropout rates. While districts have already reported their initial Phase A data for the 2012-2013 school year,
this data has not been compared to other districts’ data. CDE runs district cross-checks identifying students who have been
reported as dropouts, expulsions, or transfers to GED programs in prior years and are now being reported by a different
district within the state. Reports are generated and sent to districts providing them the information necessary to adjust a
student’s history so the student is no longer considered a dropout, expulsion, or attending a GED program. These
adjustments allow districts to accurately report a student as a district transfer or a completer for students who received their
GED. As part of this post-processing, CDE cross-checks students who still appear to be enrolled in a district with a historical
list of students who have received a GED. If the system finds a match, a report is generated and sent to the district. This
provides the district the information they need to adjust a student’s status to receiving a GED and mark the student as a
completer. A final cross-check is done with the students living or attending facilities across the state of Colorado. Any
students identified as attending or living in a facility are reported to the districts. Districts are given this information and
have an opportunity to adjust these students’ exit type to indicate that the student has transferred to a facility.
Starting on October 31st CDE began the phase B portion of the end of year collection. The Phase B portion of the collection
will only allow districts to change student’s exit types. A statewide comparison is done for the current year validating that
each student’s exit type matches up across the districts. The End of Year collection will identify students who were
misreported as dropouts and should have been reported as district transfers. Districts are given a report with these students
and the opportunity to change the student from a dropout to a district transfer. The Phase B processing will also check for
students who are reported as district transfers and do not show up in another district in the 2012-2013 school year. In these
SHERIDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
2
cases, the district will be required to either produce documentation justifying the existing exit type or the district will be
required to modify the student’s exit type to a dropout.
All of the above processing is crucial to ensuring the quality of End of Year data and providing accurate graduation rates and
dropout rates. These calculations are not performed earlier in the year because it is important to identify where the student
is on October 1st of the following school year. Currently, CDE is processing 2012-2013 End of Year at the same time districts
are reporting their pupil enrollment for the 2013-2014 school year. The End of Year processing does not complete until after
the pupil enrollment collection is finalized. The timing between these collections is important because students will transfer
over the summer. This also gives districts an opportunity to report students who are late graduates or earn their diploma
over the summer.
Additionally, the department has been unable to completely reconcile the data submitted by the district with the preliminary
2013 EOY data. CDE asked the district to include the 2013 graduation rates for the entire district, including the SOAR AEC
students. However, based on the fact that the data set within the appeal matches the results with the SOAR students
removed, it appears this was not provided. CDE will follow-up with the district to provide technical assistance around
submitting End of Year data to the department.
We understand that the 2012 results represent lagged performance of the district, but we cannot make decisions around
preliminary, uncertified and un-validated results. Including 2013 data would not represent the most accurate description of
student performance and would be inconsistent with accountability procedures for other districts in the state.
Counting Eligible Graduates
In addition to using the 2013 graduation rates, the district would like to include students who were eligible to graduate in
2013 but chose to not graduate in order to continue with their education.
There are two types of completion rates calculated based on the student data: graduation rate and completion rate. Students
who receive a high school diploma are considered graduates. Only students identified by the district as receiving a high
school diploma are included in the graduation rate. Students who receive a GED, certificate of completion, or a high school
diploma are considered completers. These students are all included in the completion rate.
A student who has received their GED or certificate of completion can enroll within a district and pursue a high school
diploma, but the student must relinquish the GED or certificate of completion and is no longer considered a completer for the
purposes of the calculation. The student will only be considered a completer if they graduate and receive their high school
diploma. Since the End of Year process runs statewide and checks across multiple years, a student cannot be recorded as a
completer more than once.
While CDE acknowledges that there is a benefit to individual students to receive additional education, the accountability
system will reflect these students as graduates in the 5-, 6-, or 7- year graduation rate. The department purposefully includes
the “best of” the 4-, 5-, 6-, or 7 year to ensure that students who need more time to graduate are included in the graduation
rate and that there is not an accountability disincentive to ensuring students graduate ready. Thus, the department does not
believe eligible graduates should be included through this request to reconsider, as they will be counted when they do
actually graduate from the district.
It is important to also note that once a student receives a high school diploma, the student is no longer eligible for funding.
Therefore, if the district graduates a student, the district may not consider them eligible for funding in the subsequent year.
SHERIDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
3
Removing AEC students
The district would like to remove the results of students enrolled in the AEC, SOAR, for the district performance framework,
per SB13-217 statute. CDE supports this option for Sheridan School District, as the AEC earned a rating of AEC: Performance
on their 2013 AEC SPF. When CDE removed the student results for students enrolled in SOAR in 2012-13, the district rating
remained at the Priority Improvement level. As the AEC was new in the 2012-13 school year, the student results were not
included in the 2012 graduation and dropout rate data.
In the request, Sheridan School District removed the students enrolled in the SOAR program (before it became a school and
an AEC) from the 2012 graduation rate. Removing those students resulted in a graduation rate of 44%, according to
Sheridan’s calculations. With a 44% graduation rate, assuming a similar graduation rate for disaggregated groups, and even
using the 1.8% dropout rate, the district would actually earn fewer PWR points than the preliminary 2013 1-year framework
(5.75 out of 15). This would keep the district at the Priority Improvement level.
English Language Proficiency Growth
CDE does not recommend removing the English language proficiency growth sub-indicator at the elementary and middle
schools, as additional data does not support the concerns shared by the district. The district stated elementary and middle
school students were given Tier C of ACCESS, a decision made by central office administration and not in conjunction with
the teacher team. CDE’s internal analysis of the percent of students at each grade level assigned Tier A, B and C on the 2013
ACCESS assessment indicates that almost 9% of elementary and middle school students were assessed with Tier C (see Table
1).
Table 1: Count and Percent of Students Taking Tier A, B and C of the ACCESS Assessment in 2013 at each grade level and
span.
Tier
Kindergarten
A
B
C
Total
Grade
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count
Kindergarten
47 100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
47
01
0
0.0%
37 60.7%
23
37.7%
1
1.6%
61
02
0
0.0%
15 25.9%
39
67.2%
4
6.9%
58
03
0
0.0%
5 11.1%
40
88.9%
0
0.0%
45
04
0
0.0%
5 10.4%
37
77.1%
6
12.5%
48
05
0
0.0%
3
8.6%
27
77.1%
5
14.3%
35
06
0
0.0%
3
7.5%
31
77.5%
6
15.0%
40
07
0
0.0%
2
5.9%
27
79.4%
5
14.7%
34
08
0
0.0%
1
3.7%
22
81.5%
4
14.8%
27
E&M
0
0.0%
71 20.4%
246
70.7%
31
8.9%
348
09
0
0.0%
2 15.4%
5
38.5%
6
46.2%
13
10
0
0.0%
2
5.9%
21
61.8%
11
32.4%
34
11
0
0.0%
1
6.3%
10
62.5%
5
31.3%
16
12
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
21
70.0%
9
30.0%
30
0.0%
5.4%
61.3%
H
0
5
57
31 33.3%
93
SHERIDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
4
The district, in follow-up conversations, shared that it was the identification at the Tier B level that led to the lower growth.
The district also shared a list of students that, upon reflection, should have been given Tier C. CDE analyzed the ACCESS
scores of students in Tier B to see how many of them were receiving the highest possible score in Tier B. If many of them
were “topping out”, then that could have impacted their student growth percentiles. However, only 4.6% received the
highest possible composite score in Tier B. The few students impacted indicate that the majority of students were given the
accurate Tier assessment and that the student growth percentiles would not be impacted by this administration issue.
Thus, in the data validation, CDE does not see the concerns with administration of ACCESS and thus cannot remove the ELP
sub-indicator points for elementary and middle levels.
Overall Decision
CDE is unable to consider a request on the grounds of using the 2013 preliminary graduation and dropout rate data,
counting students currently enrolled in Sheridan School District as graduates, or English language proficiency growth
associated with ACCESS testing. The department reviewed the impact of students enrolled in the AEC in the district
framework, as well as the impact of students enrolled in the program prior to AEC status. Based on CDE’s calculations of the
current AEC student impact and on data provided by Sheridan for students enrolled in the program, these data
considerations do not change the overall rating of the district. Thus, CDE does not recommend approving Sheridan School
District’s request to receive an Accredited with Improvement rating.
Next Steps
The Department looks forward to working with Sheridan and continuing to support the district and its schools in their
improvement efforts. We hope the district will participate in the rule making process for SB13-217 and share its perspective
on the appropriate criteria.
The department would also like to determine a venue for the district to share its perspective on the Educational
Accountability Act, specifically the consequences associated with the accountability clock and the steps the district has been
taking towards improvement. We believe this is an important conversation to conduct with the State Board of Education.
Finally, if the district would like to appeal CDE’s decision to the State Board of Education, the process is as follows (details in
the State Board Rules posted here
http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/accountability/downloads/1ccr301-1-june2012.pdf).
•
Appeal is submitted by the Local School Board to the State Board of Education Office.
•
The appeal needs to be filed with State Board office within 10 days of CDE’s notification (by Friday, November 30th).
•
The State Board office notifies the district within 10 days to schedule the hearing.
•
District submits Position Statement within 15 days.
•
Department may file a response to the Position Statement within 15 days.
•
Department shall file objections or additions within 10 days of district submission.
•
State Board will make a ruling within 30 days after the hearing.
Please feel free to contact Deputy Commissioner Keith Owen or Executive Director of Accountability, Alyssa Pearson, with
any questions or concerns.
Appendix D: 2013 Graduation and Dropout Rates- Overall and with Adjustments
2013 4-year
Graduation
Rate
2013 4-year
Graduation
RateMinority
Students
2013 4-year
Graduation
Rate- FRL
Students
2013 4-year
Graduation
Rate- ELL
Students
2013 4-year
Graduation
Rate- IEP
Students
2013
Dropout
Rate
Official and
certified
rate
40.2%
41.5%
41.1%
42.1%
Less than 16
students
2.6%
Eligible to
graduate
students
included
57.1%
58.5%
58.9%
71.1%
Less than 16
students
NA
SOAR AEC
students
removed
and eligible
students
included
87.1%
86.9%
91.0%
89.7%
Less than 16
students
0.9%
Colors of the cells denote the rating the district would have received for this sub-indicator on the District
Performance Framework.
Red = Does not meet
Yellow = approaching
Green = meets
Blue = exceeds
Appendix E
District Performance Framework 2013 - PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISTRICT REVIEW
Level: EMH
District: SHERIDAN 2 - 0123
(All - 1 Year )
1
Accredited w/Priority Improvement Plan
Will enter Year 4* of Priority Improvement or Turnaround
Performance Indicators
Rating
Academic Achievement
Does Not Meet
25.0%
( 3.8 out of 15 points )
Approaching
53.6%
( 18.8 out of 35 points )
Approaching
55.8%
( 8.4 out of 15 points )
Approaching
42.2%
( 14.8 out of 35 points )
45.8%
( 45.8 out of 100 points )
This is the district's official accreditation rating, which is based on the 1
Academic Growth
Year District Performance Framework. Districts are designated an
accreditation category based on the overall percent of points earned for
the official year. The official percent of points earned is matched to the Academic Growth Gaps
scoring guide below to determine the accreditation category.
Additionally, failing to meet finance, safety, test administration and/or test Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
participation assurances will result in a lower accreditation category.
Framework Points Earned Test Participation
Accreditation Category
Accred. w/Distinction
at or above 80%
Accredited
at or above 64% - below 80%
Accred. w/Improvement Plan
at or above 52% - below 64%
3
% of Points Earned out of Points Eligible
2
Meets 95% Participation Rate
TOTAL
2
Districts may not be eligible for all possible points on an indicator due to insufficient numbers of students. In these cases, the points are removed
at or above 42% - below 52% from the points eligible, so scores are not negatively impacted.
3
below 42% Districts do not receive points for test participation. However, districts are assigned one accreditation category lower than their points indicate if they
Accred. w/Turnaround Plan
do not (1) meet at least a 95% participation rate in all or all but one content area (reading, writing, math, science and COACT), or (2) for districts
Framework points are calculated using the percentage of points earned serving multiple levels (elementary, middle and high school grades, e.g., a 6-12 school), meet at least a 95% participation rate in all or all but one
out of points eligible. For districts with data on all indicators, the total content area when individual content area rates are rolled up across school levels (elementary, middle and high school grades).
points possible are: 15 points for Academic Achievement, 35 for Academic
4
Meets Requirements
Growth, 15 for Academic Growth Gaps, and 35 for Postsecondary and Finance
Workforce Readiness.
Accred. w/Priority Impr. Plan
Safety
* on July 1, 2014
4
Meets Requirements
4
Districts do not receive points for finance and safety assurances. However, districts that do not meet requirements in at least one area default to Accredited with
Priority Improvement (or remain Accredited with Turnaround Plan) until they meet requirements.
Test Participation Rates
Content Area
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Colorado ACT
% of Students Tested
Participation Rating
Elem
Middle
High
Overall
100.0%
100.0%
98.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
-
99.0%
-
6
Students Tested
Total Students
99.6%
Elem
Meets
Middle
Meets
High
Meets
Overall
Meets
Elem
276
Middle
295
High
187
Overall
758
Elem
276
Middle
295
High
190
Overall
761
100.0%
100.0%
Meets
Meets
Meets
Meets
277
295
190
762
277
295
190
762
98.9%
99.7%
Meets
Meets
Meets
Meets
278
295
188
761
278
295
190
763
97.0%
92.9%
99.0%
92.9%
Meets
-
Meets
-
Meets
Does Not Meet
Meets
Does Not Meet
87
-
100
-
96
91
284
91
87
-
101
-
99
98
287
98
6
The district has exceeded the 1% cap on the percent of students scoring proficient on the CoAlt assessment. This may indicate that the district is over-identifying students for the alternate content assessment. Scores that exceed the 1% cap do not
count as students tested (participants).
1
COLORADO DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION
1
Data in this report is based on results from: 2012-13
Official accreditation rating based on: 1 Year DPF report
Performance Indicators - PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISTRICT REVIEW
District: SHERIDAN 2 - 0123
Academic Achievement
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Total
Academic Growth
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
English Language Proficiency (ACCESS)
Total
Academic Growth Gaps
Reading
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Mathematics
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Writing
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Total
% Points
Level: Elementary
(1 Year)
Points Earned
Points Eligible
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
Rating
N
% Proficient/Advanced
District's Percentile
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
258
258
259
80
48.06
53.1
30.12
15
4
9
3
0
4
16
25%
Does Not Meet
Points Earned
Points Eligible
% Points
Rating
N
Median Growth Percentile
Median Adequate Growth
Percentile
Made Adequate
Growth?
3
2
2
0.5
4
4
4
2
Meets
Approaching
Approaching
Does Not Meet
164
164
164
223
49
51
41
29
45
60
55
-
Yes
No
No
-
7.5
14
53.6%
Approaching
Points Earned
12
Points Eligible
16
% Points
75%
Rating
Meets
Subgroup Median Adequate
Growth Percentile
Made Adequate
Growth?
3
3
0
3
3
4
4
0
4
4
9
16
2
2
0
3
2
4
4
0
4
4
8
16
2
2
0
2
2
4
4
0
4
4
29
48
Subgroup
N
Meets
Meets
Meets
Meets
56.3%
50
51
55
59
45
45
45
71
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
157
142
N<20
96
86
51
53
57
49
60
59
59
80
No
No
No
No
157
142
N<20
96
118
41
43
41
40
55
55
55
67
No
No
No
No
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
60.4%
157
142
N<20
96
85
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Meets
Approaching
50%
Subgroup Median
Growth Percentile
Approaching
Counts and ratings are not reported for metrics when the district does not meet the minimum student counts required for reportable data.
2
DPF 2013 - 0123, 1-Year
Performance Indicators - PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISTRICT REVIEW
District: SHERIDAN 2 - 0123
Academic Achievement
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Total
Academic Growth
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
English Language Proficiency (ACCESS)
Total
Academic Growth Gaps
Reading
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Mathematics
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Writing
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Total
% Points
Level: Middle
(1 Year)
Points Earned
Points Eligible
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
Rating
N
% Proficient/Advanced
District's Percentile
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
270
270
270
98
44.07
25.93
38.89
15.31
3
5
10
0
4
16
25%
Does Not Meet
Points Earned
Points Eligible
% Points
Rating
N
Median Growth Percentile
Median Adequate Growth
Percentile
Made Adequate
Growth?
3
1
3
0.5
4
4
4
2
Meets
Does Not Meet
Meets
Does Not Meet
255
255
256
86
56
33
60
34
56
86
71
-
Yes
No
No
-
7.5
14
53.6%
Approaching
Points Earned
14
Points Eligible
20
% Points
70%
Rating
Meets
Subgroup Median Adequate
Growth Percentile
Made Adequate
Growth?
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
6
20
1
1
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
14
20
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
34
60
Subgroup
N
Meets
Meets
Approaching
Meets
Meets
30%
56
57
54
57
57
57
61
92
61
75
No
No
No
No
No
231
214
34
148
172
35
34
42
35
37
87
89
99
87
96
No
No
No
No
No
232
215
34
149
156
59
61
47
64
59
73
73
92
73
87
No
No
No
No
No
Meets
Meets
Meets
Approaching
Meets
Meets
56.7%
231
214
33
149
145
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
Approaching
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
70%
Subgroup Median
Growth Percentile
Approaching
Counts and ratings are not reported for metrics when the district does not meet the minimum student counts required for reportable data.
3
DPF 2013 - 0123, 1-Year
Performance Indicators - PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISTRICT REVIEW
District: SHERIDAN 2 - 0123
Academic Achievement
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
Science
Total
Academic Growth
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
English Language Proficiency (ACCESS)
Total
Academic Growth Gaps
Reading
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Mathematics
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Writing
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Students needing to catch up
Total
Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
Graduation Rate: 4yr/5yr/6yr/7yr
Disaggregated Graduation Rate
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Dropout Rate
Colorado ACT Composite Score
Total
% Points
Level: High
(1 Year)
Points Earned
Points Eligible
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
Rating
N
% Proficient/Advanced
District's Percentile
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
Does Not Meet
137
138
136
91
36.5
14.49
19.12
15.38
1
7
3
2
4
16
25%
Does Not Meet
Points Earned
Points Eligible
% Points
Rating
N
Median Growth
Percentile
Median Adequate Growth
Percentile
Made Adequate
Growth?
2
2
2
1.5
4
4
4
2
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Meets
132
133
131
63
41
45
47
51
71
99
94
-
No
No
No
-
7.5
14
53.6%
Approaching
Points Earned
8
Points Eligible
16
% Points
50%
Rating
Approaching
2
2
0
2
2
4
4
0
4
4
8
16
2
2
0
2
2
4
4
0
4
4
8
16
2
2
0
2
2
4
4
0
4
4
24
48
50%
Points Earned
Points Eligible
% Points
2
1.75
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
6.75
16
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
50%
42.2%
Subgroup Median Adequate Made Adequate
Growth Percentile
Growth?
119
117
N<20
82
83
41
40
45
43
71
73
75
87
No
No
No
No
120
117
N<20
82
113
45
44
45
43
99
99
99
99
No
No
No
No
118
116
N<20
82
101
47
44
52
44
95
96
95
98
No
No
No
No
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
43.8%
Subgroup Median
Growth Percentile
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
50%
Subgroup
N
Approaching
Rating
N
Rate/Score
Expectation
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Does Not Meet
Approaching
Approaching
Does Not Meet
157/122/108/138
31.2/49.2/58.3/71.7%
80%
131/107/87/113
118/98/74/101
18/17/N<16/19
51/46/34/46
915
91
31.3/50.5/60.9/73.5%
32.2/44.9/55.4/71.3%
33.3/41.2/-/57.9%
21.6/41.3/58.8/69.6%
4.6%
16.1
80%
80%
80%
80%
3.6%
20.0
Approaching
Counts and ratings are not reported for metrics when the district does not meet the minimum student counts required for reportable data.
4
DPF 2013 - 0123, 1-Year
Graduation Rates
Level: High
Graduation and Disaggregated Graduation Rates
The District Performance Framework reports use the 4-, 5-, 6- and 7-year graduation rates for the district and disaggregated student groups (students eligible for free/reduced lunch, minority students, students with
disabilities and English learners).
This District's Graduation Rate and Disaggregated Graduation Rate
Overall Graduation Rate (1-year)
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
2009
2010
2011
2012
Overall Graduation Rate (3-year aggregate)
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
47.4
33
37
31.2
56.9
54.6
49.2
67.1
58.3
71.7
Free/Reduced Lunch Graduation Rate (1-year)
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
2009
2010
2011
2012
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
47.6
36.4
41.6
31.3
61.8
65.8
50.5
72.1
60.9
73.5
2009
2010
2011
2012
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
45
28.2
34.4
32.2
54.5
50.7
44.9
65.4
55.4
71.3
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
6-year
7-year
56.9
54.6
49.2
67.1
58.3
71.7
53.7
63.3
71.7
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
2009
2010
2011
2012
Aggregated
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
47.6
36.4
41.6
31.3
38.8
61.8
65.8
50.5
72.1
60.9
73.5
58.6
67
73.5
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
2009
2010
2011
2012
Aggregated
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
45
28.2
34.4
32.2
35.3
54.5
50.7
44.9
65.4
55.4
71.3
50
61.2
71.3
Students with Disabilities Graduation Rate (3-year aggregate)
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
41.2
N<16
25
33.3
52.9
N<16
41.2
62.5
N<16
57.9
English Learners Graduation Rate (1-year)
2009
2010
2011
2012
5-year
47.4
33
37
31.2
37.2
Minority Student Graduation Rate (3-year aggregate)
Students with Disabilities Graduation Rate (1-year)
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
4-year
Free/Reduced Lunch Graduation Rate (3-year aggregate)
Minority Student Graduation Rate (1-year)
2009
2010
2011
2012
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
2009
2010
2011
2012
Aggregated
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
2009
2010
2011
2012
Aggregated
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
41.2
N<16
25
33.3
36.1
52.9
N<16
41.2
62.5
N<16
57.9
52.3
63.3
57.9
English Learners Graduation Rate (3-year aggregate)
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
48.9
31
35.9
21.6
56.8
54.5
41.3
65.9
58.8
69.6
Anticipated Year
of Graduation
2009
2010
2011
2012
Aggregated
5
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
48.9
31
35.9
21.6
34.1
56.8
54.5
41.3
65.9
58.8
69.6
50.4
62.8
69.6
Colorado calculates "on-time" graduation as the
percent of students who graduate from high
school four years after entering ninth grade. A
student is assigned a graduating class when they
enter ninth grade by adding four years to the
year the student enters ninth grade. The formula
anticipates, for example, that a student who
entered ninth grade in fall 2006 would graduate
with the Class of 2010.
For the 1-year DPF, districts earn points based
on the highest value among the following: 2012
4- year graduation rate, 2011 5-year graduation
rate, 2010 6-year graduation rate and 2009 7year graduation rate (the shaded cells in the
tables on the left). For the 3-year DPF, districts
earn points based on the highest value among
the following: aggregated 2009, 2010, 2011 and
2012 4-year graduation rate, aggregated 2009,
2010 and 2011 5-year graduation rate,
aggregated 2009 and 2010 6-year graduation
rate, or 2009 7-year graduation rate. For each of
these rates, the aggregation is the result of
adding the graduation totals for all available
years and dividing by the sum of the graduation
bases across all available years. For both 1-year
and 3-year DPFs, the "best of" graduation rate is
bolded and italicized here and on the
Performance Indicators detail page.
DPF 2013 - 0123, 1-Year
Scoring Guide - PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISTRICT REVIEW
Level: EMH
Scoring Guide for Performance Indicators on the District Performance Framework Report
Performance Indicator
Academic
Achievement
Academic
Growth
Academic
Growth Gaps
Postsecondary and
Workforce Readiness
Scoring Guide
Rating
The district's percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced was:
• at or above the 90th percentile of all districts (using 2009-10 baseline).
• below the 90th percentile but at or above the 50th percentile of all districts (using 2009-10 baseline).
• below the 50th percentile but at or above the 15th percentile of all districts (using 2009-10 baseline).
• below the 15th percentile of all districts (using 2009-10 baseline).
Made AGP
Did Not Make AGP
No AGP
• at or above 60.
• at or above 70.
• at or above 65.
• below 60 but at or above 45.
• below 70 but at or above 55.
• below 65 but at or above 50.
• below 45 but at or above 30.
• below 55 but at or above 40.
• below 50 but at or above 35.
• below 30.
• below 40.
• below 35.
Made AGP
Did Not Make AGP
• at or above 60.
• at or above 70.
• below 60 but at or above 45.
• below 70 but at or above 55.
• below 45 but at or above 30.
• below 55 but at or above 40.
• below 30.
• below 40.
Graduation Rate and Disaggregated Graduation Rate: The district's graduation rate/disaggregated
graduation rate was:
• at or above 90%.
• at or above 80% but below 90%.
• at or above 65% but below 80%.
• below 65%.
Dropout Rate: The district's dropout rate was:
• at or below 1%.
• at or below the state average but above 1% (using 2009-10 baseline).
• at or below 10% but above the state average (using 2009-10 baseline).
• above 10%.
Colorado ACT Composite Score: The district's average Colorado ACT composite score was:
• at or above 22.
• at or above the state average but below 22 (using 2009-10 baseline).
• at or above 17 but below the state average (using 2009-10 baseline).
• below 17.
Cut-Points for Each Performance Indicator
Achievement;
Growth; Growth Gaps;
Postsecondary Readiness
Cut Point: The district earned ... of the points eligible on this Indicator.
• at or above 87.5%
• at or above 62.5% - below 87.5%
• at or above 37.5% - below 62.5%
• below 37.5%
Exceeds
Meets
Approaching
Does Not Meet
Exceeds
Meets
Approaching
Does Not Meet
Exceeds
Meets
Approaching
Does Not Meet
Exceeds
Meets
Approaching
Does Not Meet
Point Value
TCAP
4
3
2
1
TCAP
ACCESS
4
2
3
1.5
2
1
1
0.5
TCAP
4
3
2
1
Overall
Disaggr.
4
3
2
1
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
Exceeds
Meets
Approaching
Does Not Meet
4
3
2
1
Exceeds
Meets
Approaching
Does Not Meet
4
3
2
1
Total Possible Points per
EMH Level
Framework
Points
16
(4 for each
content area)
15
14
(4 for each subject
area and 2 for
English language
proficiency)
35
60
(4 for each of 5
subgroups in 3
subject areas)
16
(4 for each subindicator)
15
35
Cut-Points for Accreditation Category Assignment
Exceeds
Meets
Approaching
Does Not Meet
Total
Framework
Points
Cut Point: The district earned ... of the total framework points eligible.
• at or above 80%
Distinction
Accredited
• at or above 64% - below 80%
Improvement
• at or above 52% - below 64%
Priority Improvement
• at or above 42% - below 52%
• below 42%
Turnaround
District Plan Type Assignments
Accred. w/Distinction
Accredited
Accred. w/Improvement Plan
Accred. w/Priority Impr. Plan
Accred. w/Turnaround Plan
Plan description
The district is required to adopt and implement a Performance Plan.
The district is required to adopt and implement a Performance Plan.
The district is required to adopt and implement an Improvement Plan.
The district is required to adopt and implement a Priority Improvement Plan.
The district is required to adopt and implement a Turnaround Plan.
A district may not be accredited with a Priority Improvement and/or Turnaround Plan for longer than a combined
total of five consecutive years before the State Board of Education is required to restructure or close the district.
The five consecutive school years commences on July 1 during the summer immediately following the fall in which
the district is notified that it is Accredited with a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan.
6
DPF 2013 - 0123, 1-Year
Reference - PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISTRICT REVIEW
1-year vs. 3-year Report
Districts receive a 1-year and a 3-year aggregated District Performance Framework report. CDE produces a report on the basis of three years of data to enable more districts to be considered within
the same performance framework. Some small districts may not have public data on the basis of a single year because of small N counts for some performance indicator metrics, but a report on the
basis of three years of data increases the N count. Only one of the two sets of results (1-year or 3-year) will be the official accreditation category for the district: the one under which the district has
ratings on a greater number of the performance indicators, or, if it has ratings for an equal number of indicators, the one under which it earned a higher total percent of points. Note that some 3-year
reports may be based on only two years of data if that is the only data available.
Reference Data for Key Performance Indicators
Academic Achievement
The Academic Achievement Indicator reflects a district's
proficiency rate: the percentage of students proficient or
advanced on Colorado's standardized assessments. This
includes results from CSAP/TCAP and CSAPA/CoAlt in
reading, mathematics, writing, and science, and results
from Lectura and Escritura.
Data for all indicators are compared to baselines from
the first year the performance framework reports were
released.
Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced by Percentile Cut-Points - 1-year (2009-10 baseline)
Reading
Math
Writing
Elem Middle High Elem Middle High Elem Middle High
N of Districts
175
165
167
176
165
167
175
165
167
59.26
58.87
57.14
57.99
34.46
18.30
38.48
42.37
32.85
15th percentile
71.51
70.50
71.53
70.51
50.00
32.16
54.72
56.36
48.61
50th percentile
84.37
83.57
84.78
84.60
68.84
52.06
69.66
72.27
67.56
90th percentile
Exceeds
60-99
70-99
Meets
45-59
55-69
Approaching
Does Not Meet
30-44
1-29
40-54
1-39
28.57
30.27
48.00
45.60
48.93
69.72
69.09
70.39
High
179
31.43
49.18
67.31
Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
The Academic Growth Indicator measures academic progress using the Colorado Growth Model. This indicator reflects 1)
normative (median) growth: how the academic progress of the students in this district compared to that of other students
statewide with a similar content proficiency (CSAP/TCAP) score history or a similar English language proficiency (ACCESS)
score history, and 2) criterion referenced (adequate) growth: whether this level of growth was sufficient for the typical
(median) student in the district to reach or maintain a specified level of proficiency within a given length of time. For
CSAP/TCAP, students are expected to score proficient or advanced within three years or by 10th grade, whichever comes first.
The median growth percentile required to earn each rating depends on whether or not the district met adequate growth
(AGP). For 2012-13, Adequate Growth cannot be calculated for English language proficiency therefore English language
proficiency growth is determined only by the median growth percentile.
Did Not Make
AGP
29.46
Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced by Percentile Cut-Points - 3-year aggregate (2008-10 baseline)
Reading
Math
Writing
Science
Elem Middle High Elem Middle High Elem Middle High Elem Middle
N of Districts
181
182
183
181
182
182
181
182
183
172
175
60.45
56.61
57.63
56.84
36.37
17.78
41.44
41.85
33.82
32.93
30.02
15th percentile
72.19
69.22
71.31
70.37
49.11
30.51
55.78
56.80
49.70
47.50
46.81
50th percentile
85.16
81.53
83.80
83.42
65.33
48.02
71.02
70.87
67.71
66.52
65.86
90th percentile
Academic Growth and Academic Growth Gaps
Made AGP
Science
Elem Middle High
133
135
138
No AGP
65-99
50-64
35-49
1-34
The Academic Growth Gaps Indicator
disaggregates the results of the Academic Growth
Indicator, measuring the academic progress of
historically disadvantaged student groups
(students eligible for free/reduced lunch, minority
students, students with disabilities, English
learners) and students needing to catch up.
7
The Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Indicator measures
the preparedness of students for college or careers upon
completing high school. This indicator reflects student graduation
rates, disaggregated graduation rates, dropout rates, and mean
Colorado ACT (COACT) composite scores.
State Mean Dropout Rate (2009-10 baseline)
N of Students
1-year (2009)
416,953
3-year (2007-09)
1,238,096
Mean Rate
3.6
3.9
State Mean COACT Composite Score (2009-10 baseline)
N of Students
Mean Score
1-year (2010)
51,438
20.0
3-year (2008-10)
151,439
20.1
DPF 2013 - 0123, 1-Year
Appendix F
12/11/2013
12:28
Colorado Department of Education
Page : 1
Data Summary Report
File : sey0123.db1
2012-2013 Student End of Year
Ver
: 25
ON-TIME GRADUATION AND COMPLETION RATES FOR THE 2012-2013 AYG
THIS REPORT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL DATA FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY
COUNTY: 03
DISTRICT:
ARAPAHOE
SHERIDAN 2
7842 Sheridan High School
8123 Soar Academy
DISTRICT TOTAL
COHORT
BASE
GRADUATES
COUNT
GRADUATION
RATE
COMPLETERS
COUNT
COMPLETION
RATE
STILL ENROLLED
COUNT
STILL ENROLLED
RATE
70
42
42
3
60.0%
7.1%
42
3
60.0%
7.1%
23
38
32.9%
90.5%
112
45
40.2%
45
40.2%
61
54.5%
*1 School was closed prior to currently reported year.
*2 School has no grade 12 in currently reported year.
1
Appendix G