1 / 12

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC) Recommendations for Change

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC) Recommendations for Change. June 1, 2011. Current QSAC Process. Three-year district-wide monitoring cycle that focuses on almost every aspect of State and Federal code requirements and best practices

ianthe
Download Presentation

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC) Recommendations for Change

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC) Recommendations for Change June 1, 2011

  2. Current QSAC Process • Three-year district-wide monitoring cycle that focuses on almost every aspect of State and Federal code requirements and best practices • Five District Performance Review (DPR) sections: • Instruction and Program • Fiscal Management • Operations • Personnel • Governance • Districts must meet 80% of requirements in all five DPR sections to be “high performing” and receive State Board certification. • Districts below 80% in one or more DPR sections must develop and implement district improvement plans (DIP), with periodic county office reviews of progress.

  3. Review of QSAC Process • Committee of DOE and district staff reviewed QSAC process after three years of implementation and concluded the following: • Overall purpose of QSAC is necessary for improvement • Opportunity for districts that are not “high performing” to develop and implement a DIP, to assist them in increasing student achievement and identified areas of need. • Current process is cumbersome (334 indicators) • Many indicators are duplicative • Many indicators do not address DOE’s core mission of student achievement and teaching and learning and therefore, should not be monitored through QSAC.

  4. Summary of Proposed Changes Narrow the Focus of District Performance Reviews (DPRs) • Instruction and Program • Fiscal Management • Governance Streamline Indicators • Reduce the number of indicators by 70% • Eliminate duplication and redundancy • Consolidate related indicators Create a Statement of Assurance (SOA)

  5. Instruction and Program DPR Focus on the essential elements of teaching and learning • Student Performance • Curriculum • Instruction Monitor five critical content standards for career and college readiness: • Language Arts Literacy • Math • Science • Social Studies • World Languages

  6. Proposed Change in Monitoring Student Performance Through State Assessments (NJASK and HSPA)

  7. Explanation of Proposed Calculation for District Progress on State Assessments • District acquires points based on the gap between 95% proficiency and district’s current percentage of proficiency. • Attainment of points depends on the district percentage of proficiency >=95% 10 points >=85-94.9 8 points >=75-84.9 6 points < 75% but progress made* 5 points *Progress is based on a 5% decrease in the gap (current percentage of district and the goal of 95% proficiency)

  8. Numerical Snapshot of 2010: Scores and the Impact of Proposed Student Performance Proficiency Levels

  9. Fiscal Management DPR • Hold districts accountable for financial and budgetary controls, grants management and annual audit • Eliminate the efficiency indicators because they are contained in the annual audit

  10. Governance DPR • Ensure that the district board of education is held accountable for the general oversight and management of the school district • Focus on critical areas of statutory and regulatory compliance, budgetary priorities and administrative oversight

  11. Statement of Assurance (SOA) • Provides a formative tool for districts to achieve and maintain code compliance; • Completed annually by the Chief School Administrator (CSA) and signed by the CSA and the Board President • Linked to the Governance DPR as an indicator • Reviewed once every three years as part of QSAC monitoring

  12. Numerical Summary Streamlined Indicators

More Related