C. Lessons Learned
T
he CRIPCS followed the Performance
Management
Framework (PMF) for Non-Standard Schools; school personnel,
led by school principal Allison
R. Kokkoros, engaged in a yearlong endeavor to develop its
PMF. The school began by identifying assessments and performance indicators for each of the
PMF’s major components: Student Progress, Student Achievement, Gateway, Leading Indicators and Mission Specific Goals.
Given the parameters and other
prescriptions/limitations of the
PMF for Non-Standard Schools,
the school’s aim was to attempt
to achieve parity in the representation of our students in the
various instructional programs.
F
or the Student Progress
component of the PMF, the
school selected the Supera Test:
Evaluaciones Essenciales to report on the progress Spanish
GED students made in Reading
(language). The performance
indicator was based on the percentage of students enrolled in
Spanish GED 100 and 200 classes
that made grade level progress
during the course of the school
year. For this pilot year, 64%
of our students in these classes
were able to demonstrate progress by improving one grade
level in reading. This is one percentage point short of our internal goal which was 65%. As a result of this inaugural (pilot) year
reporting, we would like to use
64% as the performance target
and baseline to report student
performance.
T
he Student Achievement
component has the Test of
English language Achievement
for Adult Learners (TEAAL) as
the selected assessment. This
assessment was selected due to
the fact that it is fully aligned
to our ESL curriculum. Our curriculum is an award winning
curriculum that has been independently validated by Georgetown University. The TEAAL
has been independently tested
and has been deemed to be reliable with a Cronbach alpha of
.85. In terms of the performance
indicator, the school identified a
performance target of 70% on
the end-of-semester assessment
for students in the designated
ESL levels (Levels 2 and 6). This
year 74% of students achieved
the target of 70% on the endof-semester TEAAL assessment.
T
he Gateway component of
the PMF has the GED Test
(Spanish version) as the measure. This assessment was selected, in part, with PCSB input
so as to align more closely with
the Gateway measures of other
Non Standard Schools and align
to a lesser degree but in spirit
with, the Gateway measures of
other Standard Schools. In the
District of Columbia, GED testing is a highly regulated and controlled activity. Students must
first take and pass an official
practice GED test at municipally
recognized site before they can
be formally referred to a municipally sanctioned testing center
such as the UDC testing center.
In order to pass the GED test,
students must pass all five test
sub-sections with a minimum
score of 410 in each section. Additionally, an overall average
score of 450 must be achieved
on the test as a whole. This year
63% of Spanish GED students
passed the GED test, well above
the 54% pass rate overall in the
District of Columbia.
recommendation of the PCSB.
Non-Standard Schools use the
average daily attendance rate
for this indicator. This year the
CRIPCS had a yearly attendance
rate of 84.4%.
T
here were two Mission Specific Goals that tie directly to
the school’s mission to develop
productive citizens that contribute to the larger community.
The first Mission Specific Goal
measures fall semester ESL Level 1 and ESL Level 4 achievement
in relation to CASAS cut scores
(200 and 220) by the end of the
school year. The CASAS test was
developed in the state of California, which is one of the few
states that publishes CASAS performance data that can be used
for national norm comparisons.
The Carlos Rosario School student performance of 82% is significantly higher than the 68%
performance of California ESL
students in the same categories.
T
he second Mission Specific
Goal measures Culinary Arts
students’ passing rate on the
ServSafe certification test by the
end of the school year. This year
100% of Culinary Arts students
passed this certification test.
1. Issues in collecting and
reporting data for the
PMF.
T
he
assessment
director
worked collaboratively with
program managers to collect
data and back up data throughout the course of the school
year. In addition to year-end
data reports, the assessment director provided a mid-year data
report to the principal to facilitate analysis of interim school
he Leading Indicator was also performance on the PMF.
identified with the help and
T
49