1 superintendents’ quarterly meeting a next generation accountability model march 25, 2010

1

Superintendents’ Quarterly MeetingA Next Generation

Accountability ModelMarch 25, 2010

2

Today’s Agenda

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

♦ Overview

♦ Key Focusing Questions

♦ Feedback

~5 minutes

~15 minutes

~40 minutes

3

March 31, 2010

• Build Consensus on Model

• Discuss Potential Legislative Issues Regarding New Accountability Model

SBE Accountability Working Issues Session Planned

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

4

Student Performance

Post-SecondaryReadiness

Student Growth

Graduation Rates

Academic Course Rigor

Proposed Indicators

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

4

5

Student Performance

School-level Indicators: Elementary/Middle

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

End-of-Grade and (where appropriate) End-of-Course Assessments

Student GrowthStudent growth as measured by education value-added system

6

Student Performance

School-level Indicators: High School

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

End-of-Course Assessments

Post-Secondary Readiness

National Assessment(s) (e.g. ACT, SAT, WorkKeys)

Academic Course Rigor

Graduation Rate 5-Year Cohort Graduation Rate

Participation in the Future-Ready Core as evidenced by taking and scoring proficient in Algebra II

Absolute Performance Measures

7

Student Growth

School-level Indicators: High School

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

Student Growth as Measured by Education Value-Added System

Δ Post-Secondary Readiness

Change in National Assessments (e.g. ACT, SAT, WorkKeys)

Δ Academic Course Rigor

Δ Graduation Rate Change in 5-Year Cohort Graduation Rate

Change in Participation in the Future-Ready Core as Evidenced by Taking and Scoring Proficient in Algebra II

Growth Measures

8

Synopsis: What’s Different?

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

• Inclusion of LEA Accountability (Longitudinal Growth)

• Incorporation of an Index Model

• Robust Growth Measures

• Inclusion of Post-Secondary Readiness Measure

• Increased Academic Course Rigor (Future-Ready Core)

• Graduation Rate Instead of Dropout Rate

• Revised Reporting

• Revised Student Accountability System

9

Key Questions

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

10

Question 1: How will we weight the indicators within the model?

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

11

School

Indicator Ex 1 Ex 2 Ex 3 Ex 4 Avg ?Student Achievement: The School Performance Composite

50 70 50 10 45

Post-Secondary Readiness as Measured by the ACT (or Other National Indicators)

20 20 20 40 25

Future-Ready Core Participation (A Measure of the Rigor of Courses that Students Take Based on Algebra II Completion and Proficiency)

10 5 5 10 7.5

5-Year Cohort Graduation Rate 20 5 25 40

22.5

High School

Shown are some possible weighting scenarios we have considered. We’d like both performance index and growth index to have the same weighting. These are preliminary numbers, not final recommendations.

Total Performance Percentage Points = 100Draft; For discussion purposes only.

Absolute Performance Index

12

School

Indicator Ex 1 Ex 2 Ex 3 Ex 4 Avg ?

Student Growth 50 70 50 10 45

Change in Post-Secondary Readiness as Measured by the ACT (or Other National Indicator)

20 20 20 40 25

Change in Future-Ready Core Participation (A Measure of the Rigor of Courses that Students Take Based on Algebra II Completion and Proficiency)

10 5 5 10 7.5

Change in 5-Year Cohort Graduation Rate 20 5 25 40

22.5

High School

Shown are some possible weighting scenarios we have considered. We’d like both performance index and growth index to have the same weighting. These are preliminary numbers, not final recommendations.

Draft; For discussion purposes only.

Growth Index

Total Growth Percentage Points = 100

13

Question 2: How will we update the school classification system?

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

14Draft; For discussion purposes only – March 17, 2010

Low-Performing School*Less than 600

School of Progress600 - 799

School of Distinction800 - 899

School of Excellence No Recognition900 - 1000

Making Less than Expected Growth

Making Expected or High Growth

Growth IndexPerformance Index

First Classification Example(Similar Format; Fewer Categories)

*Will require statutory change.

The categories and scales are not finalized. The performance index is differentthan the performance composite and therefore a new scale has been used.

18

Second Classification Example (Four-Quadrant)

Lower PerformanceHigher Growth

Higher Performance Higher Growth

Lower PerformanceLower Growth

Higher PerformanceLower Growth

Gro

wth

Inde

x

Performance IndexScale to be determined

Sca

le to

be

dete

rmin

ed

16

Question 3: What data should we report but not include in the high-stakes accountability model?

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

17

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

• Advanced Placement (# and % of participants and scores)

• International Baccalaureate (# and % of participants and scores)

• Credentialing Programs (# and % credentials)

• Online Courses Taken (# and %)

• Higher-Levels Foreign Language Courses Taken (# and %)

• Concentrations (# and %)

• College courses taken (# and %)

• Attendance of teachers and students

• Local Options

• Additional?

Examples

18

Question 4:How do we address unique school types?

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

19

Examples• Alternative Schools• Hospital Schools• VocEd/Career Centers• Special Education Schools• Schools with grade 3 and below

How do these schools fit into the system?

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

20

Alternate Strategies to Address Special School Types

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

• Feeder Patterns• “Local Options” Data• Clustered Students with Disabilities• Others?

21

Question 5:How do we best measure Post-Secondary Readiness?

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

22

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

ACTSAT

WorkKeysAccuplacer

Compass

If multiple, how to set cut scores, or ranges, for points to award to school?

If one assessment, which one?

23

Question 6:How do we update the student accountability policies?

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

24

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

% of Students RetainedGrade

1999-00 (pre-

SAS)

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

3 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 3.4 3.3

5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 3.7 3.2

8 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.5 3.3 3.2

25

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

% of Students Who Scored Below Proficient on the EOC or EOG and Passed the Course/Grade

(2008-09)*Algebra I 10.4%

Biology 11.4%

Civics & Economics 11.0%

English I 10.5%

US History 12.2%

Grade 3 Math 10.1%

Grade 5 Math 12.2%

Grade 8 Math 11.0%

Grade 3 Reading 22.6%

Grade 5 Reading 21.1%

Grade 8 Reading 21.7%

*These Results Reflect the Use of 1 SEM. No Retesting Included for EOC Assessments

26

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

Suggested Change• 20% of Final Grade from the EOGs

(Operational with new assessments)

Retain 25% of Final Grade from the EOCs

27

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

Q & A