Overview Dave Moyer, Data Governance and Analysis Branch STRIVE HI PERFORMANCE SYSTEM Overview Dave Moyer, Data Governance and Analysis Branch

School accountability & improvement systems help us… Shine a light on school performance and progress Provide summative data (a picture of overall school health) to inform school improvement efforts and transparent info to parents and communities Inform the deployment of resources, technical assistance, and support to schools that need improvement Identify schools to look to for best practices and success stories KEEP IN MIND: The focus is not ranking schools against each other. No accountability system is perfect As we talk about the Strive HI results – keep in mind the purposes of school accountability and improve systems…

How does Strive HI work? Based on their performance on multiple indicators, schools earn points on the Strive HI Index. A school’s total points and other triggers determine the school’s classification on one of the 5 Strive HI Steps – which determines its level of support. Achievement Reading Math Science Growth Readiness Chronic Absenteeism 8th & 11th grade ACT exams Graduation rates College-going rates Achievement Gap Current year gap rate 2-Year reduction rate Total Index Points (out of 400) Additional factors (if applicable) Here’s the big picture on strive HI: Using a number of different metrics on the Strive HI Index (weighted differently for different grade spans), schools get a total point score out of 400. That total Index score plus other factors help us classify schools in one of 4 categories.

SY2013-14 Results: Interim Year Strive HI operates on a 2-year cycle. While schools receive their data & point total annually, most are reclassified every other year. SY13-14 is an interim year, meaning most schools retain their classification, except for newly recognized Recognition schools. Achievement Reading Math Science Growth Readiness Chronic Absenteeism 8th & 11th grade ACT exams Graduation rates College-going rates Achievement Gap Current year gap rate 2-Year reduction rate Total Index Points (out of 400) Additional factors (if applicable) This year is an interim year: Classifications currently happen on a 2 year cycle to provide stability. That means all schools receive their data, but for most schools they do not receive a new classification. There are two exceptions to that: Every year we announce new recognition schools. This first year, priority schools had a chance to exit the category if they met certain criteria.

SY13-14 Statewide Snapshot Achievement Math proficiency 60 59 Reading Proficiency 72 70* Science Proficiency 34 41* Growth Reading n/a Math Readiness Chronic absenteeism 18 11 8th Grade ACT (percent scoring ≥15) 50 11th grade ACT (percent scoring ≥19) Graduation Rate 81 82 College-Going 63 Gap Non-High Needs Proficiency 83 High Needs Proficiency 56 53 Current year 33 35 2 year reduction 12 -4 Key Findings During a year of tremendous change students & staff continue to make every effort to Strive High. Data shows includes bright spots and areas of needed improvement. Significant student improvements in chronic absenteeism & science proficiency. Slightly lower reading & math proficiency as schools continue to adjust to Hawaii Common Core standards and assessments. Results for college-readiness, graduation rates, and college-going rates remained steady amidst other positive indicators. New classifications: new Recognition Schools; 1 Priority school exited Some key findings: I won’t read the numbers to you - but I will highlight the key findings and dig deeper into some of these items in the slides that follow READ THE KEY FINDINGS *updated post-appeals process

Moving toward a new baseline: Common Core Standards & Assessments HSA Bridge SBAC SY 2013-2014 SY 2015 - Reading Proficiency Math Proficiency We all know we are transitioning from the Hawaii State Assessment to the Bridge Assessment (a subset of question aligned to the common Core) and then to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. This year, with the Bridge Assessment, we saw a slight dip in reading and math proficiency. These dips are not something to be concerned about. They are part of the expected transition to new assessments and a new baseline.

Area of Improvement: Closing proficiency gaps Those dips in proficiency rates have an impact on the achievement gap. This graph looks at: The proficiency rates of HIGH NEEDS (ELL, SPED and Title I) and NON-HIGH NEEDS students. This indicator combines reading and math: SIDENOTE: For Strive HI, this combines Reading and Math. For the approved Board metrics we discussed earlier this year, we will separate the out reading and math gaps. When we revisit our amendment and renewal process, we will explore separating out reading and math gaps. IDEALLY, these lines would be going up diagonally, with the blue line at a higher rate of change. We would like achievement gaps to be closing quicker We will have to reset these baselines, along with the ones on the previous slide with our new assessment results.

Signs of improvement: chronic absenteeism, attendance, behavior We have seen notable improvements in LEADING INDICATORS that research shows will result in future improvements in student outcomes: Average Daily Attendance Elementary Schools Chronic Absenteeism Suspensions per 500 students All of these improvements point to improvements in: School culture Instruction Comprehensive services Student engagement NOTE: We will be providing an update on the BOARD strat plan metrics next month

Understanding your RESULTS

2-Year Gap Reduction Rate Strive HI Performance Index Multiple measures to understand & school performance & progress Schools receive a total score out of 400 points Achievement Reading proficiency Math proficiency Science proficiency Growth Reading growth Math growth Readiness Elementary Chronic absenteeism Middle 8th grade ACT/Explore High 11th grade ACT HS Grad Rate College-going rate Achievement Gap Current Year Gap Rate 2-Year Gap Reduction Rate

Strive HI Performance Index Weights Indicators are weighted differently for elementary, middle, and high schools

Achievement These metrics measure the proportion of students who scored proficient or higher on the Hawaii State Bridge Assessment this year. Transitioning to new tests SY13-14: The “bridge” assessment: a subset of the HSA questions that are Common Core-aligned SY14-15: Common Core-aligned Smarter Balanced Assessment The transition to new standards and assessments means we should expect a new baseline. Only students enrolled for the entire school year count in the total.

Student Growth Similar to a pediatrician's growth chart, Student Growth Percentile (SGP) helps us understand a student's growth on state tests relative to other students who scored similarly in the past Schools receive a median (or middle) student’s growth score. Half of the students in the school had higher growth than the median, and half had lower growth. A growth percentile of 50 is sometimes understood as a year’s worth of progress Growth can be measured this way even when different tests are used from one year to the next.

Readiness: Elementary Chronic Absenteeism Measures the proportion of students in the school who missed 15 or more days last year All absences (excused and unexcused) count National & local research = students who miss large portions of school are more likely to fall behind academically Only students enrolled the entire year count Kindergarten didn’t count this year because it wasn’t yet mandatory

Chronic Absenteeism Points assigned: use scoring rubric:

Readiness: Middle School 8th Grade EXPLORE This test predicts success on the ACT, which helps benchmark college-readiness. The metric measures the proportion of the school’s students who earned a composite score of 15 or more. Principal notes: Last year the data were reported differently (as the median score in the school) 8th grade EXPLORE being discontinued: will revisit options for Hawaii

ACT 8th Grade ACT EXPLORE: Scored on a scale of 1 to 25. Index uses a school’s percentage of students achieving a composite score of 15 or higher. Points assigned: multiple percentage by 60.

Readiness: High School 11th Grade ACT Percentage of students earning a 19 (out of 36) on the ACT, which is the threshold for success in UH courses On-Time Graduation Percentage of students who graduate in four years or less with a regular diploma College-Going Rate Percentage of graduates who enroll in any college (2- or 4-year, throughout the country) within 16 months of graduating high school

Readiness: High School Graduation Rate: Points assigned: multiply graduation rate by 100 College-Going Rate: Points assigned: multiply college-going rate by 10 11th Grade ACT Test: Points assigned: multiply percentage by 90.

Achievement Gap Achievement gaps are calculated in the current year and over time between High-Needs Students (students who are learning English, economically disadvantaged or have disabilities) and non High-Needs Students. Current Gap Rate = most recent gap (A smaller gap rate is better) Two-Year Gap Reduction Rate = how much gap has closed over the past 2 years. (A higher gap closing rate is better).

(Non-High Needs Students proficiency) Current Year Gap Rate Current Year GAP : (Non-High Needs Students proficiency) – (High Needs Students proficiency) Non-High Needs students High Needs Students 30 SCHOOL A SCHOOL A = 30 pp SCHOOL B = 30 pp 80% Non-High Needs students High Needs Students 30 SCHOOL B Current Year GAP RATE: The Index uses GAP RATE to differentiate between schools with equal GAPS but different PROFICIENCY RATES. (Non-High Needs Students proficiency) – (High Needs Students proficiency) (Non-High Needs Students proficiency) 50% 20% SCHOOL A = 38% SCHOOL B = 60% Proficiency rate

Current Year Gap Rate Current Year Gap Rate: Definition: (Non-High Needs Students proficiency) – (High Needs Students proficiency) (Non-High Needs Students proficiency) ** Look at excel file for data

Two Year Gap Reduction Rate 2012 Gap Rate: 60% 2014 Gap Rate: 33% 2 YEAR GAP REDUCTION RATE = 2012 Gap Rate – 2014 Gap Rate 2012 Gap Rate 90% SCHOOL B 70% 30 Non-High Needs students High Needs Students 20 50% 2 Year Gap Reduction Rate = 45 30% 10% Proficiency rate 2012 2013 2014

Achievement Gap Frequent questions: Why do I have no Achievement Gap indicators on my report? Why do I have a negative gap rate or gap reduction rate?

Misc Questions Why do I have no {fill in the indicator} on my report? What are the “triggers” on my report? What about n-size? Public Reporting: For student privacy purposes, data is suppressed on public reports if there are less than 20 students involved in the indicator. Index calculations: For index calculations, a minimum count of 30 students is required. If the current year's data does not meet the minimum count, then data from the previous year are included in the calculation. If the minimum student count is still not met, then the 2nd previous year's data are included. If the minimum student count is still not met after including three (3) years of data, then the calculation is done based upon the pooled three (3) years of data. Student Group report: For the Student Group Report, the minimum is 40 students.

Schools classifications: Strive HI Steps Schools are classified based on Index scores & additional factors and receive targeted rewards & support.

Classifications: Recognition Criteria Schools are classified based on Index scores & additional factors and receive targeted rewards & support. Criteria: High Performance: All student groups met or exceed targets Grad rates=top 10% Gap rate < 30% OR High Progress: All students proficiency increased >15% over 3 years Grad rates (top 10% of schools with increase of 10% over 3years) Gap reduction rate >10% over 3 years

Classifications: Focus Triggers Schools are classified based on Index scores & additional factors and receive targeted rewards & support. Triggers: Large graduation gap (20%+) Large Achievement gap (50%+) Low graduation rate (<70% 2 consecutive years)

Classifications: Priority Triggers Schools are classified based on Index scores & additional factors and receive targeted rewards & support. Triggers: Implementing SIG grant Low graduation rate (<70% 3 consecutive years)

2. Improving Strive HI System design

Refresher: USED Approved HI ESEA Flexibility Waiver Lack of Alignment Opportunity to Align Federal NCLB accountability system was outdated, ineffective, & out of sync with Hawaii’s Strategic Plan Approval & Implementation Congressional reauthorization stalls; USED provided states opportunity to design new system to replace components of NCLB 9/2012: Hawaii seized opportunity & with stakeholder input, designed and proposed new system to align with Strategic Plan Amendments and/or Renewal 5/2013: USED approved HI’s proposal SY13-14 - Implementation begins 6/2014 - Approval extended to SY14-15 TBD Stakeholder engagement on potential improvements has begun. I want to give folks a quick refresher on how we got here…. The first THREE stages are familiar to you: NCLB was outdated and problematic. Congress didn’t reauthorize, so US DOE gave states chance to apply for a waiver After long period of input from stakeholders, we applied. After 9 months of negotiation with feds, we were approved with conditional approval (due to our risk status with RTT) We were then approved for second year approval through year. What we haven’t talked about before in detail is that last box: the waiver was only for 2 years. We don’t know a lot yet about the renewal process, but we have begun engaging with educators about potential improvements tot eh system and we’ll come back at a later meeting to discuss more. We do know we don’t want to go back to NCLB. 31

Refresher: ESEA Flexibility Waiver: 3 Principles Waiver’s primary purpose to replace NCLB’s school accountability & improvement provisions was supplemented with additional obligations regarding standards & assessments and educator effectiveness. For Hawaii: Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students (standards & assessments) Transition to Common Core State Standards Transition from Hawaii State Assessment to Smarter Balanced Assessments Principle 2: Differentiated Recognition, Accountability & Support (school accountability & improvement) WASC Accreditation for all schools Replace NCLB goals, AYP and interventions with Strive HI Performance System Support all schools along performance spectrum to implement 6 Priority Strategies Today’s Focus Want to remind folks that the WAIVER’s primary purpose was to replace NCLB’s school accountability & improvement provisions. However, the application for the waiver had THREE areas: Principle 1 – standards and assessments which for us means Common Core and SBAC Principle 2 – replacing NCLB and AYP with Strive HI, WASC, and 6 Priority Strategies. Principle 3 – teacher and principal evaluations TODAY we’re focused on part of Principle 2 – the new accountability and improvement system for schools called Strive HI (in back of PPT – there is a reference slide you’ve seen before that compares Strive HI to NCLB>) Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction & Leadership (teacher /principal evaluation & support systems) Educator Effectiveness System (EES) Comprehensive Evaluation System for School Administrators (CESSA)

Opportunity for changes: Amendment and Renewal SY14-15: Housekeeping amendment: possibilities Language clarification Updated strategies SBAC transition alignment New complex targets 2-year gap rate Possibly extend classifications and restart with new baseline SY15-16 – SY16-17 renewal/amendment: design improvements UNKNOWN: USED’s: Parameters for amendment/renewal Timeline Extent of flexibility Overhaul vs. tweaks

SY15-16 + Renewal & Amendment Big Picture Classification year Classification year Classification year SBAC SY12-13 SY13-14 SY14-15 SY15-16 SY16-17 SY17-18 Original waiver Modified waiver (if renewal approved) SY14-15 Amendment Purpose: SBA transition alignment SY15-16 + Renewal & Amendment Purposes: Improve Strive HI as fair, discerning tool for measuring performance and differentiating rewards and support Notes: USED’s parameters still being “unpacked” Due Mid-March