Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Accountability discussions with the Board December BESE meeting – presented framework for the next-generation accountability system January BESE meeting – discuss weighting of indicators within the revised accountability system February/March BESE meeting – vote to put new accountability regulations out for public comment May/June BESE meeting- vote on new regulations after public comment has been considered
Weighting decisions to be made Three weighting decisions to be made Weighting of indicator categories in the school percentile calculation Weighting of “meeting target” points Weighting of “All students” vs. “Lowest Performing” students
Weighting of Indicator categories for percentile calculation Non-High Schools High Schools Achievement ELA, math, & science achievement values (based on scaled score) Student Growth Student growth percentile High School Completion Four-year cohort graduation rate Extended engagement rate Annual dropout rate English Language Proficiency Progress made by students towards attaining English language proficiency Additional Indicators Chronic absenteeism Percentage of students passing all grade 9 courses Percentage of students completing advanced coursework
Considerations for weighting achievement and growth The current ratio of achievement and growth is 3 (achievement) to 1 (growth) Impact of increasing weight of growth in system: Could increase the differentiation between high and low achieving schools Increases the value of a normative measure where someone will always be in the 1st and 99th percentile Decreases the value of 3rd grade assessment results because there are no growth values for students in 3rd grade Decreases value of science assessment in system (no SGP)
Considerations for weighting achievement and growth All indicators need to be included in the weighting Progress towards English language proficiency only applies to a subset of schools and weighting needs to be flexible Ratio between achievement and growth can be held constant between non-high schools and high schools but actual weightings will differ Recommendation: maintain achievement to growth ratio of 3 to 1
Weighting of percentile indicators in non-high schools Measures Current Weighting 3:1 With ELL No ELL Achievement ELA, math, & science achievement values (based on scaled score) 60% 67% Student Growth ELA/Math Student Growth Percentile (SGP) 20% 23% English Language Proficiency Progress made by students towards attaining English language proficiency 10% Additional Indicators Chronic absenteeism
Weighting of percentile indicators in high schools Measures Current Weighting 3:1 With ELL No ELL Achievement ELA, math, & science achievement values (based on scaled score) 40% 48% Student Growth ELA/Math Student Growth Percentile (SGP) 20% 22% High School Completion Four-year cohort graduation rate Extended engagement rate Annual dropout rate English Language Proficiency Progress made by students towards attaining English language proficiency 10% Additional Indicators Chronic absenteeism Percentage of students passing all grade 9 courses Percentage of students completing advanced coursework
Weighting of “meeting target” points Declined No change Improved Met target Exceeded target 1 2 3 4 Proposed model has equal intervals between categories of performance against meeting targets Recommendation is to maintain these intervals until multiple years of data allow for impact analysis of unequal weighting of points
Weighting of “All Students” vs. “Lowest Performing Students” Indicator Points assigned All students Lowest performing students ELA scaled score 3 2 Math scaled score Science achievement 1 ELA SGP 4 Math SGP EL progress Chronic absenteeism Total 19 17 Percentage of possible points 19/28 = 67.8% 17/24 = 70.8% Average Percentage (50/50 weighting) 69.3% 0 = Declined · 1 = No change · 2 = Improved · 3 = Met target · 4 = Exceeded target