December 15, 2014 ESEA Flexibility Analysis

The flex analysis was designed to examine the characteristics of schools identified by each SEA’s differentiated accountability system for the and school years, including the performance of all students and all subgroups based on, respectively, and student achievement and graduation rate data Purpose of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis 2

 Not a replication of individual state identification systems  An examination of school characteristics at the time of school identification: for Windows 1 and 2; for Windows 3 and 4.  One tool that states can use to analyze whether their identification systems worked as intended to capture the lowest-performing schools and subgroups CAVEATS: The Flexibility Analysis is… Purpose of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis (continued) 3

 Student achievement in reading and mathematics (proficiency rates and AMOs) for ESEA and combined subgroups  Schools and subgroups performing at or below the 5 th percentile  Schools with large subgroup proficiency gaps  Schools and subgroups meeting AMO targets  Graduation rates and targets for ESEA and combined subgroups  Schools and subgroups with graduation rates below 60 percent  Schools with large subgroup graduation rate gaps  Schools and subgroups meeting graduation rate targets  Performance against the 95 percent participation rate target on state assessments for ESEA and combined subgroups Examine the relationship between school identification and: Focus of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis 4

 Uses data to produce 14 analyses/exhibits for each state profile  data for: year 1 profiles, Windows 1 and 2  data for: year 1 profiles, Windows 3 and 4; year 2 profiles, Windows 1 and 2  Data Quality Checks & Extensive Data Outreach to States  ED – through the EDFacts Partner Support Center (PSC) – contacted specific states that had large amounts of missing or low-quality data Examples include: large percentage of operational schools missing Title I participation or eligibility status, not reporting graduation rate indicator data, not reporting reading or mathematics data for ESEA subgroups  Missing or low-quality data submitted by states may result in:  Exclusion of an analysis/exhibit from a state’s profile Explanations for these exclusions are provided in the cover letter to each state  Exclusion of schools from a specific analysis/exhibit Explanations for these exclusions are provided in the technical notes for each exhibit Description of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis 5

Priority and Focus School Identification 6

Priority and Focus School Identification by School Level 7

School Identification by State-Defined Status Levels 8

Characteristics Schools Identified as Priority or Focus for 2012–13 All Other Title I Participating Schools School Level (Percentage of Schools) Elementary67.3%70.6% Middle15.3%17.1% High12.0%8.6% Non-standard a 5.3%3.8% Total100.0% School Type (Percentage of Schools) Regular90.7%96.6% Alternative7.3%2.6% Special education1.3%<1% Vocational<1% Total99.3%99.2% Charter School Status (Percentage of Schools)8.7%6.7% Exhibit 4. At the time of identification, what were the demographic characteristics of priority and focus schools compared to all other Title I participating schools? Distribution by School Characteristics 9

Exhibit reads: In STATE, 67 percent of Title I participating schools identified as priority or focus for 2012–13 were elementary schools, compared to 71 percent of all other Title I participating schools. Source: 2011–12 EDFacts, Data Group (DG) 18: Grades offered, DG 21: School type, DG 27: Charter status, DG 39: Membership, DG 74: Children with disabilities (IDEA) school age, DG 123: LEP students in LEP program, DG 565: Free or reduced-price lunch; 2012–13 EDFacts, DG 34: Improvement status - school (n = 1,000 Title I participating schools [150 Title I participating schools identified as priority or focus and 850 all other Title I participating schools]) Note: Technical notes for this exhibit appear in the Appendix. Characteristics Schools Identified as Priority or Focus for 2012–13 All Other Title I Participating Schools Urbanicity (Percentage of Schools) Large or middle-sized city48.7%22.1% Urban fringe and large town36.7%43.1% Small town and rural area14.7%34.8% Total100.0% Percentage of Students by Race/Ethnicity American Indian1.9%2.6% Asian2.7%2.4% Black40.0%21.8% Hispanic28.2%20.9% White24.4%49.2% Total b 97.3%97.0% Percentage of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch79.5%62.4% Percentage of Students with Disabilities14.1%12.0% Percentage of Limited English Proficient Students c 15.0%10.5% Average Total School Enrollment Exhibit 4. At the time of identification, what were the demographic characteristics of priority and focus schools compared to all other Title I participating schools? Distribution by School Characteristics (continued) 10

Low Performance Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools 11

Large Subgroup Gaps Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools 12

Low Graduation Rates Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools 13

Large Subgroup Graduation Rate Gaps Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools 14

AMO Status Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools 15

Participation Rate Status Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools 16

Status on Graduation Rate Targets: Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools 17

 Each profile is accompanied by an Excel-file data extract that includes: Data sources, retrieval dates, and a data summary Data summary includes: list of all variables, data quality indicators, indicators that flag schools that are included in or excluded from each of the exhibits, and step-by-step instructions for re-creating selected multi-step descriptive analyses from the profile  See demonstration using example profile DATA EXTRACTS ESEA Flexibility Analysis Data Extracts 18

Example Data Extract 19

Example Data Extract (continued) 20

 Profiles will be sent to groups of states in batches  The first batch of profiles will be sent on December 17th  After each release, states will have 10 business days to respond with any technical corrections that may be needed  Technical Assistance Process  State flex leads should submit questions to OSS state leads in writing;  PPSS staff will review and respond to technical questions in writing within 1-2 business days  If clarifications are still needed, the OSS state lead will schedule a call between PPSS and individual state flex leads NEXT STEPS 21

Questions? 22