1. Measuring Turnaround Success October 29 th, 2015 Jeanette P. Cornier, Ph.D. Jeanette.Cornier@PublicImpact.com

2. Agenda 10/29/20152 TopicTime Overview: Turnaround Definition15 min. State Summary Results30 min. Illinois School Level Results30 min. Implications15 min.

3. Agenda 10/29/20153 TopicTime Overview: Turnaround Definition15 min. State Summary Results30 min. Illinois School Level Results30 min. Implications15 min.

4. Project Overview Public Impact & the Center on School Turnaround Project Goal: Propose a common definition of turnaround success that helps states, districts and schools to monitor and accelerate progress toward improving the lowest performing schools. 10/29/20154

5. A common definition would allow us to… 10/29/20155 Set ambitious, but realistic performance goals for turnaround schools Identify factors that contribute to school turnaround success Share keys to success with states, districts, and schools working on school turnaround Increase the rate of turnaround success for more schools

6. 10/29/2015 6 THEORY OF ACTION Inputs Conditions School-Based Practices Leading Indicators Academic Achievement Outcomes  Great leader / competencies  Great teachers / competencies  Autonomy: people, time, money, programs  Funding  Turnaround planning  Leader actions  Instructional practices  Staffing  Scheduling  School culture and climate  Family & community engagement  Performance management Adult Behaviors  ↓ Teacher turnover  ↑ Teacher attendance  ↑ Teacher effectiveness  ↑ Leader effectiveness  ↑ Satisfaction Student Behaviors  ↓ Dropouts  ↑ Student attendance  ↓ Discipline incidents  ↑ Advanced courses  ↑ Satisfaction  ↑ Enrollment Short-Term Outcomes  Mid-year/Interim achievement Intermediate Outcomes  Achievement and growth on annual state assessments  College and career readiness Long-Term Outcomes  College and career success IF we hire great leaders and teachers with turnaround competencies and provide them with adequate autonomy and funding, and IF we implement effective school-based practices, THEN we will see increases in leader and teacher effectiveness and improvement in student engagement, behavior, and learning, and THEN we will increase student achievement, graduation, and college and career success.

7. Definition: 4 Parts 10/29/2015 7 1.Inputs that Create Conditions for Success 2.School-based Practices 3.Leading Indicators 4.Dramatic Gains in Academic Achievement Outcomes

8. Definition: 4 Parts 10/29/20158 1.Inputs that Create Conditions for Success 2.School-Based Practices 3.Leading Indicators 4.Dramatic Gains in Academic Achievement Outcomes

9. School Analysis Cohorts Schools were selected for analysis if they were ranked in the bottom decile (ten percent) of schools statewide for proficiency in math OR reading. 10/29/20159

10. Part 4: Academic Achievement Outcomes 10/29/201510

11. Why these targets? Compliance target = school is no longer among the very lowest performing in the state (at a level that would identify the school as needing turnaround), but the school is not considered successful in dramatically increasing student performance. Minimum target = school has made significant achievement gains, narrowing the gap with the average achievement for schools in the state. It is on track for reaching high levels of performance, but is not yet at a level most would call “successful.” Ambitious target = school has made enough progress to be considered high performing, exceeding the median achievement for schools in the state. 10/29/201511

12. To account for changes in a school’s student population, we flagged schools for closer analysis and possible exclusion if changes of 15% or more were found in: Number of students served Percent eligible for free & reduced-price meals Percent of students of color Percent of students with disabilities Grades served Mobility rate 10/29/2015 12 Additional Factors

13. Agenda 10/29/2015www.publicimpact.com13 TopicTime Overview: Turnaround Definition15 min. State Summary Results30 min. Illinois School Level Results30 min. Implications15 min.

14. Review and Predict In this section of the presentation we will: 1)Learn how schools in CO and TN performed on the academic achievement targets. 2)In groups, predict and share out how you think Illinois did on the targets. 3)Discuss Illinois results. 10/29/201514

15. Proficiency Summary 10/29/201515 School* Percentage of Schools Meeting Proficiency Targets - Reading Percentage of Schools Meeting Proficiency Targets - Math Compliance Target or Higher Minimum Target or Higher Ambitious Target Compliance Target or Higher Minimum Target or Higher Ambitious Target ELEMENTARY 121 schools 32% 39 schools 9% 11 schools 1% 1 school 43% 52 schools 14% 17 schools 1% 1 school MIDDLE 56 schools 13% 7 schools 4% 2 schools 0% 0 schools 20% 11 schools 11% 6 schools 2% 1 school HIGH 48 schools 21% 10 schools 8% 4 schools 4% 2 schools 29% 14 schools 10% 5 schools 2% 1 school ELEMENTARY 103 schools 28% 29 schools 7% 7 schools 1% 1 school 60% 62 schools 32% 33 schools 16% 16 schools MIDDLE 53 schools 12% 6 schools 4% 2 schools 2% 1 school 28% 15 schools 17% 9 schools 5% 3 schools HIGH 33 schools 5% 2 schools 1% 1 school 1% 1 school 17% 6 schools 10% 3 schools 4% 1 school COLORADO TENNESSEE Compliance: 10 th percentile or higherMinimum: 25 th percentile or higher Ambitious: 50 th percentile or higher

16. Predict Based on the information about the proficiency targets, what percentages of Illinois schools do you predict met the compliance, minimum, and ambitious targets? 10/29/201516

17. Proficiency: Illinois 10/29/201517 School* Percentage of Schools Meeting Proficiency Targets - Reading Percentage of Schools Meeting Proficiency Targets - Math Compliance Target or higher Minimum Target or higher Ambitious Target Compliance Target or higher Minimum Target or higher Ambitious Target ELEMENTARY 212 schools 31% 65 schools 8% 16 schools 1% 3 schools 41% 87 schools 19% 40 schools 6% 13 schools MIDDLE 175 schools 31% 55 schools 13% 22 schools 4% 7 schools 45% 78 schools 24% 42 schools 10% 17 schools HIGH 66 schools 11% 7 schools 3% 2 schools 0% 0 schools 15% 10 schools 3% 2 schools 2% 1 school * Schools that serve more than one grade level are evaluated separately for each level. Note: Schools are ranked against all schools statewide serving the same grades: elementary, middle, or high school. Compliance Target - School performs above the 10 th percentile or better statewide AND moves up five or more percentage points in statewide rank. Minimum Target - School performs in the 25 th percentile or better in statewide ranking AND moves up five or more percentage points in statewide rank. Ambitious Target - School performs in the 50 th percentile or better in statewide ranking (exceeds the state median performance) AND moves up five or more percentage points in statewide rank.

18. Change in Percentile Ranking, Reading Proficiency (2009-10 to 2013-14) 10/29/201518 Percentile Ranking

19. 10/29/201519 Change in Percentile Ranking, Math Proficiency (2009-10 to 2013-14) Ambitious Target Minimum Target Compliance Target Percentile Ranking

20. Growth Summary 10/29/201520 School* Percentage of Schools Meeting MGP Targets – Reading Percentage of Schools Meeting MGP Targets – Math Compliance Target or higher Minimum Target or higher Ambitious Target Compliance Target or higher Minimum Target or higher Ambitious Target ELEMENTARY 119 schools 44% 52 schools 10% 12 schools 2% 2 schools 62% 74 schools 21% 25 schools 8% 10 schools MIDDLE 53 schools 43% 23 schools 17% 9 schools 9% 5 schools 47% 25 schools 19% 10 schools 11% 6 schools HIGH 21 schools 48% 10 schools 14% 3 schools 0% 0 schools 24% 5 schools 14% 3 schools 0% 0 schools COLORADO Compliance Target - School performs above the 50 th percentile statewide. Minimum Target - School exceeds the 75 th percentile statewide for growth. Ambitious Target - School exceeds the 90 th percentile of statewide performance. Note: The numbers of schools differ for proficiency and growth. Some schools did not have four year of proficiency data needed and some schools did not have two consecutive years of data necessary for growth results.

21. Predict Based on the information about the growth targets, what percentages of Illinois schools do you predict met the compliance, minimum, and ambitious targets? 10/29/201521

22. Growth: Illinois 10/29/201522 Compliance Target - School performs above the 50 th percentile statewide. Minimum Target - School exceeds the 75 th percentile statewide for growth. Ambitious Target - School exceeds the 90 th percentile of statewide performance. Note: The numbers of schools differ for proficiency and growth. Some schools did not have four year of proficiency data needed and some schools did not have two consecutive years of data necessary for growth results. Growth scores were not reported for high schools. Note: Illinois growth scores are reported by school, not grade level. Because Illinois has a large variety of school grade-level configurations (see demographics tab), rankings were calculated against all schools, not separated by elementary, middle, and high schools. *Two schools had growth data in reading, but not in math. School Percentage of Schools Meeting Targets - Reading Percentage of Schools Meeting Targets - Math Compliance Target or higher Minimum Target or higher Ambitious Target Compliance Target or higher Minimum Target or higher Ambitious Target All grade levels Reading: 219 schools Math: 217 schools* 16% 28 schools 5% 11 schools 3% 7 schools 29% 43 schools 8% 18 schools 4% 8 schools

23. Graduation Rate Summary 10/29/201523 Percentage of Schools Meeting Targets Compliance Target or higher Minimum Target or higher Ambitious Target High 39 schools 23% 9 schools 0% 0 schools 0% 0 schools Statewide Percentile Ranking 22 nd percentile39 th percentile87 th percentile High 49 schools 80% 39 schools 35% 17 schools 6% 3 schools Statewide Percentile Ranking 11 th percentile22 nd percentile75 th percentile COLORADO TENNESSEE Compliance: 60% or higherMinimum: 80% or higher Ambitious: 95% or higher

24. Predict Based on the information about the graduation rate targets, what percentages of Illinois schools do you predict met the compliance, minimum, and ambitious targets? 10/29/201524

25. Graduation Rate: Illinois 10/29/201525 Percentage of Schools Meeting Targets Compliance Target or higher Minimum Target or higher Ambitious Target All Schools 67 schools 93% 62 schools 60% 40 schools 3% 2 schools Statewide Percentile Ranking 2 nd percentile20 th percentile86 th percentile Compliance Target – 60% or higher graduation rate, 2 nd percentile statewide in Illinois Minimum Target – 80% or higher graduation rate, 20 th percentile statewide in Illinois Ambitious Target – 95% or higher graduation rate, 86 th percentile statewide in Illinois

26. State Trends While the results of the analyses varied somewhat by state, our research indicated a few key findings with implications for the proposed measures of turnaround success. Ambitious target is a meaningful marker of success Minimum target indicates schools are on track for success More schools met targets in math than reading More elementary schools met targets than middle and high schools A majority of schools did not meet even the compliance target in reading 10/29/201526

27. Agenda 10/29/2015www.publicimpact.com27 TopicTime Overview: Turnaround Definition15 min. State Summary Results30 min. Illinois School Level Results30 min. Implications15 min.

28. Illinois Schools Analysis Individually review the data and discuss as a group: 1.Are the schools that meet the minimum and ambitious targets the ones you would expect? 2.What are you noticing? 3.What questions are surfacing for you? Record your discussion and report to the whole group. 10/29/201528

29. Agenda 10/29/201529 TopicTime Overview: Turnaround Definition15 min. State Summary Results30 min. Illinois School Level Results30 min. Implications15 min.

30. So What? How can you use this type of data to provide differentiated support to schools and districts that result in improved outcomes? 10/29/201530