Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in

Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in 2018-19
Webinar: October 3, 2018

ESSA Identification Criteria for Each Category (CS, TS, and ATS)
Agenda ESSA Identification Criteria for Each Category (CS, TS, and ATS) Indicators Overall AEC Indicators K-2 Indicators Student Groups Example

ESSA Indicators

Overview of ESSA Indicators
Academic Achievement English language arts (ELA) achievement (E/M) Math achievement (E/M) SAT achievement (H) Evidence based reading and writing (EBRW) Math Academic Progress ELA (E/M) or EBRW (H) growth Math growth Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Growth percentiles – New to identification On-track to attain fluency – New to identification School Quality or Student Success (SQSS) Science achievement Reduction in chronic absenteeism (E/M) – Not used for identification Dropout rates New to identification Graduation Rates Four-year rate – New to identification Seven-year rate – New to identification Alternative Education Campuses (AECs) In addition to all other indicators: Attendance Truancy K-2 Schools Academic achievement Percent significant reading deficiency (SRD) Academic progress Change in SRD English language proficiency growth This slide provides the indicators used in the ESSA identification process and notes which ones are new as of The two categories of schools in boxes are unique identification categories under ESSA.

Indicators for CS – Lowest 5%

Academic Achievement Mean scale scores for ELA/EBRW and math achievement Elementary and middle – CMAS and CoAlt: DLM (Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment) combined 2016, 2017, and 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates High – SAT and CoAlt: DLM combined (grade 11 only) 2017 and 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates Equal weighting across sub-indicators ELA/EBRW = 50% Math = 50% This slide provides information on how the academic achievement data is used in the ESSA identification process. SAT grade 11 was first administered in 2017, therefore only 2 years of data are available for the 3-year aggregates.

ELA/EBRW Achievement Cut Scores
EMH Level Mean Scale Score Rating Elementary Below 723.4 Does Not Meet 723.4 to 739.9 Approaching 740.0 to 756.7 Meets 756.8 or above Exceeds Middle Below 722.5 722.5 to 738.5 738.6 to 755.2 755.3 or above High Below 462.3 462.3 to 509.1 509.2 to 559.0 559.1 or above This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the ELA/EBRW achievement sub-indicator ratings.

Math Achievement Cut Scores
EMH Level Mean Scale Score Rating Elementary Below 718.9 Does Not Meet 718.9 to 734.2 Approaching 734.3 to 751.8 Meets 751.9 or above Exceeds Middle Below 713.9 713.9 to 728.3 728.4 to 749.9 750.0 or above High Below 446.5 446.5 to 491.6 491.7 to 543.3 543.4 or above This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the math achievement sub-indicator ratings.

Achievement Adjusted for Participation
Under ESSA, states are required to factor the requirement for 95 percent student participation into the system of annual meaningful differentiation of schools Based on required changes to Colorado’s approved ESSA state plan, the academic achievement indicator will now be adjusted to account for participation rates below 95 percent Colorado will count all non-participants (including parent excusals) in excess of 5% as non-proficient records for identification of schools for support and improvement For ELA and math achievement on CMAS, records will be assigned a scale score of 650 For EBRW and math achievement on SAT, records will be assigned a scale score of 200 Colorado will identify schools for support and improvement first using the actual (non- adjusted) mean scale scores, and then using the mean scale scores adjusted for participation Schools that are only identified based on calculating non-participants in excess of 5% as non-proficient records will be identified as “due to participation”, allowing Colorado to provide differentiated support and intervention to those schools For schools identified “due to participation” only, school profiles will be shared with districts through Syncplicity, and will contain both the actual mean scale scores, as well as the mean scale scores adjusted for participation

Growth Academic Progress: Median growth percentiles for ELA/EBRW and math Elementary and middle – CMAS 2016, 2017, and 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates High – SAT (grade 11 only) 2017 and 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates ELP Growth: Median growth percentiles on English language proficiency assessment 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates ELP Growth to Standard: Percent on track to achieve English language proficiency Progress of English learners towards attaining English language proficiency (4.0 Overall and 4.0 Literacy) within state-designated timeline (6 years) A student initially scoring an overall ACCESS proficiency level of 1 will have 1 year to move to level 2, 2 years to move from level 2 to level 3, and 3 years to move from level 3 to level 4 This slide provides information on how the academic growth data is used in the ESSA identification process.

Growth, Cont. Weighting across sub-indicators ELA/EBRW growth = 40%
Math growth = 40% ELP growth = 10% ELP growth to standard = 10% Academic growth represents 80% of the growth indicator (40% for ELA/EBRW and 40% for math), and the ELP sub-indicators represent the remaining 20% of the growth indicator (10% ELP growth and 10% ELP growth to standard).

ELA/EBRW, Math, & ELP Growth Cut Scores
EMH Level Median Growth Percentile Rating All Below 35.0 Does Not Meet 35.0 to 49.5 Approaching 50.0 to 64.5 Meets 65.0 or above Exceeds This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the ELA/EBRW, math, and ELP growth sub-indicator ratings.

ELP Growth to Standard Cut Scores
EMH Level Percent On-Track Rating Elementary Below 59.7 Does Not Meet 59.7 to 68.2 Approaching 68.3 to 79.2 Meets 79.3 or above Exceeds Middle Below 32.4 32.4 to 47.1 47.2 to 60.8 60.9 or above High Below 30.5 30.5 to 44.1 44.2 to 58.1 58.2 or above This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the ELP growth to standard sub-indicator ratings.

School Quality or Student Success
Mean scale scores for science achievement CMAS and CoAlt combined 2016, 2017, and 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates Dropout rates (for high schools only) Weighting across sub-indicators Elementary and middle Science achievement = 100% High Science achievement = 40% Dropout = 60% This slide provides information on how data on school quality or student success is used in the ESSA identification process.

Science Achievement Cut Scores
EMH Level Mean Scale Score Rating Elementary Below 546.0 Does Not Meet 546.0 to 649.9 Approaching 650.0 to 770.9 Meets 771.0 or above Exceeds Middle Below 556.0 556.0 to 651.9 652.0 to 784.9 785.0 or above High Below 543.0 543.0 to 672.9 673.0 to 773.9 774.0 or above This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the science achievement sub-indicator ratings.

Dropout Rate Cut Scores
EMH Level Percent Rating High Above 3.5 Does Not Meet 1.1 to 3.5 Approaching 0.1 to 1.0 Meets 0.0 Exceeds This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the dropout rate sub-indicator ratings.

Graduation (for high schools only)
4-year graduation rate 2015, 2016, and 2017 data included in the 3-year aggregates 7-year graduation rate Weighting across sub-indicators 4-year = 1% 7-year = 99% This slide provides information on how the graduation data is used in the ESSA identification process.

Graduation Rates Cut Scores
Cohort Percent Rating 4-Year Below 72.4 Does Not Meet 72.4 to 86.9 Approaching 87.0 to 94.9 Meets 95.0 or above Exceeds 7-Year Below 83.3 83.3 to 91.6 91.7 to 98.2 98.3 or above This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the 4-year and 7-year graduation rate sub-indicator ratings.

Weighting of Indicators
Elementary and Middle High Indicator Weighting Academic Achievement 23.3% Growth 60.0% SQSS 16.7% Graduation Indicator Weighting Academic Achievement 20.0% Growth 40.0% SQSS 25.0% Graduation 15.0% This slide provides information on the weighting of each indicator in determining an overall summative score for identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Lowest 5% of Title I schools.

Overall Summative Scores
Performance of all students and each student group are compared to the cut scores, and used to assign ratings and award points for each sub-indicator Points are added together for each indicator, weighted, and then added across indicators to calculate the total points earned and total points possible for each school Total points earned are then divided by total points possible, to create an overall summative score for each school Elementary School Example: High School Example: Achievement Growth SQSS Graduation Total Weighted Points Earned Weighted Points Eligible % Points Earned 8.2 23.3 30.0 60.0 8.0 16.7 46.2 100.0 46.2% This slide demonstrates how each sub-indicator and indicator are combined to determine the total points earned for each school, providing examples for an elementary school and a high school. Achievement Growth SQSS Graduation Total Weighted Points Earned Weighted Points Eligible % Points Earned 5 20 - 12.5 25.0 3.8 15.0 21.3 60.0 35.5%

AEC as CS – Lowest 5%

AEC Indicators for CS-Lowest 5%
1 AEC ~ representative proportion of the Title I schools Use the same indicators and the same identification criteria and process as traditional school in calculating total percentage points earned If the total percentage of points earned using the overall indicators does not adequately differentiate the performance of the lowest performing Title I AEC, attendance and truancy data will also be used Attendance Rate = Total student days attended divided by the total student days possible Truancy Rate = Total student days unexcused divided by the total student days possible Example: This slide provides information on the additional indicators used to identify one AEC for CS – Lowest 5%, if the overall summative score does not adequately differentiate the performance of the lowest performing Title I AEC. School Total % Points Earned Attendance Rate Truancy Rate School A 25.0% 68.2% 21.7% School B 72.4% 15.8% School C 26.2% 58.9% 20.1%

K-2 School as CS – Lowest 5%

Academic Achievement Percent of students with a significant reading deficiency (SRD) READ Act 2016, 2017, and 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates This slide provides information on the academic achievement indicator used for identifying schools that only enroll students in grades K-2 for support and improvement under ESSA.

Percent SRD Cut Scores Percent Rating Above 24.8 Does Not Meet
13.5 to 24.8 Approaching 5.9 to 13.4 Meets 5.8 or below Exceeds This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the % SRD sub-indicator ratings.

Growth Percent change of students identified with a significant reading deficiency (SRD) Of the students identified with an SRD the prior year, the percent of students no longer identified with an SRD the following year READ Act 2016, 2017, and 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates ELP Growth: Median growth percentiles on English language proficiency assessment 2018 data included in the 3-year aggregates ELP Growth to Standard: Percent on track to achieve English language proficiency Weighting across sub-indicators Percent change in SRD = 75% ELP growth = 12.5% ELP growth to standard = 12.5% This slide provides information on the growth indicator used for identifying schools that only enroll students in grades K-2 for support and improvement under ESSA.

Percent Change in SRD Cut Scores
Rating Below 21.2 Does Not Meet 21.2 to 36.2 Approaching 36.3 to 53.8 Meets 53.8 or above Exceeds This slide shows the cut scores used for determining the % change in SRD sub-indicator ratings.

Weighting of Indicators
Achievement 40.0% Growth 60.0% This slide provides information on the weighting of each indicator in determining an overall summative score for identifying K-2 schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Lowest 5% of Title I schools.

ESSA Identification Criteria: Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Lowest 5%

Schools Included in Analyses
Only Title I schools Public schools open for at least 3 years K-12 Includes AECs Includes K-2 schools This slide provides information on the schools included in the analyses for Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Lowest 5%.

Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Lowest 5 Percent
Using the overall summative rating, Colorado will annually rank all schools based on the total percentage of points earned, and Title I schools with the lowest total points earned will be identified as the lowest-performing schools Consistent with state frameworks, schools with only postsecondary workforce data (i.e., graduation and/or dropout rates) are considered to have insufficient data, and are not eligible to be identified Identification will include a minimum of 5 percent of all Title I schools (n = 37) For Alternative Education Campuses (AECs), Colorado will identify one AEC, which is representative of the proportion of Title I schools that are AECs If the total percentage of points does not adequately differentiate the performance of the lowest performing Title I AEC, attendance and truancy data will also be used This slide provides information on the process used to identify schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Lowest 5%. Possible to be identified due to participation only ~ would be labeled as such

Student Groups

Student Groups Based on Colorado’s approved ESSA state plan, Colorado will use the following student groups for school identification, weighted within each sub-indicator All students = 66.6% English learners = 8.325% Students with disabilities = 8.325% Students experiencing poverty = 8.325% Students from major racial/ethnic groups, separately = 8.325% Aggregated non-White group – any non-White students from racial/ethnic groups that do not meet the minimum number of students to be reported on their own will be combined into one group for accountability purposes This slide provides information on student groups in the CS – Lowest 5% identification process.

CS-Lowest 5% ~ Example Assuming cut-point of 39.1% total points earned
AEC with lower attendance and higher truancy already identified School Title I AEC Total % Points Earned Attendance Truancy CS Lowest 5% School 1 Y 25.0% 68.2% 21.7% Yes School 2 N - School 3 72.4% 15.8% No School 4 25.3% School 5 25.4% School 6 28.1% 58.9% 20.1% School 7 29.7% School 8 31.6% School 9 40.2% School 10 51.8% Not Title I This slide walks through an example of the CS – Lowest 5% identification process. Above cut-point

ESSA Identification Criteria: Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Low Grad Rate

Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Low Graduation Rate
Schools included in analyses: All public high schools open for at least 3 years Colorado will identify all public high schools with 4-year and 7-year graduation rates below 67 percent for three consecutive years for Comprehensive Support and Improvement Unlike the 3-year aggregates used for the graduation rate indicator as part of the summative system, identification for CS – Low Graduation Rate is based on the 4-year and 7-year graduation rates for 2015, 2016, and 2017, separately If a school has both a 4-year and a 7-year graduation rate, both must be below 67% If a school only has one of the two graduation rates, then the school would be identified if either the 4-year or the 7-year are below 67% “all public schools” includes AECs This slide provides information on the schools included and the process used to identify schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Low Graduation.

Comprehensive Support and Improvement – Low Graduation Rate Examples
Example 1: A high school has both 4-year and 7-year graduation rates for 2016 and 2017, but does not graduation rates available for The school is not eligible for identification, as three consecutive years of data are not available. Example 2: A high school has both 4-year and 7-year graduation rates for 2015, 2016, and 2017, but graduated at least 67% of students in 2016 based on the 7-year rate. The school is not identified. Example 3: A high school has a 4-year graduation rate for 2015, and both 4-year and 7-year graduation rates for 2016 and The school is identified because all available graduation rates are below 67%. 2015 2016 2017 4-Year 7-Year - 62.3% 65.2% 63.1% 66.3% 2015 2016 2017 4-Year 7-Year 52.7% 59.4% 62.3% 68.2% 63.1% 66.3% This slide walks through examples of the CS – Low Graduation identification process. 2015 2016 2017 4-Year 7-Year 52.7% - 62.3% 65.2% 63.1% 66.3%

ESSA Identification Criteria: Targeted Support and Improvement

Any public school (does not have to be Title I) open for at least 3 years K-12 Includes AECs Includes K-2 schools This slide provides information on the schools included in the analyses for Targeted Support and Improvement.

Targeted Support and Improvement
Possible to be identified due to participation only ~ would be labeled as such Colorado will identify any schools with at least one consistently underperforming disaggregated group, based on the following sub-indicators (using 3-year aggregates) Schools with 3 or more sub-indicators for any student group at any grade span (elementary, middle, high), are included in the analyses Consistent with state frameworks, schools with only postsecondary workforce sub-indicators (4-year graduation rate, 7-year graduation rate, and dropout rate) are considered to have insufficient data, and are not eligible to be identified Schools are identified if they earn a Does Not Meet rating on all sub-indicators available for that student group Any school with a rating above Does Not Meet on at least one sub-indicator would not be identified based on the performance of that student group Indicator Academic Achievement Academic Growth ELP Progress (for ELs) Graduation Rate (for HS) Other SQSS Indicators Sub-indicator English Language Arts Math ACCESS Growth Percent On-Track to Attain Fluency 4-Year 7-Year Science Chronic Absenteeism Dropout Rate Minimum Number of Students Needed to Be Included in Analyses 16 20 This slide provides information on the process used to identify schools for Targeted Support and Improvement.

Targeted Support and Improvement, K-2
Colorado will identify any K-2 schools with at least one consistently underperforming disaggregated group, based on the following sub-indicators (using 3-year aggregates) Schools with all sub-indicators for a student group are included in the analyses Schools are identified if they earn a Does Not Meet rating on all sub-indicators available for that student group Any school with a rating above Does Not Meet on at least one sub-indicator would not be identified based on the performance of that student group Indicator Academic Achievement Academic Growth ELP Progress (for ELs) Sub-indicator % SRD % Change in SRD ACCESS Growth Percent On-Track to Attain Fluency Minimum Number of Students Needed to Be Included in Analyses 16 20 This slide provides information on the process used to identify K-2 schools for Targeted Support and Improvement.

Student Groups

Student Groups Based on Colorado’s approved ESSA state plan, Colorado will use the following student groups for school identification, weighted within each sub-indicator English learners Students with disabilities Students experiencing poverty Students from major racial/ethnic groups, separately Aggregated non-White group – any non-White students from racial/ethnic groups that do not meet the minimum number of students to be reported on their own will be combined into one group for accountability purposes This slide provides information on student groups in the Targeted Support and Improvement identification process.

Targeted Support and Improvement, Examples
Example 1: This elementary school is identified as TS based on the performance of English learners on ELA and math achievement and growth, and ELP progress. The school did not earn a science rating because fewer than 16 English learners took the science assessment. The school had 3 or more sub-indicators available, and earned Does Not Meet on all, therefore was identified. Example 2: This elementary school is not identified as TS. Although the school had enough English learners to earn a rating on four sub-indicators, it was not identified because it earned Approaching on ELA growth and Meets on math growth. English Learners Achievement Growth ELP Progress Grad SQSS ELA/ EBRW Math ELA Percent On-Track 4-Year 7-Year Science Chronic Abs. Dropout Elementary DNM Not Applicable N < 16 This slide provides information on schools identified for targeted support and improvement, including two examples. English Learners Achievement Growth ELP Progress Grad SQSS ELA/ EBRW Math ELA Percent On-Track 4-Year 7-Year Science Chronic Abs. Dropout Elementary DNM Approaching Meets Not Applicable N < 16

Targeted Support and Improvement, K-2 Examples
Example 1: This K-2 school is identified as TS based on the performance of students with disabilities on achievement and growth. The school had all sub-indicators available, and earned Does Not Meet on all, therefore was identified. Example 2: This K-2 school is not identified as TS. Although the school had enough English learners to earn a rating on all four sub-indicators, it was not identified because it earned Approaching on ELP growth. Students with Disabilities Achievement Growth ELP Progress % SRD % Change in SRD Percent On-Track K-2 DNM Not Applicable This slide provides information on K-2 schools identified for targeted support and improvement, including two examples. English Learners Achievement Growth ELP Progress % SRD % Change in SRD Percent On-Track K-2 DNM Approaching

ESSA Identification Criteria: Additional Targeted

Any public school open for at least 3 years K-12 Includes AECs Excludes K-2 schools Only 2 sub-indicators are available (4 for English learners), therefore it is not possible to further differentiate from TS identification This slide provides information on the schools included in the analyses for Additional Targeted Support and Improvement.

Additional Targeted Support and Improvement
Colorado will identify any schools with at least one disaggregated group that, on its own, meets the criteria for CS – Lowest Performing 5 Percent, based on all sub-indicators (using 3-year aggregates) Schools that have enough students in a disaggregated group to earn a rating on all sub- indicators, for all grade spans served by that school, and that have been open for at least 3 years, are included in the analyses Schools are identified if they earned a Does Not Meet rating on all possible sub-indicators Any school with a rating above Does Not Meet on at least one sub-indicator would not be identified based on the performance of that student group Indicator Academic Achievement Academic Growth ELP Progress (for ELs) Graduation Rate (for HS) Other SQSS Indicators Sub-indicator English Language Arts Math ACCESS Growth Percent On-Track to Attain Fluency 4-Year 7-Year Science Chronic Absenteeism Dropout Rate Minimum Number of Students Needed to Be Included in Analyses 16 20 This slide provides information on schools identified for additional targeted support and improvement. Possible to be identified due to participation only ~ would be labeled as such

Additional Targeted Title I schools that have been identified for Additional Targeted Support and Improvement for three consecutive years based on low-performance of the same student group will be moved to the Comprehensive Support and Improvement category on the fourth year The first year of identification for this category will be Possible to be identified due to participation only ~ would be labeled as such This slide describes the process for moving Additional Targeted Support and Improvement schools to the CS – Lowest 5% category if they do not meet exit criteria within four years.

Student Groups

Student Groups Based on Colorado’s approved ESSA state plan, Colorado will use the following student groups for school identification, weighted within each sub-indicator English learners Students with disabilities Students experiencing poverty Students from major racial/ethnic groups, separately Aggregated non-White group – any non-White students from racial/ethnic groups that do not meet the minimum number of students to be reported on their own will be combined into one group for accountability purposes This slide provides information on student groups in the Targeted Support and Improvement identification process.

Additional Targeted Support and Improvement, Examples
Example 1: This middle school is identified as A-TS based on the performance of English learners, earning a Does Not Meet rating on all sub-indicators for that student group. Example 2: This high school is not identified as A-TS. Although the school had enough English learners to earn a rating on all sub-indicators, it was not identified because it earned Approaching on ELA and math growth. English Learners Achievement Growth ELP Progress Grad SQSS ELA/ EBRW Math ELA Percent On-Track 4-Year 7-Year Science Chronic Abs. Dropout Middle DNM Not Applicable English Learners Achievement Growth ELP Progress Grad SQSS ELA/ EBRW Math ELA Percent On-Track 4-Year 7-Year Science Chronic Abs. Dropout High DNM Approaching This slide provides information on schools identified for targeted support and improvement, including 2 examples.

ESSA Q&A Session (Webinar) ESSA Identification Office Hours
Coming Up Webinar Name Date Time Link for Participants Call-in Number Meeting Room ESSA Q&A Session (Webinar) 10/4/18 9:00-11:00 am Willow ESSA Identification Office Hours 10/11/18 8:00-11:00 am N/A Tina’s Desk This slide provides information about upcoming training webinars.

Questions? This is the opportunity for participants to ask questions of presenters.

Nazanin (Nazie) Mohajeri-Nelson Mohajeri-nelson_n@cde.state.co.us
Contacts Nazanin (Nazie) Mohajeri-Nelson (303) Tina Negley (303) This is our contact information for any remaining questions you may have.

Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback