1. Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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