1. Network Accountability Overview
Division of Academics, Performance, and Support
March 11, 2013

2. Qualitative Evaluation
Each network received a Qualitative Evaluation from the cluster for network performance resulting in an overall score. The Qualitative Evaluation was based on the network’s performance in:
The overall score was translated to a network rating on the following continuum:
Rigorous Academics (20%)
Adult Development and Professional Learning (16%)
Support for Struggling Schools and Leaders (20%)
Operational Services (16%)
Access and Support for All Students (16%)
Family and Community Engagement (12%)
1 = Ineffective
2 = Developing
3 = Effective
4 = Highly Effective

3. Progress Report
The average Progress Report percentile of all schools in the network was calculated.
For school types without published percentiles, percentiles were calculated for this purpose.
For schools with more than one Progress Report, the average of the two percentiles was used.
Progress Report percentile results were grouped into quartiles for reference.

4. Most Recent Quality Review
The most recent Quality Review scores of all schools in the network were averaged.
For and Quality Reviews, numeric scores were published.
For Quality Reviews prior to , the Quality Review ratings were converted to scores based on the below table:
WD/O 75
P 65
UPF 45
U 25
The most recent Quality Review average score was grouped into quartiles.

5. Principal Satisfaction
The average response of principals in the network to the question: “How satisfied are you with the overall quality of support provided by your network?” was used to determine this component.
Responses were weighted as follows:
“Very Satisfied” 100%
“Satisfied” 66%
“Dissatisfied” 33%
“Very Dissatisfied” 0%
The Principal Satisfaction outcome was grouped into quartiles.

6. Additional Credit
Additional credit is intended to reward networks performing well with the highest need student populations. A network peer index was calculated to compare student need across networks.
The peer indices from the Progress Reports (of every school) were translated to a percentile within school type.
Low-value percentiles corresponded to high-need student populations.
Multiple values at the same school (e.g., for secondary schools) were averaged.

7. Additional Credit (cont.)
Networks in the top quartile of the peer index (highest need) were eligible to receive extra credit.
Those in the top third for the qualitative evaluation received 10 additional points
Those in the middle third for the qualitative evaluation received 5 additional points