1. December 15, 2014 ESEA Flexibility Analysis

2. The flex analysis was designed to examine the characteristics of schools identified by each SEA’s differentiated accountability system for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years, including the performance of all students and all subgroups based on, respectively, 2011-12 and 2012-13 student achievement and graduation rate data Purpose of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis 2

3.  Not a replication of individual state identification systems  An examination of school characteristics at the time of school identification: 2011-12 for Windows 1 and 2; 2012-13 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

4.  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

5.  Uses data to produce 14 analyses/exhibits for each state profile  2011-12 data for: year 1 profiles, Windows 1 and 2  2012-13 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

6. Priority and Focus School Identification 6

7. Priority and Focus School Identification by School Level 7

8. School Identification by State-Defined Status Levels 8

9. 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

10. 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 Enrollment529470 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18.  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

19. Example Data Extract 19

20. Example Data Extract (continued) 20

21.  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

22. Questions? 22