1. Introduction to the New Washington State Achievement Index Jack B. Monpas-Huber, Ph.D. Director of Assessment & Student Information Board of Directors Meeting March 7, 2011

2. Background of the Achievement Index Original Legislative mandate: SBE to “adopt objective, systematic criteria” to identify successful schools/districts and those needing more help Realize AYP’s shortcomings, need to create a better system State provides most of the education funding Supports legislative efforts to revise funding system 2009 Legislature passed ESHB 2261 – SBE must develop: 1.An Accountability Index to identify schools/districts for recognition and additional state support 2.A proposal for voluntary state support and assistance 3.A proposal for a system for challenged schools/districts that don’t improve through the voluntary system (“Required Action” formally authorized by the Legislature this year)

3. Basic structure of the Achievement Index Five outcomes Results from 4 assessments (reading, writing, math, science) aggregated together from all grades and all students, extended graduation rate, minimum N=10 Four indicators 1.Achievement by non low-income students (proficiency, ext. grad rate) 2.Achievement by low-income students (eligible for FRL) 3.Achievement vs. peers (Learning Index and ext. grad rate controlling for ELL, low income, SPED, gifted, mobility) 4.Improvement (change in Learning Index from previous year) Creates 5x4 matrix with 20 outcomes * Index is simple average of the 20 “inner” cells

4. Recent results for a Shoreline school

6. Shoreline at a glance, 2008-2010

7. Shoreline Award Winners, 2009-2010

8. Statewide distribution of school Achievement Indices -- 2009

9. Statewide distribution of school Achievement Indices -- 2010

10. We all prefer to have one system WA state officials met with staff at US Dept. of Ed. and Congress last spring to seeking waiver and use Index and new rules for AYP purposes (see Final Report for details) Waiver not approved, but WA still computed Index for recognition purposes We have two sets of results based on different metrics AYP will likely change in the next 1-2 years based on ESEA reauthorization 10 Relationship to AYP

11. Appendix What goes in the cells: Benchmarks and ratings

12. Appendix What goes in the cells: Benchmarks and ratings

13. Appendix: How the Learning Index works Calculated by OSPI for many years by grade & subject (see “Scale” option on MSP/HSPE page of Report Card) Similar to a GPA (0-4 scale, better grades get more weight) PercentMultiplierResult Not Tested0.7x 0 =0.0 Level 112.6x 1 =12.6 Level 216.8x 2 =33.6 Level 330.7x 3 =92.1 Level 438.0x 4 =152.0 Learning Index (Total / 100)2.90 13 Achievement Index combines results for all tested grades (easy to compute if only testing in one grade, e.g., writing and science)

14. Appendix: Achievement vs. peers Think “Bubbles on the Windshield” Recognizes context affects outcomes Makes “apples to apples” comparisons (“statistical neighbors”) using multiple regression to control for 5 student variables— percent ELL, low-income (FRL), special education, mobile, gifted Separate analysis for each type of school (e.g., elementary, middle, high, multiple grades) Scores based on regression “residual” (i.e., distance above or below the regression line) Complexity of statistical model presents a communications challenge