Operationalizing the General Assembly’s School Performance Grades
(House Bill 950)
Superintendents’ Quarterly Meeting
November 29, 2012
1
Responding to School Performance Grades (SPG)
• The SBE must respond to the General Assembly “…annually by January 15 on recommended adjustments to the school performance grade elements and scales for award of scores and grades.”
• Additionally, SECTION 7A.3.(f) indicates:
“It is the intent of the General Assembly to add a student growth component to school performance grades.”
• Operational in 2012‐13
2
What are the basics of the SPGs?
Elementary/Middle Schools
Total Points 0‐300 • Reading, Math, Science (100 points each) High Schools
•
•
•
•
•
Total Points 0‐700
Performance Composite Algebra II/Integrated III
Graduation Rate
WorkKeys
ACT
300 points
100 points
100 points
100 points
100 points
+ Growth
3
Alignment Between Indicators in High School
High School Performance Grades
End‐of‐Course
Math Course Rigor
Graduation Rates
•
•
•
•
•
End‐of‐Course Tests
Algebra II/Integrated III
Graduation Rate
WorkKeys
ACT
WorkKeys
ACT
Graduation Project
Key Point: The set of indicators are shared and set a college and career‐ready expectation. The Graduation Project is 4
not part of the school grade.
4
How each indicator is defined
Performance Composite (Elementary and High)
• Percent of proficient tests in a school
• All tests, subjects, and grade levels
• Uses the EOG/EOC test data
Algebra II/Integrated III
• Percent of 4‐year cohort graduates who take and pass Alg. II or Int. Math III (Excludes the 1% population)
Graduation Rate
• Percent of students that graduate within 4 years (4‐year cohort graduation rate)
WorkKeys
• Percent of seniors who are CTE concentrators and achieve a Silver certificate, or better, on the WorkKeys assessment
ACT
• College readiness
• Percent of students meeting all five benchmarks (subsequent analyses) or
• Percent of students meeting at least three
benchmarks or
• Percent of students meeting the UNC admission requirement minimum of a composite score of 16 (will increase to 17 beginning Fall 2013)
5
Feedback from Small Supt Meetings in October
1. Consider impact of WorkKeys
2. Re‐evaluate how to report college readiness per ACT
3. Include growth as 50 % of the letter grade
4. Consider the Florida model
Next Step: Conduct new analysis
6
Before beginning analysis, for comparative purposes…
1. Used 2011‐12 data to identify 20 schools at each of the following levels:
a. Top: Honor School of Excellence or School of Excellence for at least 3 of the last 4 years and High Growth
b. Middle: School of Distinction and/or School of Progress at least 3 of the last 4 years with Expected Growth
c. Bottom: Low performing designation at least one time in the last four years
2. For each of the options, tracked the movement of the identified 20 schools at each level:
Example: For Option 2, how many of the Top schools retain an “A” designation?
7
Option 1
1. Identify schools as prescribed by the law
2. Did not include growth
Elementary/Middle
High School
All Top schools = A
Top schools = A (1), B (12), and C (7)
Middle schools = B (1) and C (19)
Middle schools = B (2), C (9), and D (9)
Bottom schools = D (2) and F (18) Bottom schools = D (3) and F (17)
8
Option 1
• Elementary/Middle
– Distribution is as expected…not really a new model
• High School
– ACT and WorkKeys pulls overall letter grade down
9
Option 2
1. Identify schools as prescribed by the law
2. Additional points for exceeding (10 points) or meeting (5 points) growth. No points for not meeting growth
Elementary/Middle
High School
All Top schools = A
Top schools = A (12) and B (8)
Middle schools = B (10) and C (10)
Middle schools = A (2), B (5), C (10), and D (3)
Bottom schools = C (2), D (4), and D (14)
Bottom schools = C (1), D (7), and F (12)
10
Option 2
• Elementary/Middle
– Redistributes the middle schools with ½ of the 20 now a B
– Pulls up some of the bottom schools into C/D
• High School
– Provides a letter bump for most schools as long as they are close to the top of the grade range and making growth
11
Option 3
1. Identify schools as prescribed by the law
2. Growth as ½ of the letter grade: Exceed 100, Meet 75, Not Meet 50 (values are proxy for actual EVAAS data)
Elementary/Middle
Top schools = A (9) and B (11)
High School
Top schools = A (10), B (8), and C (2)
Majority of middle schools = B (2) Middle schools = A (2), B (6), C (5), C (12), and D (6)
D (5), and F (2)
Bottom schools = B (1), C (5), D (7), Bottom schools = B (1), C (4), D (5), and F (10)
and F (7
12
Option 3
• Elementary/Middle and High Schools – Negative impact on Top schools (11 now Bs)
– Helps the Bottom schools (moves one to a B)
– Redistributes the Middle schools unpredictably into Bs/Ds
13
Option 4
1. Standard scores based on state mean: A and F are the exceptions, with the majority of schools at C 2. Does not include growth, but could indicate growth in addition to the letter grade
Elementary/Middle
High School
Top schools across A (8) and B (12) Top schools across A (3), B (14), and C (3)
All middle schools = C
All middle schools = C
Bottom schools spread across C (2), D (12), and F (6)
Bottom schools across C (14) and D (6)
14
Option 4
• Elementary/Middle and High School
– Compares schools against the state mean; allows for improvement (mean reset every 3 years)
– Not impacted by anticipated performance drop in test scores
– Possibly have a panel to validate the cuts across the distribution to ensure validity
– Results different from the law and the ABCs accountability model
– Makes As and Fs the exceptions with most schools in the B/C/D
15
Florida Model
• Complex with some data elements not currently available
• Not really a growth model but rather a learning gains model (achievement level increases and scale score increases; scale score increases are not necessarily growth)
• Criticized for high number of As/Bs/Cs
– Of 3111 schools:
•
•
•
•
•
A = 1638
B = 768
C = 532
D = 139
F = 34
16
Feedback from Superintendent panel (Nov 26)
1. Proposed delaying until 2013‐14
2. Stressed importance of growth
3. ACT/WorkKeys
Next Step: Today’s meeting
17
Discussion Topics
Review Additional Options
1. ABCs accountability model with letter designations
2. New SBE adopted accountability model with letter grades for each cell and an overall grade
3. Letter of the law with modifications for career‐
ready and college‐ready
4. Delay until 2013‐14
18
Current ABCs Model with Letter Grade Designations
A
Honor Schools of Excellence and Schools of Excellence
B
Schools of Distinction and Alternative Schools Meeting High Growth
C
Schools of Progress and Alternative Schools Meeting Expected Growth
D
No Recognition Schools and Alternative Schools Less than Expected Growth
F
Priority Schools and Low Performing Schools
I
Schools that had No ABC Status in 2012 (these schools would have to be given a designation in the new model)
19
Current ABCs Model with Letter Grade Designations
Letter Grade
N‐Count
Percent
A
293
11.57
B
725
28.63
C
879
34.72
D
411
16.23
F
175
6.91
I
49
1.94
Total
2532
100
20
READY Accountability Model: Letter Grades for Each Cell and Overall
Status
Test Scores1: Reading, Mathematics, and Science
Future Ready Core2
Graduation Rate (4‐year)2
ACT2
WorkKeys2
Growth (EVAAS)
For this analysis used following proxy:
Exceeded = 100
Met = 75
Not Met = 50
Progress
Annual Measureable
Objectives (reading and mathematics used for this analysis)
If implemented, would use actual EVAAS result on a 0‐100 scale or other possibilities (50‐100, 60‐
100, etc)
1Elementary, middle, and high school
2High School
21
Status: Elem/Middle
READY Accountability Model
Grade
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Overall
Status A
5%
23%
16%
9%
B
18%
41%
29%
32%
C
30%
24%
24%
30%
D
24%
9%
16%
18%
F
23%
4%
15%
11%
22
Status, Growth, Progress, Overall: Elem/Middle
Ready Accountability Model
Grade
Status
Growth
Progress
Overall
A
9%
27%
63%
19%
B
32%
0%
15%
36%
C
30%
47%
9%
27%
D
18%
0%
8%
12%
F
11%
25%
5%
7%
23
Status: High School
READY Accountability Model
Grade
Reading
Math
Science
FRC
Grad
Rate
ACT
WkKey
Status
A
25%
22%
32%
24%
31%
0.0%
2%
1%
B
34%
26%
29%
21%
41%
0.0%
9%
12%
C
17%
21%
17%
25%
17%
0.2%
19%
25%
D
8%
12%
8%
15%
5%
0.2%
26%
35%
F
15%
19%
15%
15%
6%
99.6%
43%
26%
24
Status, Growth, Progress, Overall: High School
READY Accountability Model
Grade
Status
Growth
Progress
Overall
A
1%
29%
68%
12%
B
12%
0%
14%
30%
C
25%
39%
7%
29%
D
35%
0%
5%
19%
F
26%
32%
6%
11%
25
Letter of the Law with College‐Ready Modifications
• UNC minimum admissions requirement for ACT
– 2012‐13 = 16
– 2013‐14 = 17
• Include AP scores: would need to determine how to collect this data
• Include percent of students who earn college credit in high school: would need to determine how to collect this data
26
Letter of the Law with Career‐Ready Modifications
• Include industry credentials that cover the majority of a specified course’s content
– Would need to determine how to collect this data
– Access may create equity issues
27