ACCOUNTABILITY

(REQUIRED FOR DTCS)

Big Picture Objectives Understand the purpose and

role of assessment results and other data in Oregon’s Accountability System.

Understand your responsibilities in relation to Oregon’s Accountability System.

2

Accountability

ESEA Waiver In order to move away from the one size fits all

sanctions required under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Oregon has obtained a waiver under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Although schools will no longer be placed on a school improvement list for not meeting overall Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), schools and districts will still be held to rigorous standards through various measures of student performance and growth.

All aspects of the waiver are aligned with the ultimate aim of achieving the 40-40-20 goal by 2025, where: 40% of adults will have earned a bachelor's degree or

higher; 40% will have earned an associate degree or

post-secondary credential; and 20% will have earned a high school diploma or

equivalent. 3

ESEA Waiver

Oregon’s waiver consists of two phases: Phase I: Interim Accountability System

Rating system for identifying priority, focus and model schools, based largely on Colorado’s growth model.

Existing Oregon Report Card with slight modifications. Achievement Compacts

Phase II: Next Generation Accountability New Oregon Report Card using the

priority/focus/model rating system as a foundation. Achievement Compacts

4

Next Generation AccountabilityESEA Waiver

Priority, Focus and Model SchoolsInstead of a school improvement list, ODE will produce a list of schools designated as priority, focus, or model:

Priority: Lowest performing schools identified as being in need of support/intervention. Includes current SIG schools.

Focus: Low performing or low growth schools, typically with significant achievement gaps, needing less intensive support/intervention.

Model: Schools with the highest performance or growth, serving as a role model for other schools (federal terminology calls them “reward” schools, but the term “model” better reflects their role inOregon’s accountability system).

5

ESEA Waiver

Interim Report Card Uses the existing Oregon Report Card

methodology to provide a rating of Outstanding, Satisfactory or In Need of Improvement for all schools (with bonus for Exceeds removed).

Includes an AMO report that describes each school’s performance for all students and subgroups as against ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives (AMOs), but no longer assigns schools an overall AYP met/not met designation.

Displays the new priority, focus and modelschool designations.

6

ESEA Waiver

New Oregon Report Card Beginning in 2012-13, following a period of

further study, engagement, and piloting, Oregon will develop a new report card designed to: Align with the Achievement Compact. More accurately reflect growth to (and

beyond) standard as an important and sought after outcome.

Incorporate important measures of college and career readiness necessary to move the state toward its ultimate 40/40/20 Goal.

7

ESEA Waiver

Achievement Compact Requires districts to engage in a process of goal

setting on key indicators of student success. Provides Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB)

and Chief Education Officer (CEdO) with crucial information about the achievement of outcomes across the state and across student populations.

At present, does not directly impact accountability ratings or district funding.

8

ESEA Waiver

Rating System In phase I, used to determine priority,

focus and model schools. In phase II, will be used as foundation

for new Oregon Report Card. Draws heavily on Colorado’s rating

system, including the Colorado growth model.

ESEA Waiver

Reading statewide assessments in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and high school

Mathematics statewide assessments in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and high school

Four- and five-year cohort graduation rates

Participation rates in statewide reading and mathematics assessments.

Data Used in Rating System

ESEA Waiver

Besides the all students subgroup, the rating system takes into account achievement, graduation and growth for four historically underperforming subgroups: Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities Limited English proficient Historically underperforming races and ethnicities, a

combined subgroup that includes: American Indian/Alaskan native Black/African American Hispanic Pacific Islander

SubgroupsESEA Waiver

Achievement: No minimum n-size for rating the all students subgroup. Schools that do not reach a minimum of 42 tests in a

subject when two years of data are combined are rated on four years of data.

Very small schools are subject to additional rules. Growth: 30 students with a growth percentile. Subgroup Growth: 30 students with a growth percentile. In

addition the subgroup must meet the minimum n-size requirement for being rated against AMOs, which is 42 tests.

Graduation and Subgroup Graduation: 40 students, combined, in the last two four-year cohorts.

Participation: 40 students for subgroups, withno minimum n applied to the all students subgroup.

Minimum N for RatingESEA Waiver

Compares an individual student’s growth with the growth of his or her academic peers. This growth is reported as a percentile, called a student growth percentile (SGP).

Also determines the SGP required to either move up to standard within three years, or to maintain standard for those three years. This is called the target growth percentile (TGP).

Growth ModelESEA Waiver

The median SGP for a school represents the growth percentile of a “typical” student for that school.

The median TGP for a school represents the target growth percentile of a “typical” student for that school.

A school or subgroup’s growth is rated based on whether its median SGP is greater than or equal to its median TGP. The higher the median SGP is compared to the medianthe TGP, the better.

Growth Model, cont’dESEA Waiver

Four and five year rates are compared to targets.

School/subgroup given the higher of the two ratings.Rating Criteria 4-year 5-yearLevel 5 90th percentile 88.7 89.7Level 4 50th percentile 73.4 75.7Level 3 AMO target 67.0 72.0

Level 2 USED focus target

60.0 60.0

Level 1 <60.0 <60.0

GraduationESEA Waiver

Based on weighted average of points in each category.

Rating Weighted Points

Level 5 90% Level 4 70%Level 3 50%Level 2 30%Level 1 <30%

WeightsElem/Mid High

Achievement 25% 20%Growth 50% 20%Subgroup Growth 25% 10%Graduation -- 35%Subgroup Graduation -- 15%

Overall RatingsESEA Waiver

Combination of three factors:Category Rating Pct

PointsWeigh

tWeighte

d PctAchievement

Level 4 70 25 17.5

Growth Level 3 55 50 27.5

Subgroup Growth

Level 4 75 25 18.8

Totals Level 3 63.4

Elem./Middle Overall Rating

ESEA Waiver

Combination of five factors:Category Rating Pct

PointsWeight Weighte

d PctAchievement

Level 4 70 20 14.0

Growth Level 3 55 20 11.0

Subgroup Growth

Level 4 75 10 7.5

Graduation Level 5 100 35 35.0

Subgroup Graduation

Level 4 83 15 12.5

Totals Level 4 80.0

High School Overall Rating

ESEA Waiver

Three overall rating categories Outstanding Satisfactory In Need of Improvement

Achievement based on math and reading scores.

The growth model is incorporated into achievement.

Graduation/Attendance and Participation are included in the rating system.

19

Interim Report Card2011-2012 Report Card

Achievement points awarded according to: 100 points for Exceeds (used to be 133) 100 points for Meets 100 points for Did Not Meet, but Met Growth

Achievement Index is a weighted average of the performance of subgroups.

High schools use growth in school performance as the growth measure.

Low Attendance, Graduation or Participationcan lower the school rating. 20

Report Card Rating2011-2012 Report Card

The growth target is not the ultimate goal for the student. The goal for the students is to meet the grade level achievement standard.

The growth model sets intermediate goals for students, allowing them to move up to standard over a period of several years.

Look at each student’s testing history (as displayed on the Growth Individual Student Report) to gain a more comprehensive view of each student’s achievement. 21

Growth for Report Card2011-2012 Report Card

***NOT THE SAME AS THE COLORADO GROWTH MODEL USED IN THE NEW RATING SYSTEM***

Reading Growth Target Example

22

3rd Grade Gap = 16

A student scores a 195 in 3rd grade,which is 16 RIT points below the 2011-12 reading standard.

To meet the growth target the student must decrease this gap by at least 33%, or 5.33 points, which is rounded up to 6.

This means the target gap is 16-6=10 points, or a score of 206on the 4th grade assessment.

Student score = 195

Target 4th Grade Gap = 10

Growth Target = 206

3rd Grade Cut Score = 211

4thGrade Cut Score = 216

***NOT THE SAME AS THE COLORADO GROWTH MODEL USED IN THE NEW RATING SYSTEM***

Growth for Report Card, cont’d

2011-2012 Report Card

23

Each school’s cohort begins with the set of first time 9th graders in a particular year.

Cohorts are “adjusted” by adding students to the cohort as they transfer into the school, and are removing them from the cohort if they transfer to another high school, emigrate or are deceased.

The Four-year cohort graduation rate is the percent of students in the adjusted cohort that earn a regular high school diploma within four years.

Only regular high school diplomas count as graduates for purposes of the cohort rate.

Modified diplomas, GEDs, extended diplomas, and certificates of attendance are counted asnon-graduates.

Cohort Graduation Rate2011-2012 Report Card

Do’s Continue to submit data the same as when

AYP was in effect. Include students for participation if they

were enrolled on the first school day in May.

Include students for performance if they were enrolled on the first school day of May for a full academic year.

Include Extended Assessments within 1% cap as Meets or Exceeds.

Monitor data throughout the year. 24

Do’s and Don’tsAccountability

Don’ts Don’t include Extended Assessments over

1% cap as Meets. Anything over 1% must be recorded as Does Not Meet.

Don’t code students at the district level unless a school is not accountable for their education.

Don’t over use the District Special Education Flag.

25

Do’s and Don’ts, cont’dAccountability

Although schools will no longer be placed on a school improvement list for not meeting overall Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), schools and districts will still be held to rigorous standards through various measures of student performance and growth.

The 2011-12 Report Card will be much the same as last year, except there will be an additional designation for priority, focus and model schools, no bonus for exceeds, and no overall AYP designation.

The 2012-13 Report Card will be redesigned to incorporate and expand upon the rating system used to identify priority, focus and model schools. 26

In a NutshellAccountability

For a range of resources on Priority, Focus and Model schools, and the ESEA Waiver, please see:http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3742

27

ResourcesAccountability