Achievement Index Revision: December AAW Options Sarah Rich Policy Director December 12, 2012 1 The Washington State Board of Education
Objective: AAW members will discuss the questions and options posed, and provide input on each. AAW input will inform the set of next SBE decisions which will result in a „prototype‟ revised Index. This prototype will be the basis of data we review. 2 The Washington State Board of Education
Index Revision Timeline 7/2012 3/2013 6/2013 11/2012 5/2013 9/2012 1/2013 Resolu- Modeling 9/2013 Approve, Perf. Review tion, Theory of Prototype Data, Indica- Draft Adopt Submit to Action Index Design AAW tors Index ED Decisions Charter AAW input 3 The Washington State Board of Education
Performance Indicators Student Growth Career and College Proficiency Percentiles (SGP) Readiness % of all students meeting standard on SGP for all students** Graduation rates state tests* % of students Additional Career and meeting standard on SGP by subgroups College Readiness state tests* by Indicators subgroups 4 The Washington State Board of Education
AAW Questions for December What specific subindicators should be included to measure college and Career and career readiness? College Which of these should be reported but not used in an Index Readiness calculation? Should the revised Index include language acquisition data (currently English Washington English Language Proficiency Assessment)? Language Should the Index include a subgroup of former English Language Learners Learners? Subgroups What is the best way to include subgroups? Revisited Which subindicators should be norm-referenced and which should be Targets criterion-referenced? 5 The Washington State Board of Education
National Governor‟s Association: Creating a College and Career Readiness Accountability Model for High Schools (2012) Recommended Principles: • Use multiple measures, including assessment, graduation, career and college readiness, and school environment. • Provide incentives for schools to work with hardest-to- reach students. • 4-year and extended graduation rates. • Students not needing remediation in college. • Students enrolling in post-secondary education or obtaining family-wage employment within 1 year. • Set realistic targets based in research and past performance. Source: NGA, January 2012. http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1201EDUACCOUNTABILITYBRIEF.PDF 6 The Washington State Board of Education
Creating a College and Career Readiness Accountability Model for High Schools Cont. Multiple measures: • College and career readiness assessments (for Washington, these are the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium assessments aligned to Common Core State Standards). • Graduation Rates (on time and extended). • Students „on track‟ to graduate. • Dual credit such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, career certification. • School Environment: student and teacher surveys, chronic absenteeism. • Other measures including persistence, problem solving, critical thinking. BUT no states have current capacity to measure these qualities so instead consider college enrollment, remediation, persistence. 7 The Washington State Board of Education
Education Sector‟s Data That Matters: Giving High Schools Useful Feedback on Grads’ Outcomes (2011) Indicators – Evidence – during high school after high school • Attendance • Earnings/Employment • Behavior • Apprenticeships & • Course-Taking Training Programs • Licenses/certifications • ACT or SAT • College Enrollment • Advanced Placement/International • Remediation Baccalaureate • Persistence • Other Dual Enrollment • College Graduation • Industry Certification • Graduation Rates 8 The Washington State Board of Education
Dual Credit Programs Dual Credit High School % of Total Type Course Students In Dual High School Enrollments Credit Courses Students All Dual Credits 455,914 177,410 47.0% Tech Prep 193,102 120,539 31.9% Advanced 135,762 51,931 13.8% Placement Running Start 80,234 17,516 4.6% College in High 30,188 14,533 3.9% School International 28,289 6,500 1.7% Baccalaureate University of Cambridge 2,985 1,147 0.3% International Examinations Source: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/DualCredit.aspx?year=2011-12 9 The Washington State Board of Education
Career and College Readiness Options Option D: Design Option A: Option B: Option C: Your Own 4- and 5-year 4- and 5-year 4-, 5-, 6- and 7- year graduation 4-, 5- year graduation rates 1 graduation rates 1 rates graduation rates % of students passing Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium assessments aligned to the Common Core Standards at a college/career ready level % of students % of students % of students earning high school credit in dual credit courses 2 earning at least earning at least one “Launch Year one high school high school credit in OR receiving an industry Coursework” credit in dual dual credit courses 2 certificate credit courses 2 Post-high school Post-high school remediation remediation rates rates 7 th and 8 th grade drop out data +/-: Simplest option Highlights Most complex option. Including graduation rates to 7 th year while still going remediation data. beyond just encourages schools to continue to assessment and engage students with greatest challenges. 7 th and 8 th graders graduation data. who drop out are not counted in current high school dropout data. 1 This reflects current Index and commitment in Washington‟s ESEA Flexibility application 2 Dual credit includes Tech Prep, Advanced Placement, Running Start, College in the High School, International Baccalaureate 10 The Washington State Board of Education
College and Career Readiness: National Trends & Tradeoffs • Other states: Many propose using measures beyond graduation rate with ESEA flexibility proposals • 100% Ready: High Expectations, Social Justice, Economic Competitiveness • Other States • President & Secretary statements • Civil Rights Community • Assessment transition considerations • School engagement vs. College and Career Ready • School input vs. student outcome 11 The Washington State Board of Education
English Language Learners – Accountability Challenges 1. % of ELLs meeting content standards is an inadequate measure of performance. 2. When students transition, they exit the subgroup which dampens subgroup performance. 3. Former ELLs on average perform below the state and perform particularly low in middle grades and math and science. 4. There is no state expectation set for time in program or time to progress from one level to the next. 12 The Washington State Board of Education
English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century (ELPA21) $6.3 million federal grant to consortium of states led by Oregon: Arkansas, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia Partners include Stanford and Council of Chief State Schools Officers Purpose: develop new English language proficiency tests aligned with Common Core State Standards. States must adopt new common English language development standards, likely modeled on California. 13 The Washington State Board of Education
ELL Considerations Goal: coherent, aligned state and federal accountability Do not want: misalignment between state accountability (Index) and federal accountability (Annual Measurable Objectives for Title I and Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives for Title III) Example of potential misalignment: a district meets federal Title III accountability and yet its schools are identified as “Focus” schools due to low ELL performance 14 The Washington State Board of Education
Strengthening Accountability for ELLs: ESEA Commitments Transparent • Percent of ELLs at a school level who met grade level in all tested subjects. reporting of subgroup • Percent of ELLs who graduated in 4 and performance. 5 years. Focus and Emerging • Title I schools with subgroup schools identified performance in the lowest 10% based on low • Half of Focus schools were identified subgroup because of low ELL performance (45/92) performance 15 The Washington State Board of Education
Strengthening Accountability for ELLs: Options Options +/- A. Do not add data about Simplicity. Student Growth English acquisition to the Percentiles will already begin to Index address the problems with current proficiency-based accountability. B. Add English language May be fairer; creates accountability acquisition (currently WA for the rate of English acquisition. English Language Proficiency Would require some definition of Assessment) to the Index. ‘adequate’ rate of language acquisition. Adds significant complexity. C. Create and report former Ensures accountability for ELL subgroup (not a mutually performance of students who have exclusive option) exited from ELL subgroup; adds significant complexity. D. Other 16 The Washington State Board of Education
Subgroups Revisited: 11 Federal Student Subgroups All Every student American Indian/Alaska Native appears once Asian in “All” and Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian also once in race/ethnicity Black/African American Hispanic White Two or more races Limited English Students may also appear Special Education any or all of these three Low Income groups 17 The Washington State Board of Education
Recommend
More recommend
