SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK UPDATE This marked the …

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK UPDATE On November 29, 2012, the Board received an update on results from the District-produced School Performance Framework (SPF) for the 2011-2012 school year. The Board accepted the results. Included were results for all schools except Special Schools and Alternative Schools.

This marked the second year that the Board received SPF results for CCSD schools. On February 23, 2012, the Board received elementary and middle school SPF results for the first time and on May 24, 2012, the Board received SPF results for high schools for the first time.

On August 8, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education approved the Nevada waiver application seeking flexibility under the No Child Left Behind Act. When the U.S. Secretary of Education approved a Nevada waiver application (sometimes referred to as “the waiver”), the federal government agreed to allow Nevada to continue to publish school-by-school results for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for one final year in return for an pledge that Nevada will produce its own School Performance Framework and release school-by-school results in spring 2013. In December 2012, the Nevada Department of Education informed superintendents throughout the state of its intent to make public on February 15, 2013, the school-level results of its SPF. At the time of this printing, no more definitive information is available from the state concerning a plan to make public school-level SPF results. This update is provided to give the Board background on why and how results from the two SPFs may differ (state-produced versus District-produced). Because the Nevada Department of Education has not yet made public any results of the state-produced SPF, this update focuses instead on the structure of the SPF. This update also provides information that compares features of the state-produced School Performance Framework and the District-produced School Performance Framework (SPF). Included are several attachments (see Appendices A through F below).

Appendix A: PowerPoint Appendix B: Similarities between the School Performance Framework for CCSD and the State Appendix C: Differences between the School Performance Framework for CCSD and the State Appendix D: Contrast between the SPF produced by Nevada and the SPF produced by CCSD Appendix E: Facsimile of State SPF Appendix F: Technical Advisory Panel for Growth – Phase III (TAP3) Recommendations

In January 2013, principals from every level were polled on the following question, “After Nevada releases the state-produced SPF, should CCSD continue to publish the results of the District-produced SPF?” Although principals had not yet seen the results of the state-produced SPF, a large majority of principals indicated that it would be preferable for have a single SPF. When members of TAP3 were asked this same question in January 2013, the majority indicated it would be useful to retain but not publish the District-produced SPF; however, before releasing the information to the schools remove the star-ratings so that principals and staff have information that can be helpful to them for the purpose of school improvement planning. This is noteworthy because within a month the administration will receive a TAP3 recommendation. Composed of District stakeholders, the TAP3 charge is to “identify changes and/or enhancements to the Nevada Growth Model and the School Performance Framework that the District should consider, especially in light of a waiver approval.” Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the public rollout of a state-produced School Performance Framework and a comparison between the School Performance Frameworks for the Clark County School District and the Nevada Department of Education, to include approval of the Technical Advisory Panel for Growth – Phase III (TAP3) recommendations, is recommended. Dr. Kenneth Turner March 6, 2013

Reference 3.01 of 26

APPENDIX B: Similarities between the School Performance Frameworks for the Clark County School District and

the State of Nevada

Produced by CCSD; reviewed and approved by NDE First draft created Nov. 29, 2012, Final draft approved by NDE and CCSD Jan. 24, 2013

Intent Similarities:

Support schools in pursuit of educational excellence.

Provide easily‐understood way for the public to gauge the educational quality of each school.

Harmonize school accountability requirements from multiple levels including federal and state systems.

Purpose Similarities:

Improve on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) model, which focused on proficiency and set school targets that proved to be out of reach (for example; 100% of students will be proficient by 2013).

Shift focus to a continuous improvement model.

Give staff tools and resources that enable schools to get better faster. Provide more precise guidance about where and how schools experience success and where there is room to improve.

Identify subgroups that flourish or struggle.

Hold schools particularly accountable for the performance of student subgroups (English learners, students with disabilities, and students in poverty).

Key Design Principles

Similarities:

Focus is on continuous improvement and growth to an expected learning target (“growth to a standard”).

To “build capacity,” staff members receive data showing how many and which students are progressing and which are languishing. Sharing practices is key to improvement.

Unlike AYP, model is compensatory (strength in one area offsets a weakness in another).

Growth is an essential indicator and is complemented by additional measures across multiple indices.

Success Criteria

Similarities:

Gauge yearly improvement of students, classes, and schools against criteria, norms, and past performance.

Provide a mechanism for annually reporting on school academic performance and directing resources to areas of greatest need.

Incorporate results from multiple measures (including academic growth, status, gaps, graduation rate, etc.).

Generate results to help staff learn from schools that serve similar populations but achievement is higher.

Provide defensible way to identify schools worthy of recognition for superior performance and schools that are candidates for support or turnaround.

Promote the kind of reflection and action that culminates in enhanced academic performance.

Theory of Action

Similarities:

Many global concepts are the same.

Logic Related to Weight Attached to Growth

Similarities:

Both models value growth as a tremendously important factor in measuring, classifying, supporting, and rewarding school success. Each model treats growth a bit difficult.

N Size

Similarities:

Minimum count for school‐level indicators is 10.

Scores and Stars

Similarities:

Schools earn points based on a series of factors. Points that are assigned to each factor reflect the importance of the factor. A total score for a school is created by summing the points. This total score is then used to confer stars (from 1 to 5) that provide a way to gauge the educational quality of the school.


APPENDIX B: Similarities between the School Performance Frameworks for the Clark County School District and

the State of Nevada


Cut Points Similarities:

Cut scores are established for each of five levels of star rating.

Rationale

Similarities:

Both models are (or will be) tested and refined over time through a system of technically‐based continuous improvement.

Both models rely on advice of a technical advisory panel.

Results are posted online for stakeholder use at multiple levels.

Elementary School Scores

Similarities:

Academics matter most.

Middle School Scores

Similarities:


High School Scores

Similarities:


Assigning Points

Similarities:

Point attributions are based on value judgments that take into account stakeholder input and technical considerations.


APPENDIX C: Differences between the School Performance Frameworks for the Clark County School District and the State of Nevada


Clark County School District State of Nevada Intent

Harmonize accountability requirements from the local level.

Provide a differentiated system of accountability and support that is driven by stakeholder values, by creating/sustaining state- and district-level infrastructures that build capacity for educators, schools, districts, and the state.

Allow for comparisons across the state to understand and evaluate school performance and to prioritize system supports.

Single system of accountability that successfully: supports the Nevada Education Performance System; provides a better look at schools’ and districts' success in moving students to college and career readiness; aligns state and federal interventions, resources, and supports to schools and districts based on actionable data; provides accompanying rewards for schools with demonstrated success; and fulfills Federal accountability requirements

Purpose

Grants schools credit for growth toward standards of academic performance.

Provide every student with a target (“Catch Up,” “Keep Up,” or “Move Up”).

Retain companion to School Performance Framework (Quality Assurance Framework) to report progress of traditional subgroups like race/ethnicity and gender.

Within School Performance Framework (SPF), subgroup reports now include: (1) Free and Reduced Lunch; (2) English language learners; (3) Individualized Educational Plans; and (4) Minority.

Define student performance gaps in terms of growth of student subgroups and how well the subgroup is on pace to “Catch Up,” “Keep Up,” or “Move Up.”

Shift the state away from Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to a performance rating of 1 to 5 stars for each school, using multiple measures including student growth, proficiency, reduction of achievement gaps, graduation rates, college and career readiness, attendance rates, and other locally derived values. The Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) recognizes that nuances exist in school performance, and that rating every school as passing or failing is not singularly helpful.

The NSPF sets and reports on Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for each of the multiple measures to provide incentives that are fair, rigorous, and achievable, because schools need such incentives to move quickly to prepare students for college and career readiness and to prepare for the 2014-2015 implementations of the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC) and beyond.

The state educational agency (SEA) does not use all of the traditional No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) subgroups in school index score calculations but continues to report on all traditional Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) subgroups through multiple reporting platforms and will prioritize analyses and supports for schools with demonstrated concerns in a given subgroup(s).




Clark County School District State of Nevada Key Design Principle

Growth is a “game-changer.” Presents stakeholders with unprecedented data arrays, shifting focus on limited and limiting measures to more meaningful measures, representing culture shift for education community.

Among multiple measures, growth is reported both as median growth percentile (a school aggregate of student growth or performance on state assessments over time) and as adequate growth percentile (a school aggregate of student growth to target or amount of growth needed to remain or become proficient on state assessments in three years or the tenth grade, whichever comes first).

Achievement gaps are measures of the achievement of subgroups of students. Subgroups are identified as students who are on an individualized educational program (IEP), are English language learners (ELL), or receive free/reduced lunch (FRL).

For elementary and middle schools, achievement gap measures are based on comparing subgroup growth against subgroup growth and are not compared to students as a whole. High school proficiency and graduation gaps are based on subgroup performance compared to the “all students group.”

When the number of students in any subgroup falls below ten, a super subgroup analysis is conducted after the members of the three subgroups are assembled into one, unduplicated super subgroup of students.

Timeline

On May 26, 2011, CCSD Superintendent Jones stated in A Look Ahead: Phase I Preliminary Reforms Report: “Yearly academic growth of students will become the centerpiece of a school performance framework. The chief aim is to provide the kind of information that enables our staff to learn more easily from each other about what works. Ultimately, it will also provide a way for us to hold ourselves accountable for improved student performance.” (page 8)

On February 28, 2012, the CCSD Board of Trustees approved the first public rollout of SPF for elementary and middle schools.

On May 28, 2012, the CCSD Board of Trustees approved the first public rollout of SPF for high schools.

On November 29, 2012, rollout occurs of SPF for year 2 for all schools except for alternative or special schools.

On September 23, 2011, U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) Secretary Arnie Duncan stated "We want to get out of the way and give states flexibility to develop solutions to challenges while protecting children and holding schools accountable for preparing students for college and careers." The White House outlined “how states get relief from ESEA in exchange for efforts to close gaps, promote accountability, and ensure students are on track for college and career.” (press release)

On February 9, 2012, the first state gets Secretary Duncan’s approval on flexibility.

On August 8, 2012, Secretary Duncan approves application wherein NV agrees to launch NSPF in spring 2013.

Early January 2013, school superintendents receive first cut at Nevada SPF ratings for review, data validation, and feedback.




Clark County School District State of Nevada Timeline (continued)

June 2013, rollout is planned of School Performance Framework for alternative and special schools.

Late spring 2013, initial public release of star ratings per Nevada School Performance Framework.

Spring 2013, business rules established for alternative and special schools with rating release to follow.

Theory of Action

Raise expectations for students and staff in a way that ensures students are Ready By Exit (prepared for college or career without need for remediation).

Focus resources more tightly on what matters most; that is, “capacity building with a focus on results.”

Provide clearer incentives and more transparency via the School Performance Framework and Growth Model.

Define adult success in terms of student success and increase the reach of successful teachers and schools.

Provide better technology, data, and tools to enhance engagement and promote continuous improvement.

Invest in people, structures, and processes in ways that improve return on investment for the taxpaying public.

Utilize empowerment to trade increased flexibility in return for improved student performance.

Source: CCSD Web site, “A Look Ahead: Phase II,” p. 14

The purpose of public education in Nevada is to meet the learning needs of all students in order to prepare them to be college and career ready. Nevada’s approach to leveraging school success is constructed with the goal of creating an integrated and comprehensive accountability and support system which has two overarching aims.

Aims are: (1) ensure educators meet professional responsibilities; and (2) support capacity building.

The Nevada Education Performance System builds capacity by aligning: o PreK-12 standards o Curriculum o Pedagogy o Assessment o Personnel evaluation o Professional development.

Source: NDE Performance PowerPoint, p. 13

Logic Related to Weight Attached to Growth

In CCSD, growth is perceived as a “game changer” because it levels the playing field. More weight is attached to growth because growth makes it easier to compare the performance of schools from high-poverty communities and schools from high-wealth communities (because just 5 percent of the variation in growth trajectories is attributable to poverty). By contrast, 50 percent of the variation in achievement scores is associated with poverty. CCSD creates targets (“Catch Up,” “Keep Up,” or “Move Up”) in order to provide more specific targets for each student.

In keeping with stakeholder values, NSPF is designed to diagnose school performance and leverage targeted interventions to increase student achievement

The NSPF is built upon analyses of schools’ results from multiple measures, conceived through a weighted formula that incorporates a different ratio of measures according to the proximity of the school to the ultimate goal of college and career readiness.

Within the NSPF, attention focuses on subpopulations by shrinking existing N sizes of 25, down to 10. This has the effect of including more students and more schools in the NSPF analysis.

N Size

Minimum count for subgroups is 25.

Minimum count for subgroups is 10.




Clark County School District State of Nevada Star Ratings

In 2011, 227 of 327 schools (69 percent) earned a 3-, 4-, or 5-Star rating. In 2012, 254 of 328 (77 percent) earned 3-, 4- or 5-Star rating.

In 2011, 100 of 327 schools (31 percent) earned a 1- or 2-Star rating. In 2012, 74 of 328 schools (23 percent) earned a 1- or 2-Star rating.

In its baseline year (2011-2012), “by design, the state of Nevada [will] identify 75 percent of public schools as 3-, 4-, or 5-Star schools.” Source: NV ESEA Waiver, p. 51

From this baseline, NSPF is designed to give schools ample opportunity to improve index scores and star ratings by improving performance indicators.

Scores

Schools earn points based on a series of factors. Points that are assigned to each factor reflect the importance of the factor. A total score for a school is created by summing the points. An overall score is formed by taking total points earned as a fraction of total possible. This total score is then used to confer stars (from 1 to 5) that provide a way to gauge the educational quality of the school.

At all levels, academics matters most; at high school attention is focused on college and career readiness. Schools showing consistent year-to-year progress and/or academic growth earn as much credit as schools at the highest level of performance. This is due to a design decision to focus on continuous improvement, not just high academic performance.

An index score is created from multiple measures, wherein each measure is assigned a weight. The total NSPF index score is an aggregation of the points earned by the school for each measure, ranging from 1 to 100.

NSPF index score is used to award stars (1-5) that give insight into overall performance of a school, as well as performance on each relevant measure.

“Stakeholders have stated that growth matters tremendously, both for whole school consideration and for focused attention on subpopulations. While indicators of growth are weighted most heavily in elementary and middle schools (40% in growth and 20% in gap), college and career outcome measures and status are of primary importance at high schools.

High school is the culminating stage of the

student’s experience within an aligned PreK-12 system. Measures of college- and career-readiness, therefore, must be reflective of the outcomes that are correlated with success in higher education and high-skilled careers.” Source: NV ESEA Waiver, p. 50

Cut Points

5-Star: 80 – 105 4-Star: 65 – 79.99 3-Star: 51 – 64.99 2-Star: 30 – 50.99 1-Star: 0 – 29.99

5-Star: 77 – 100 4-Star: 68 – 76.99 3-Star: 50 – 67.99 2-Star: 32 – 49.99 1-Star: 0 – 32

Notable Features

By agreement, the Superintendent and Board of School Trustees publicly declared that schools would be “held harmless” during the first and second year of the School Performance Framework.

Accordingly, on the advice of the Technical Advisory Panel on Growth – Phase 3, during the second year of operation, the “official” star rating for a school would be the higher of the two scores in the first two years.

In July 2012, in accordance with requirements of the

USDOE, the SEA reported on Title 1 schools in three performance tiers defined by USDOE criteria using 2010-2011 data.

These were schools in the top tier (Reward Schools), Priority Schools which are currently-served School Improvement Grant Schools, and Focus Schools which are among the next-to-the lowest tier of schools.




Clark County School District State of Nevada Notable Features (continued)

Thus, a school that earned a 5-Star rating in the initial year (2010-2011) and a 4-Star rating the following year (2011-2012) would officially have a 5-Star rating in 2011-2012. A school that earned a 4-Star rating in the initial year and a 5-Star rating the following year would officially have a 5-Star rating in 2011-2012.

For all schools, Nevada reported Adequate Yearly Progress based on 2011-2012 data in September 2012.

State will report 2011-2012 NSPF results in spring, after a lengthy process of beta testing and engagement with districts to validate NSPF results.

Rationale

In the initial years of operation, the School Performance Framework is being tested. During that trial period, reasonable efforts should be made to build stability of year-to-year ratings and simultaneously avoid prematurely or unfairly labeling schools with low ratings. For a school to move from a higher to lower rating, the school must post a lower rating for two successive years. Carpenters know this as “measure twice but cut once”. The CCSD Web site will post official and unofficial ratings for all schools.

Further refinement of technical issues related to the model is anticipated before the release of NSPF results based on 2012-2013 results in September 2013.

Refinement activities are ongoing and include consultation with USDOE, the Technical Advisory Group consisting of district personnel, and the Nevada Technical Advisory Committee consisting of national experts on assessment and accountability.

Ongoing and anticipated refinement activities over the next three years (or more) include developing business rules that will pertain to anomalies such as, small and alternative schools, and to addressing issues that will arise as the NSPF moves from initial implementation to full implementation.

Elementary School Scores

Academics matter most: 88 total points - Growth (44 possible)

o Reading median growth (22 points) o Math median growth (22 points)

- Achievement (22 possible) o Reading (11 possible)

Proficiency (5 points) “Catch Up” (3 points) “Keep Up” (2 points) “Move Up” (1 point)

o Math (11 possible) Proficiency (5 points) “Catch Up” (3 points) “Keep Up” (2 points) “Move Up” (1 point)

- Gap reduction (22 possible) o Reading median adequate growth (11 possible)

Free/reduced lunch (3 points) Limited English Proficient (3 points) Minority (3 points) Students with an IEP (2 points)

o Math median adequate growth (11 possible)


Academics: 90 total points - Growth (40 possible)

o Overall growth Reading median growth (10 points) Math median growth (10 points)

o Adequate growth to proficiency Reading adequate growth (10 points) Math adequate growth (10 points)

- Achievement (30 possible) o Reading (15 points) o Math (15 points)

- Gap reduction (20 possible) o Reading median adequate growth (10 points)

Free/reduced lunch (3.33 points) English language learners (3.33 points) Students with an IEP (3.33 points)

o Math (median adequate growth (10 points) Free/reduced lunch (3.33 points) English language learners (3.33 points) Students with an IEP (3.33 points)

o or “Super-subgroup” median adequate growth” Reading (10 points) Math (10 points)

Other: 10 total points - Attendance (10 points)




Clark County School District State of Nevada Elementary School Scores (continued)

A school is more than a test score: 12 total points - Average daily attendance (2 points) - Limited English Proficiency Gain (1 point) - English proficiency of ELL (1 point) - IEP/Least Restrictive Environment (2 points) - Percent of fifth-graders in accelerated sixth grade

(2 points) - Student Climate Survey (1 point) - Parent Engagement Plan (3 points) Each school is unique: 5 total bonus points Score=Focus goal+(100 x points earned/points eligible)

Note: If fewer than 10 students are in any one subgroup, then the performance of an unduplicated group of students from the subgroups in the school is assessed through the Super-subgroup analysis.

Middle School Scores

Academics matter most: 88 total points - Growth (44 possible)

o Reading median growth (22 points) o Math median growth (22 points)

- Achievement (22 possible) o Reading (11 possible)

Proficiency (5 points) “Catch Up” (3 points) “Keep Up” (2 points) “Move Up” (1 point)

o Math (11 possible) Proficiency (5 points) “Catch Up” (3 points) “Keep Up” (2 points) “Move Up” (1 point)



o Math median adequate growth (11 possible) Free/reduced lunch (3 points) Limited English Proficient (3 points) Minority (3 points) Students with an IEP (2 points)

A school is more than a test score: 12 total points - Average daily attendance (2 points) - Dropout rate (2 points) - Limited English Proficiency Gain (0.5 point) - English proficiency of ELL (0.5 point) - IEP/Least Restrictive Environment (1 point) - Percent of eighth-graders in Algebra I (1 point) - Percent enrolled in accelerated course (1 point) - Parent Engagement Plan (3 points) - Student Climate Survey (1 point)

Each school is unique: 5 total bonus points - Focus Goal (5 points)

Score=Focus goal+(100 x points earned/points eligible)

Note: Due to focus goal, total possible exceeds 100.

Academics: 90 total points - Growth (40 possible)

o Overall growth (20 possible) Reading median growth (10 points) Math median growth (10 points)

o Adequate growth to proficiency Reading adequate growth (10 points) Math adequate growth (10 points)

- Achievement (30 possible) o Reading (15 points) o Math (15 points)


Free/reduced lunch (3.33 points) English language learners (3.33 points) Students with an IEP (3.33 points)

o Math (median adequate growth (10 possible) Free/reduced lunch (3.33 points) English language learners (3.33 points) Students with an IEP (3.33 points)

o or “Super-subgroup” median adequate growth” Reading (10 points) Math (10 points)

Other: 10 total points - Attendance (10 points) Note: If fewer than 10 students are in any one subgroup, then the performance of an unduplicated group of students from the subgroups in the school is assessed through the Super-subgroup analysis.




Clark County School District State of Nevada High School Scores

Academics matter most: 90 total points - Graduation (35 possible)

o Graduation rate (14 points) o High School (HS) Proficiency Exam (7 points) o Credit sufficiency (14 points)

- College and career readiness (35 possible) o AP, IB, and Dual Credit (17.5 points) o Career and Technical Education (8.75 points) o 4 years math and 3 years science (8.75 points)

- Growth (20 possible) o Reading median growth (10 points) o Math median growth (10 points)

A school is more than a test score: 10 total points - Attendance (2 points) - Student Survey (1 point) - Staff Survey (1 point) - IEP/Least Restrictive Environment (2 points) - Limited English Proficiency Exit (2 points) - Parent Engagement (2 points) Fairness adjustment: Up to 10% total added points - Multiplier for comprehensive HS = 10% of total - Multiplier for magnet HS = 5% of total Each school is unique: 5 total bonus points - Focus Goal (5 points) Score=Focus goal+(100 x points earned/points eligible) Note: Due to focus goal/multiplier, total possible exceeds

100.

Academics matter most: 100 total points - Graduation (30 possible)

o Graduation rate (15 points) o Graduation rate gap (15 possible)

Free/reduced lunch (5 points) English language learner (5 points) Students with an IEP (5 points) or “Super-subgroup” (15 points)

- College and Career Readiness (16 possible) o Remediation (4 points) o Advanced Diploma (4 points) o Advanced Placement Exams (4 points) o ACT or SAT 11th grade participation (4 points)

- Growth (10 possible) o Median growth (10 possible)

Reading (5 points) Math (5 points)

- Achievement (30 possible) o HS Proficiency Exam Grade 10 (10 possible)

Reading (5 points) Math (5 points)

o HS Proficiency Exam Grade 11 (10 possible) Reading (5 points) Math (5 points)

o Reading achievement gap (5 possible) Free/reduced lunch (1.67 points) English language learner (1.67 points) Students with an IEP (1.67 points) or “Super-subgroup” (5 points)

o Math achievement gap (5 possible) Free/reduced lunch (1.67 points) English language learner (1.67 points) Students with an IEP (1.67 points) or “Super-subgroup” (5 points)

- Other (14 possible) o Attendance (10 points) o Credit deficiency (4 points)

Note: If fewer than 10 are in any one subgroup, then performance of an unduplicated group of students from school subgroups is assessed using Super sub-group analysis.

Role of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

By design, no points are assigned but AYP plays a role with respect to the assigning of stars: - If school makes AYP, it can earn up to 5 stars. - If school made AYP Watch, it can earn up to 4 stars. - If school did not make AYP, it can earn up to 3 stars.

Adequate Yearly Progress was reported by the SEA for 2011-2012 in accordance with USDOE requirements for the ESEA Waiver.

SEA will not report Adequate Yearly Progress again. SEA will report on 2011-2012 NSPF results in February 2013 and on 2012-2013 NSPF results in September 2013.

AYP is not a factor in the NSPF.




Clark County School District State of Nevada

Assigning Points

On advice of the Technical Advisory Panel on Growth – Phase 2, the District relied on a single decision-making rule to award points. For a given indicator, a districtwide distribution of performance is created. The highest possible points available are awarded to schools performing most highly. Schools with the lowest performance are awarded 1 point. The guiding principle is that the most points for any given indicator should be just within the grasp of the most-highly-performing school.

Using the 95th percentile to earn the maximum number of points for any indicator serves as a rigorous but attainable target. Additional values within these tables were derived by using statewide descriptive statistics for the 5th, 25th, and 75th percentiles. This allows for schools to earn incremental points for performance that approaches the highest targets. Source: NV ESEA Waiver, p. 80

Labels

The District did not set a target of assigning the lowest 5 percent of schools to 1-Star rating. Nor did the District create any special designation for the next lowest 10 percent.

The state reports on NSPF designations and in addition, reports USDOE-required classifications.

Among the USDOE-defined classifications, the highest is “Reward,” reserved for high-achieving schools. The lowest classification is “Priority,” while the next-lowest is “Focus.”

The identification of Focus Schools (for the ESEA Waiver and for future use if such schools are to be so be classified again) relies on multiple measures and multiple years of data to make the identification. The classification of Priority Schools is in some cases driven by graduation rates, as mandated by USDOE requirements.

Final Note

On advice of the Technical Advisory Panel on Growth – Phase 2, the District adjusted school performance targets based on school enrollment. That is, as school size increases, there is a stronger tendency for a school’s median growth estimate to hover near 50. As school size decreases, there is likely to be more wobble in the median growth estimate for a school.

Accordingly, efforts were made to adjust for this phenomenon. In order to earn high points, smaller schools are expected to post larger gains (in terms of median growth percentiles) than larger schools.

To compute these, the District annually creates a distribution of growth performance for large schools and another distribution of growth performance for smaller schools. Standard deviations are then used to set performance cut points for each set of schools. The same expectations then apply across large and small schools; however, these expectations are expressed in standard deviation units of measure. Points are pegged to standard deviation.

Through consensus, the Core Group representing Nevada districts and stakeholders elected not to adjust some indicator threshold cuts for schools based on size. Consistent with the Core Group identified values of transparency and fairness, the group opted to identify as many schools as possible under the NSPF. (The Core Group includes seven representatives from Nevada districts that came together to provide advice on the drafting of the Nevada ESEA waiver.)

Until policy and business rules are further refined for anomalous schools such as those with small n-counts, the SEA has adopted a label of “Not Rated” until a more robust system can be put in place. The SEA will again utilize a system of collaboration engaging stakeholders in this discussion.

The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meets quarterly and the SEA will continue to develop policy after considering Local Educational Agency (LEA) concerns.


APPENDIX D: Contrast between the SPF produced by Nevada and the SPF produced by CCSD, February 22, 2013

Results follow from an analysis of the relationship between poverty and the points schools earn under the School Performance Framework (SPF) for the state of Nevada (NV) versus the School Performance Framework for the Clark County School District (CCSD). Overall, the analysis shows that we tend to see lower SPF points in high-poverty schools. That is, lower points and fewer stars are generally found in schools with higher percentages of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch. Setting aside causality, results from the state SPF are more closely related to poverty than is the case with the District SPF. In this context “poverty” refers to the percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch. Data for the analysis were drawn from schools that have a star-rating from the School Performance Framework for the state and also from the School Performance Framework produced by the Clark County School District. SPF points for this analysis were based on 2011-2012 totals for schools. Estimates of the percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch were taken from the Count Day file. Table 1 compares the relationship between poverty and points at each level of schooling. Table 2 uses narrative to characterize the comparison. The term R2 is a measure of the strength of association. This comparison is noteworthy for one reason. In part, a stronger relationship between poverty and SPF points exists for the state-produced SPF chiefly because the state places greater weight on the student proficiency scores on state assessments (Criterion-Referenced Test). By contrast, a weaker relationship between poverty and SPF points exists for the District-produced SPF in part because the District places greater weight on academic growth. It has long been known that about half of the variation in student proficiency scores can be traced to poverty. By comparison, only about 5 percent of the variation in student growth estimates can be traced to poverty.

Table 1: Comparison of the strength of association between poverty and points under the SPF for NV versus the CCSD

Correlation R2 Interpreting R2 or the strength of the relationship between poverty and SPF points

High School CCSD -0.513 0.26 The strength of relationship between SPF points and poverty is 75 percent greater Nevada -0.675 0.46 for the Nevada SPF (R2 = 0.46) than the District SPF (R2 = 0.26).

Middle School

CCSD -0.655 0.43 The strength of relationship between SPF points and poverty is 44 percent greater Nevada -0.788 0.62 for the NV SPF (R2 = 0.62) than the District SPF (R2 = 0.43).

Elementary School

CCSD -0.490 0.24 The strength of relationship between SPF points and poverty is 50 percent greater Nevada -0.599 0.36 for the Nevada SPF (R2 = 0.36) than the District SPF (R2 = 0.24).

Table 2: Narrative comparing the relationship (by level) between poverty and points under the SPF for NV versus CCSD

Description of the strength of the relationship between poverty and points under the SPF for the state versus the District.

High School

CCSD About one fourth of the variation in SPF points is associated with the percentage of free or reduced lunch (R2 = 0.26). Nevada Almost one half of the variation in points is associated with the percentage of free or reduced lunch (R2 = 0.46).

Middle School

CCSD Slightly less than half the variation in points is associated with the percentage of free or reduced lunch (R2 = 0.43). Nevada Nearly two thirds of the variation in points is associated with the percentage of free or reduced lunch (R2 = 0.62).

Elementary School

CCSD About one fourth of the variation in points is associated with the percentage of free or reduced lunch (R2 = 0.24). Nevada Slightly more than a third of the variation in SPF points is associated with the percentage of free or reduced lunch (R2 = 0.36).


Appendix F: Technical Advisory Panel for Growth – Phase III (TAP3) Recommendations

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL FOR GROWTH – PHASE III

The TAP3 charge was to provide recommendations to the Superintendent that address the following: 1. TARGET-SETTING: How will estimates of academic growth and results from the School

Performance Framework (SPF) figure into target setting and school improvement?

TAP3 RECOMMENDATION: District schools will include an academic growth goal as part of the school improvement process. The Instruction Unit will provide phrasing.

2. ENHANCEMENTS: In light of waiver approval, what enhancements to growth and SPF should the

District consider?

TAP3 RECOMMENDATIONS:

The District supports having in place a single state-produced School Performance Framework.

The District will cease publishing its own School Performance Framework once the state publicly releases its own version.

Once Nevada publicly releases its School Performance Framework, the District will repurpose the District SPF so it is solely for internal use, remove the star ratings and point totals from it, and rename it so the Nevada SPF stands alone.

The District will continue to provide principals with data that now appears on the District-produced School Performance Framework (minus the star ratings and point totals) so principals and staff can develop improvement plans.

The District will continue to provide data from the Nevada Growth Model to include the “green and white sheets” that show the progress of students in the categories of “catch up,” “keep up,” and “move up.”

The District will continue to provide principals and teachers with classroom-level reports that indicate the estimates of classroom-level academic growth and proficiency, along with results for each student.

NOTE: The TAP3 membership had other advice. When invited to provide guidance concerning a suggestion to provide 5-Star banners to schools that earned 5 stars last year and 4 stars this year, the TAP3 membership elected to forgo approving a recommendation. The TAP3 membership generally agreed that schools in this position should simply continue to keep in place their banner from last year.


SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK UPDATE This marked the …

Documents

Transcript of SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK UPDATE This marked the …