1. Cowen Institute Data/Accountability Overview

2. Measuring Performance RSD created to address Academic Failure Success/Failure needs to be judged on whether or not schools are better State releases a ton of data to capture student, school and district performance

3. Chronology of Data Release 1 st week of May: Release of LEAP/GEE results  State level results  District level results  School rosters Schools determine who passes Data Clean UP No data available to report school level results

4. Summer Last week of July/1 st week of August  Preliminary School Performance Scores (SPS) for any school < 60 previous year  Required by NCLB; choice/SES determined August (1 st 2 weeks)  School Level Test data released What the TP reported Last year Misleading- ranked by performance on ELA test

5. Fall SPS release (Sept-Oct)  SPS for ALL schools  AI for any 1 st year schools in the RSD Pre-Katrina, SPS release was THE story  Is the story in the rest of the state  Captures performance and growth SPS/AI is the only release that uses all tests, all grades, in a weighted formula

6. District Accountability Released sometime Jan-March Two Components  DPS: District Performance Score  District Responsibility Index

7. District Performance Score DPS is a “roll up” of all student data to the district level  “horse race”- all school districts compared on the same basis Keeps the weights of School Accountability Also gives Subgroup Performance Score  How poor/minority/special ed by district Way to compare Pre/Post Katrina New Orleans All schools/All kids

8. District Responsibility Index % of 8 th graders that do not return following year % of certified teachers and % at low performing schools Financial Index pending

9. School Accountability Began in 1999 Strong Public Acceptance #1 ranked nationally Consistent scoring system with some imbedded “values” All schools included Growth and Performance  Growth Labels and Performance Labels

10. Assessment (CRT) Index Advanced200 pts. Mastery150 pts. Basic100 pts. Approaching Basic 50 pts. Unsatisfactory 0 pts.

11. Converting LEAP Alternate Assessment Level 2 Scores to an Index Basic 100 pts. Approaching Basic 75 pts. Foundational50 pts. Pre-Foundational 0 pts.

12. K-8: SPS Calculation Index Weighting  90% CRT (LEAP and iLeap)  10% Attendance (K-6)  5% Attendance/5% Dropout (7-8) 4 th and 8 th Grade still count more 3 rd grade ELA counts more

13. K-8 Weighting GradeELAMathSci/SSTotal 3 rd 2114 4 th 221/16 5 th 111/14 6 th 111/14 7 th 111/14 8 th 221/16

14. Incentive Points Students repeating 4 th and 8 th grade LEAP can earn Incentive Points for the school if they improve their achievement level in summer or spring retesting 50 incentive points are awarded for each subject that the student improves by one or more levels (only get points one time per student per subject)

15. High School Accountability Implementing New Model Adds the Graduation Index  Takes 5 years to collect data Hurricane Impacted Schools (do-over) will not be fully integrated into the model for at least 5 years

16. Index Weights- High School IndexFormerNew 9 th Grade3020 10 th Grade3025 11 th Grade3025 Graduation-30 Dropout5- Attendance5-

17. Graduation Index - Student ResultPoints Academic Endorsement180 TOPS Opportunity Award or Career/Technical Endorsement160 Industry Based Certification OR TOPS Tech and Dual Enrollment OR TOPS Tech and Articulated Credit 140 Regular HS Diploma120 GED90 Skills Certificate/Certificate of Achievement60 Attender30 Dropout0

18. Accounting for Dropouts Included as “0” in Graduation Index Dropout Adjustment to High School Test Scores (CRT index)  Gives schools a “0” for any drop out above 4% annual rate, by grade Was 7% pre-Katrina  Schools with less than 4% drop out “ rewarded”  Without dropout adjustment, school scores would be higher as a result of testing selectively fewer and fewer students

19. Two Types of SPS Growth SPS – a score, from 1 year of data, that determines a school’s growth Baseline SPS – a score, based on 2 years of data, that determines a school’s status

20. Performance Labels Performance LabelSPS Criteria Academically UnacceptableLess than 60.0  60.0 – 79.9    80.0 – 99.9      100.0 – 119.9        120.0 – 139.9          140.0 and above

21. Growth Labels LabelGrowth Exemplary Academic Growth Meet or exceed Growth Target, all Subgroup Performance Scores (GPS) increase at least 2 pts., and school is not in School Improvement (SI) Recognized Academic Growth Meet or exceed Growth Target, but 1 or more subgroups did not grow at least 2 points and/or the school is in SI Minimal Academic Growth Growth (at least 0.1), but did not meet Growth Target No GrowthDecline 2.5 pts. or less School in DeclineDecline of more than 2.5 pts

22. Value Added Louisiana does not have a value added accountability model  US Ed does not allow a true value added model under NCLB  True value added will measure how much growth a student had in a year and judge schools on “same child” growth LA’s model compares cohorts- how does this year’s 4 th grade compare to last year’s 4 th grade Only way to have a value added model is if the stte adopts one; waited to see what changes happen in NCLB  Aligned the tests (iLeap and Leap) so one can measure

23. Other Data Points: LDE is good with Data  Recognized as one of top 10 states Only good source of school data, where consistent definitions and reporting requirements are established  Teachers Numbers; certification; salaries  Student info- MFP report  Finances: Districts, Type 5’s and Type 2’s