1. Incentivizing College- and Career-Readiness: Building Indicators into State Reporting and Accountability Systems Wes Bruce, Indiana Dept. of Education Scott Norton, Louisiana Dept. of Education Chris Domaleski & Brian Gong, Center for Assessment Concurrent Session at the Annual ADP Network State Leadership Team Meeting Sept. 10, 2009 Washington, DC

2. 2Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 Overview of Session Setting the Context – Brian Gong Setting the Context – Brian Gong Indiana’s Experience – Wes Bruce Indiana’s Experience – Wes Bruce Louisiana’s Experience – Scott Norton Louisiana’s Experience – Scott Norton Discussion of “Lessons Learned” – Chris Domaleski Discussion of “Lessons Learned” – Chris Domaleski Discussion/Q&A with audience Discussion/Q&A with audience

3. 3Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 Setting the Context Every state has a state system that complies with federal NCLB Every state has a state system that complies with federal NCLB but most states are working on making their K-12 systems more strongly connected with college- and career-readiness but most states are working on making their K-12 systems more strongly connected with college- and career-readiness

4. 4Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 The Challenge What to focus on? What to focus on? How to make coherent? How to make coherent? How to make it happen? How to make it happen?

5. 5Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 What to Focus On? Achieve’s Measures that Matter provides a good framework Achieve’s Measures that Matter provides a good framework Establish clear and appropriate Goals Establish clear and appropriate Goals Establish appropriate Measures, Metrics, and Processes for Continuous Improvement (including accountability systems) Establish appropriate Measures, Metrics, and Processes for Continuous Improvement (including accountability systems) Ensure that state policy informs and drives appropriate Supports, Interventions, and Models Ensure that state policy informs and drives appropriate Supports, Interventions, and Models

6. 6Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 What to Measure? Achieve’s Measures that Matter provides a good framework Achieve’s Measures that Matter provides a good framework Course of Study Course of Study Achievement Achievement Attainment Attainment Monitored as Progressing toward, Achieving, or Exceeding college- and career-readiness Monitored as Progressing toward, Achieving, or Exceeding college- and career-readiness

7. 7Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 ________ __ _________ ________ __ _________ ________ __ _________ ________ __ _________ A Framework of CRR Indicators ON THE WAY TO COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS MEETING COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS EXCEEDING COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS Course completion and success -Timely credit accumulation -Credit recovery -Successful completion of college- and career- ready course of study -Participation in AP, IB, and dual enrollment courses Achievement -Performance on aligned assessments of core content and skills early in high school -Grades (when necessary quality- control mechanisms have been established) -Meeting standards on the college- and career- ready statewide anchor assessment -Postsecondary remediation rates -College-level performance on AP and/or IB exams Attainment -Graduation -Earning a college- and career-ready diploma -Earning credits in dual- enrollment courses -Application to and enrollment in postsecondary

8. 8Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 ___ ____ ___ _____ ___ ____ ___ _____ ___ ____ ___ _____ ___ ____ ___ _____ A View from two States What to focus on? What to focus on? How to make coherent? How to make coherent? How to make it happen? How to make it happen? Real-world advice Real-world advice Wes Bruce, Indiana Dept. of Ed Wes Bruce, Indiana Dept. of Ed Scott Norton, Louisiana Dept. of Ed Scott Norton, Louisiana Dept. of Ed

9. Indiana – Core 40 Expectations, Achievement, Attainment and Raising the Bar

10. College and Career Readiness In 1994 just over 10% of Indiana high school diplomas went beyond the minimum In 1994 just over 10% of Indiana high school diplomas went beyond the minimum That year the optional Core 40 diploma was passed into law That year the optional Core 40 diploma was passed into law Core 40 – a 40 credit course of study (with some options) that would meet college entrance requirements and prepare students for the workplace Core 40 – a 40 credit course of study (with some options) that would meet college entrance requirements and prepare students for the workplace Agreement between K-12 and Higher Ed (IDOE & CHE) Agreement between K-12 and Higher Ed (IDOE & CHE) 10Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

11. Great on Paper Coupled with HS Graduation test (beginning with the Class of 2000) Coupled with HS Graduation test (beginning with the Class of 2000) Getting the Colleges and Universities to agree was easier said than done Getting the Colleges and Universities to agree was easier said than done 2004 (ten years later) all state supported H.E. institutions recognized Core 40 as meeting their general entrance requirements 2004 (ten years later) all state supported H.E. institutions recognized Core 40 as meeting their general entrance requirements 11Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

12. Indiana Results 98 - 08 12Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

13. Core 40 - Year 1 13Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

14. Core 40 - Year 10 14Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

15. Raising the Bar 2005 Core 40 became the required (minimum) high school diploma for the Class of 2011 (entering Grade 9 2007) 2005 Core 40 became the required (minimum) high school diploma for the Class of 2011 (entering Grade 9 2007) 2006 IB diploma added to state reporting 2006 IB diploma added to state reporting 2006 Cohort graduation rate 2006 Cohort graduation rate 2007 Graduation test changed from Grade 9 achievement test to End of Course Assessments in Algebra I and English 10 2007 Graduation test changed from Grade 9 achievement test to End of Course Assessments in Algebra I and English 10 2009 Incentives for improving graduation rate 2009 Incentives for improving graduation rate 15Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

16. Next Steps Longitudinal Data Systems grant Longitudinal Data Systems grant Link K-12 with Higher Ed, Postsecondary, Workforce Link K-12 with Higher Ed, Postsecondary, Workforce Goal to provide a two-way path for information Goal to provide a two-way path for information Transcripts, larger educational history ▲ Transcripts, larger educational history ▲ Student success, college graduation ▼ Student success, college graduation ▼ Performance of teachers, persistence in area ▲ Performance of teachers, persistence in area ▲ Type of jobs, salary range ▼ Type of jobs, salary range ▼ 16Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

17. 17Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 Louisiana – Moving Beyond AYP

18. Louisiana Big Picture High School accountability since 2001 High School accountability since 2001 2001-2006: Primarily assessment based 2001-2006: Primarily assessment based 2007-2009: Addition of graduation index 2007-2009: Addition of graduation index 2010 and beyond: TBA – new indicators being explored 2010 and beyond: TBA – new indicators being explored

19. 19Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 Accountability “1.0” (2001 – 2006) Emphasis on state assessment Emphasis on state assessment Assessment scores: 90% Assessment scores: 90% Attendance: 5% Attendance: 5% Dropout: 5% Dropout: 5%

20. 20Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 Accountability “2.0” (2007 – 2009) New emphasis on outcomes New emphasis on outcomes Assessment lowered to 70% Assessment lowered to 70% Addition of graduation index at 30% Addition of graduation index at 30% An “outcome” indicator for high school accountability An “outcome” indicator for high school accountability Graduated scale Graduated scale Value judgments made about different outcomes Value judgments made about different outcomes

21. 21Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 Graduation Index Point Values Student ResultPoints Academic OR Career/Technical Endorsement180 TOPS Opportunity Award (state scholarship)160 Board-approved 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 Attendee30 Dropout0

22. 22Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 Accountability “3.0” (2010 – beyond) Emphasis on college and career readiness Emphasis on college and career readiness Possible indicators Possible indicators End-of-Course assessments End-of-Course assessments Targeted to six specific key courses Targeted to six specific key courses College readiness assessment (e.g., ACT) College readiness assessment (e.g., ACT) Graduation rate (NCLB, state statute) Graduation rate (NCLB, state statute) Completion of college and career ready curriculum Completion of college and career ready curriculum Other – AP, growth indicators Other – AP, growth indicators

23. 23Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09 Challenges How to combine various indicators into a meaningful, coherent system that emphasizes achievement as well as readiness How to combine various indicators into a meaningful, coherent system that emphasizes achievement as well as readiness How to link this system to higher education How to link this system to higher education How to overcome transition challenges–from the current system to the proposed system How to overcome transition challenges–from the current system to the proposed system How to fold in new requirements when reauthorization occurs How to fold in new requirements when reauthorization occurs

24. Putting It All Together Indiana and Louisiana’s experience illustrate the importance of addressing some essential steps Indiana and Louisiana’s experience illustrate the importance of addressing some essential steps Identifying valued outcomes Identifying valued outcomes Creating mechanisms to support these outcomes (e.g. curricula, courses, diploma requirements) Creating mechanisms to support these outcomes (e.g. curricula, courses, diploma requirements) Establishing indicators to track outcomes – the “What” (e.g. assessments, course completion, graduation rate) Establishing indicators to track outcomes – the “What” (e.g. assessments, course completion, graduation rate) Putting the indicators together to incentivize valued outcomes – the “So What?” (accountability systems) Putting the indicators together to incentivize valued outcomes – the “So What?” (accountability systems) 24Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

25. Key Considerations What are strategies for promoting coherent accountability systems? What are strategies for promoting coherent accountability systems? What are the right incentives and supports at the student, school, and system level? What are the right incentives and supports at the student, school, and system level? What should be prioritized in public reporting? What should be prioritized in public reporting? Are the right policy supports in place to advance CCR goals? Are the right policy supports in place to advance CCR goals? How to establish/ maintain cross-agency collaboration? How to establish/ maintain cross-agency collaboration? How does one manage operational burdens and remain “nimble” with respect to changes? How does one manage operational burdens and remain “nimble” with respect to changes? 25Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09

26. Questions? Brian Gong – Center for Assessment Wes Bruce – Indiana Department of Education Scott Norton – Louisiana Department of Education Chris Domaleski – Center for Assessment 26Incentivizing / Building State Systems - 9/10/09