ORLEANS, L009 Accountability Committee Meeting March 14, 2017 Objectives  Revisit why and how we evaluate schools in OPSB  Review the results of our most recent evaluations  Look ahead to what type of accountability system we can build to support the next stage of our city’s schools Why do we oversee school performance?  Why do we measure school performance?  To ensure schools are providing the supports and services they are designed to offer students and families  To increase the community’ s support for and knowledge of the city schools  Help school leaders and educators identify their areas of success and opportunities for improvement  Encourage schools to continuously improve and help all students succeed at high levels. Rigorously evaluating schools on a regular basis is OPSB’s unique and exciting responsibility Overview of OPSB School Performance Framework  What do we currently measure?  Academic Performance: How well is this school educating its students?  Financial Performance : Is the school financially viable?  Organizational Performance: Is the school in compliance with law, policy, and other requirements? How are overall ratings determined for each domain? Academic Performance Framework  Measure 1a and 2a (State Accountability and Optional School goals) are the determining factor  For each measure, a school receives one of four ratings:  “Exceeds Standard”  “Meets Standard”  “Does Not Meet Standard”  “Falls Far Below Standard”  Current modifications exist for schools in their initial term, those earning a T letter grade and new to OPSB oversight (3bs) Source: OPSB Policy HB and OPSB School Performance Framework How well is this school educating its students? OPSB Performance Framework Ratings- Sample Academic Performance Rating Meets Standard Rating School A 1a. State Accountability Performance (SPS and Letter Grade) A (121.1) Meets Standard 2a. School-Specific Goal N/A N/A 3a. Student Growth 3b. Subgroup Performance 4a. ELA Goals 4b. Math Goals N/A N/A Meets Standard Meets Standard Meets Standard How are overall ratings determined for each domain? Financial and Organizational Performance Frameworks    Overall ratings are based upon the sum of total points maintained or lost, through individual evaluations of each measure  Does Not Meet: subtract 3-5 points  Falls Far Below: subtract >5 points For each measure, a school receives one of three ratings:  “Meets Standard”  “Does Not Meet Standard”  “Falls Far Below Standard” Current modifications exist for schools in their initial term and new to OPSB oversight (3bs) Source: OPSB Policy HB and OPSB School Performance Framework OPSB Performance Framework Ratings- Sample Financial Performance Rating Meets Standard Unrestricted Days Cash M Organizational Performance Rating Meets Standard Background Checks M Organizational Is the school in-2 Meets Standard: 0 to compliance with Does law, Not Meet Standard: policy, and -3 to -5 other requirements? Falls Far Below Standard: more than -5 2016-17 2015-16 Annual Charter School Review Cycle Strategically plan and carryout oversight Process data and plan for key actions Spring Summer Gather additional data and make key decisions Fall Finalize outcomes and.. Winter Spring Strategically plan and carryout oversight Summer Process data and plan for key actions Fall Gather additional data and make key decisions Continuously Collect, Monitor, and Act on School Performance Information Winter Finalize outcomes and.. Summary of 2015-2016 Overall Performance Ratings School Academic Rating Financial Rating Organizational Rating Meets Hynes Exceeds Meets Meets Meets Meets Edna Karr Exceeds Meets Meets Exceeds Meets Meets MLK Meets Meets Meets Bricolage NR Meets Meets Lake Forest Exceeds Meets Meets Cypress NR Meets Meets Lusher Exceeds Meets Meets Einstein * Does Not Meet Meets Meets Robert Russa Moton Meets Meets Does Not Meet Encore Meets Meets Meets Sci High Meets Meets Meets Foundation Prep NR Meets Meets Warren Easton Exceeds Meets Meets Homer Plessy Does Not Meet Meets Meets Wilson Meets Meets Meets • School Academic Rating Financial Organizational Rating Rating Audubon Exceeds Meets Alice Harte Meets BFHS Exceeds Standards rating is only available on the Academic Performance Framework • “NR” assigned to schools who have not yet had tested grades/subjects. *Note: All four campuses have been combined under one state site code. Starting for the 16-17 SY, Einstein School data will be shared by school. Pilot Results for Network Schools 2015-2016 Annual Reviews  OPSB is committed to also holding its network schools accountable through a rigorous evaluation process which was piloted during the 15-16 SY School Academic Rating Organizational Rating Benjamin Franklin Meets Meets Bethune Meets Meets Mahalia Jackson Meets Meets MC 35 Academy Does Not Meet Meets MC 35 College Prep Does Not Meet Meets McMain Meets Meets What types of impact do annual evaluations have on charter schools?  On an Annual Basis:  Certain measures are defined as “Critical Indicators,” where, if a deficiency is defined, schools shall be subject to intervention.  Multiple deficiencies within performance domains, within and/or across years, may lead to a school being placed into an intervention tier.  At Renewal:  Financial and Organizational Performance Modifications:  Based upon the Superintendent’s discretion, up to 2 years can be added or subtracted from the base term given OPF or FPF performance over time.  Intervention Modifications:  Subtraction of one year for any point at which the school is subject to a Tier 2 intervention.  Charter term length halved and/or maxed to 5 years if ever placed in Tier 3 Intervention. Source: OPSB Policy HAB, HB and HC Looking Ahead: State ESSA Framework and Planning  On July 1, 2017, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaces the No Child Left Behind as the country’s federal education law. The law will be in effect when the 2017-2018 school year begins.  ESSA provides Louisiana with an opportunity to collaborate with educators, parents, business and community leaders to create an improved K-12 education system that provides all students with equal access and opportunity to high-quality learning.  ESSA requires that every state capture these improvements in a state plan that is submitted to the federal government.  Louisiana intends to submit this state plan to the U.S. Department of Education on April 3, 2017 with the goal of receiving feedback and final approval of the plan prior to the start of the 2017-2018 school year in order to provide educators and families with clarity and consistency. ESSA requires states to maintain accountability systems that evaluate school quality and protect the interests of historically disadvantaged students Source: LDOE Critical Improvements in Louisiana’s Accountability System These formulae represent three critical shifts in the design of the accountability system. 1. Ensuring an “A” in Louisiana’s letter grade system signals mastery of fundamental skills. This will be achieved by raising expectations for what is required in order for a school to earn A-level points based on student achievement and growth. 2. Adjusting school rating calculations to value more the progress of every individual child, including (a) measuring whether students are on a path to master fundamental skills; and (b) measuring how effectively students are advancing relative to their peers. This growth index will replace the current progress point system. 3. Expanding the school performance score formula to emphasize interests and opportunities for students, in addition to traditional assessment and graduation outcomes, as five percent of school scores. Source: LDOE The proposed School Performance Score Formulae has more components than in the past. Beginning in 2017-2018, Louisiana will use the following formulae when evaluating school performance: NOTE: The interests and opportunities measure will not be included within annual results until 2019-2020. Source: LDOE As the tools for measurement expand, the state is also planning to raise standards for what it means to be excellent. Purpose Louisiana students in grades 3-8 take assessments in ELA, math, science and social studies to measure student mastery of the knowledge and skills reflected in the standards of that grade and subject. Accountability The school performance score includes the points assigned to achievement levels earned by students for each subject tested. Source: LDOE LEAP Achievement Level 2017-2018 2021-2022 2024-2025 Advanced 150 150 150 Mastery 110 105 100 Basic 70 60 50 Approaching Basic/Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 And two new questions will be asked in the proposed system that will allow growth to be celebrated in elementary school. Question 1: If students are not yet achieving Mastery, are they on track to doing so? • Every student scoring below Mastery will receive a simple, clear growth target for the following year that illustrates the growth required to be on track to Mastery in ELA and math by 8th grade. • If a student achieves the target, the school shall earn 150 points, equivalent to an A+. Otherwise, move to question 2. Source: LDOE Question 2: Are students growing at a rate comparable to their peers? • Using Louisiana’s value-added measurement, it is possible to compare students’ individual performance to that of similar peers. • Schools will earn points based on students’ growth percentile as compared to peers. • 81st-99th percentile (150 points) • 61st-80th percentile (115 points) • 41st-60th percentile (85 points) • 21st-40th percentile (25 points) Growth will also be captured at the High School Level, where standards are increasing as well. Purpose The End-Of-Course (EOC) exams assess whether students have mastered the standards of core high school subjects. EOC exams are required in Algebra I, Geometry, English I (beginning in 2017-2018), English II, Biology, and U.S. History. Policy All high school students, except for students who participate in LAA 1, are required to take an ELA and math EOC exam by their 3rd cohort year regardless of graduation pathway. Scores from high school students who are retaking an EOC are not used in the school performance score (unless taken in middle school). Source: LDOE LEAP 2025 EOCs Achievement Level 2017-2018 2021-2022 2024-2025 Advanced (or Excellent) 150 150 150 Mastery 110 105 100 Basic (or Good) 70 60 50 Approaching Basic/Unsatisfactory (or Fair/Needs Imp.) 0 0 0 High School SPS: EOC Achievement and Growth Like schools serving grades 3 to 8, high schools may earn credit for both achievement and growth with students, as measured by the EOCs. High achieving students will be treated the same as in elementary schools. Question 1: If students are not yet achieving Mastery, are they on track to doing so? • Every student scoring below Mastery in grade 8 will receive a simple, clear growth target for the following year that illustrates the growth required to be on track to Mastery in ELA and math by 10th grade. • If a student achieves the target, the school shall earn 150 points, equivalent to an A+. Otherwise, move to question 2. Source: LDOE Question 2: Are students growing at a rate comparable to their peers? • Using Louisiana’s value-added measurement, it is possible to compare students’ individual performance to that of similar peers. • Schools will earn points based on students’ growth percentile as compared to peers. • 81st-99th percentile (150 points) • 61st-80th percentile (115 points) • 41st-60th percentile (85 points) • 21st-40th percentile (25 points) What is the anticipated impact of this new system on Elementary and Middle Schools? On average, elementary/middle schools will need to improve 5.4 points in the first year, 7.7 points by the second transition, and 10.2 points by 2025 to maintain their 2016 Letter Grade. Number of Elementary/Middle Schools Distribution of Elementary/Middle Schools by Transition Timeline (25% Growth Index, No Curve, No Projected Improvement) Source: LDOE 150 (15%) 279 (28%) 196 90 24 156 296 243 325 17 108 316 14 62 290 A (100-150) B (85-99.9) 284 (29%) 272 355 378 203 (21%) 203 67 (7%) 66 C (70-84.9) D (50-69.9) F (0-49.9) 209 22 2013 Baseline 2016 Actual 2016 with Growth 411 450 89 120 156 2018 2022 2025 What is the impact of this system on High School performance? On average, high schools will need need to improve 3.4 points in the first year, 4.8 points by the second transition, and 6.5 points by 2025 to maintain their 2016 Letter Grade. Distribution of High Schools by Transition Timeline (25% EOC Growth and Status Index, No Curve, No Projected Improvement) Number of High Schools 18 (11%) 61 62 55 44 53 42 (25%) 58 40 25 13 55 19 9 58 B (85-99.9) C (70-84.9) D (50-69.9) 46 2013 Baseline 2016 Actual 2016 with Growth Source: LDOE 8 A (100-150) 44 13 (8%) 9 53 52 (31%) 43 (26%) 11 48 55 11 13 15 2018 2022 2025 38 F (0-49.9) To help manage the transition, the state has proposed a tiered implementation of the higher standards. Beginning in 2017-2018, Louisiana’s accountability standards will shift modestly in order to begin making progress toward the 2025 “A” benchmarks. This shift will proceed for two years and letter grade ratings will be curved during this period. The overall distribution of letter grades will not worsen. Source: LDOE During the 2019-2020 year, the Accountability Commission and BESE will review the results of the shifting system to determine if any adjustments are needed and whether the letter grade curve should be maintained or ended. Assuming the board and commission determine that the current plan should proceed, the scoring system will shift incrementally two additional times–in 20212022 and 2024-2025–such that Louisiana has fully transitioned to the 2025 standards.