Schoolview: A Mul state Consor um to Foster Collabora ve Data Use and Visualiza on Nevada’s Educa on Performance System and ESEA Flexibility Waiver Andrew J. Parr, Ph.D. Assessment, Program Accountability, and Curriculum ti ti ti ti ti

Purpose of this Presenta on Provide an overview of the components of Nevada Educa on Performance System Focusing on the Role of Student Growth Percen les ti ti ti

Topics to be Discussed • Poli cs behind student growth • Use of SGPs, AGPs, and MGPs • Successes and Challenges • Technical Issues ti

Poli cs Behind Student Growth • Pre-2008 – Limited explora on of op ons – LEAs “ nkering” with pilots – SEA assembles Growth Model Subcommi ee – 6-month review of op ons – Landed on the SGP Growth Model tt ti ti ti ti ti

More Poli cs… • Bipar san Support • Assembly Bill 14 (NRS 385) provides for NDE to develop a growth measure for statewide use. • Component of the State’s Reform Agenda • Legisla ve and Execu ve support • Component of a balanced assessment system ti ti ti ti

2010 SGP Pilot • In 2009-2010, the NGMA was designed and piloted. – used statewide assessment data from 2005-06 through 2008-09 – evaluated data quality, analysis speci ca ons, and impact of results – developed data system requirements and organiza on within SAIN ti fi ti

SGP Milestones • June 2010 – SEA Recommends SGP – SBE Adopts the SGP • January 2011 – Develop and pilot school reports • August 2011 – First Repor ng Year – Schoolview repor ng pla orm tf ti ti

How does Nevada Use SGPs, AGPs, and MGPs? Accountability & Supports Instruc onal Prac ce ti ti

Nevada Educa on Performance System Nevada Educa on Performance System Nevada Common Educator School Core E ec venes Performanc Standards s ti ti ti ff

Nevada Educa on Performance Framework Suppor ng E ec ve Instruc on and Leadership ti ti ti ff ti

Nevada Educa on Performance System Nevada Educa on Performance System Nevada Common Educator School Core E ec venes Performanc Standards s ti ti ti ff

Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) State-Developed Di eren ated Recogni on, Accountability, and Support ti ff ti

What is the NSPF? • Value driven di eren ated system – school accountability – school support • Building capacity for improvement – educator, – school, – district ti ff

What Does the NSPF Accomplish? • Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) – classifying, – rewarding, and – suppor ng school performance. • NSPF Indicators derived from – pro ciency – growth – CCR – gradua on ti ti fi

The NSPF • Values growth over pro ciency • Reports on mul ple indicators • Elementary and Middle Schools – growth, pro ciency, gap reduc on, and other indicator • High Schools – pro ciency, growth, gap reduc on, gradua on, college & career readiness, and other indicators • Assigns schools a star ra ng using a point-based system ti ti ti ti fi ti fi fi

NSPF Overview Total Index Points for a school result from a combina on of weighted Performance Indicators Elementary/Middle School High School Performance Indicators Performance Indicators opula 20% Other Indicator Pro 14% 30% Growth and Pro College & Career Readiness 30% College & Career s) Readiness 16% Student Growth Percen Gradua Subpopula ti ti ti fi fi ti fi

Point Weigh ng Unit Max Pts. Category % School 15 Status 30 Reading and Math Pro ciency 15 School Reading and Math Median SGPs Reading and Math AGPs Subpopula on Performance Gaps 3.33 Reading and Math AGPs 3.33 Growth 60 (3.33 for each subpopula on [IEP, ELL, FRL] 3.33 for reading and for math) 3.33 (if n size too small, apply supergroup points 3.33 instead, as below blue line) 3.33 OR Supergroup 10 Reading and Math AGPs 10 Other Indicators 10 Other 10 (for now: School Average Daily A endance) SGP = Student Growth Percen les Elementary and Middle Schools Index Point Distribu on AGP = Adequate Growth Percen les 17 ADA = Average Daily A endance ti tt fi ti ti ti tt ti ti

Point Weigh ng Unit Max Category % School 5 10th Grade Read and Math Prof. 5 Status & Growth 30 10th Grade Read and Math SGPs 5 11th Grade Read and Math Prof. 5 Achievement Subgroup (IEP, ELL, FRL) 1.67 Read and Math Prof. Gaps 1.67 Gaps 10 (if n size < 10, apply supergroup analysis) 1.67 Supergroup 5 Read and Math Prof. Gaps 5 School – NGA Grad Rate 15 Gradua on 15 Subgroup (IEP, ELL, FRL) Grad Rate Gaps 5 Gradua on Gaps 15 (if n size < 10, apply supergroup analysis) Supergroup – Grad Rate Gaps 15 School ACT/SAT Par cipa on, AP Credit, NSHE College Readiness 16 Remedia on, Advanced Diplomas School – ADA 10 Other 14 9th Grade Credit De ciency 4 High School Index Point Distribu on ti ti ti ti ti fi ti ti

Elementary School Gap Reduc on Variable < 5% ≥ 5 and < 25% ≥ 25 and < 75% ≥ 75 and < 95% ≥ 95% Growth (Subgroup) Points 0 1 2 3.33 3.33 % FRL Mee ng Reading AGP < 31 ≥ 31 and < 43 ≥ 43 and < 61 ≥ 61 and < 71 ≥ 71 % FRL Mee ng Math AGP < 30 ≥ 30 and < 42 ≥ 42 and < 59 ≥ 59 and < 71 ≥ 71 % ELL Mee ng Reading AGP <9 ≥ 9 and < 18 ≥ 18 and < 38 ≥ 38 and < 56 ≥ 56 % ELL Mee ng Math AGP < 14 ≥ 14 and < 27 ≥ 27 and < 50 ≥ 50 and < 66 ≥ 66 % IEP Mee ng Reading AGP <1 ≥ 1 and < 15 ≥ 15 and < 36 ≥ 36 and < 58 ≥ 58 % IEP Mee ng Math AGP <9 ≥ 9 and < 20 ≥ 20 and < 48 ≥ 48 and < 68 ≥ 68 Growth (Supergroup) Points 0 3 6 10 10 % Supergroup Mee ng Read AGP < 31 ≥ 31 and < 42 ≥ 42 and < 58 ≥ 58 and < 68 ≥ 68 % Supergroup Mee ng Math AGP < 28 ≥ 28 and < 41 ≥ 41 and < 58 ≥ 58 and < 70 ≥ 70 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti

Nevada Educator Performance Framework Suppor ng E ec ve Instruc on and Leadership ti ti ff ti

What the Standardi ze Framework Measures Apply Ensure the Student Performance Success Assessment Process to Standards for what educators should know and be able to do Sustain the Cycle of Continuous Teachers Administrators • Educa onal Prac ce • Educa onal Prac ce • Instruc onal Prac ce • Instruc onal Leadership • Professional Prac ce Responsibili es • Professional • Student Performance Responsibili es • Student Performance ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti

Standardize Performance Expectations How the for Framework Operates Ensure Student Success Apply the Weigh ng the Measures Sustain the and Determining the Ra ngs Cycle of Continuous – Instruc on / Instruc onal Leadership = 35% – Professional Responsibili es = 15% – Student Performance = 50% • Student growth = 35% • Student subpopula on gap reduc on = 10% • Student pro ciency = 5% ti ti ti ti ti fi ti ti

Successes and Challenges • Integra on into accountability system – Broad support for Growth Model • Training • Communica on ti ti

Technical Issues • State Unique Iden ers (SUID) – Broken SUIDs – Duplicated SUIDs • Combined Schools • Inclusion of 10th grade • Valida on of Student Data fi ti ti

Thank You • Our Purpose Was To: – Provide an overview of the Nevada Educa on Performance System – Demonstrate the alignment of the components of the Nevada Educa on Performance System ti ti

About this copy

CCSSO Nevada ESEA Schoolview Growth 2 — CCSSO, June 2013.

This is an image-based copy of the original Keynote slides; builds and animations are flattened.