ESEA Flexibility Analysis

1. ESEA Flexibility Analysis December 15, 2014

2. Purpose of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis The flex analysis was designed to examine the characteristics of schools identified by each SEA’s differentiated accountability system for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years, including the performance of all students and all subgroups based on, respectively, 2011-12 and 2012-13 student achievement and graduation rate data

3. Purpose of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis (continued) • Not a replication of individual state identification systems • An examination of school characteristics at the time of school identification: 2011-12 for Windows 1 and 2; 2012-13 for Windows 3 and 4. • One tool that states can use to analyze whether their identification systems worked as intended to capture the lowest-performing schools and subgroups CAVEATS: The Flexibility Analysis is…

4. Focus of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis • Student achievement in reading and mathematics (proficiency rates and AMOs) for ESEA and combined subgroups • Schools and subgroups performing at or below the 5th percentile • Schools with large subgroup proficiency gaps • Schools and subgroups meeting AMO targets • Graduation rates and targets for ESEA and combined subgroups • Schools and subgroups with graduation rates below 60 percent • Schools with large subgroup graduation rate gaps • Schools and subgroups meeting graduation rate targets • Performance against the 95 percent participation rate target on state assessments for ESEA and combined subgroups Examine the relationship between school identification and:

5. Description of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis • Uses data to produce 14 analyses/exhibits for each state profile • 2011-12 data for: year 1 profiles, Windows 1 and 2 • 2012-13 data for: year 1 profiles, Windows 3 and 4; year 2 profiles, Windows 1 and 2 • Data Quality Checks & Extensive Data Outreach to States • ED – through the EDFacts Partner Support Center (PSC) – contacted specific states that had large amounts of missing or low-quality data • Examples include: large percentage of operational schools missing Title I participation or eligibility status, not reporting graduation rate indicator data, not reporting reading or mathematics data for ESEA subgroups • Missing or low-quality data submitted by states may result in: • Exclusion of an analysis/exhibit from a state’s profile • Explanations for these exclusions are provided in the cover letter to each state • Exclusion of schools from a specific analysis/exhibit • Explanations for these exclusions are provided in the technical notes for each exhibit

6. Priority and Focus School Identification

7. Priority and Focus School Identification by School Level

8. School Identification by State-Defined Status Levels

9. Distribution by School Characteristics Exhibit 4. At the time of identification, what were the demographic characteristics of priority and focus schools compared to all other Title I participating schools?

10. Distribution by School Characteristics (continued) Exhibit 4. At the time of identification, what were the demographic characteristics of priority and focus schools compared to all other Title I participating schools? Exhibit reads: In STATE, 67 percent of Title I participating schools identified as priority or focus for 2012–13 were elementary schools, compared to 71 percent of all other Title I participating schools. Source: 2011–12 EDFacts, Data Group (DG) 18: Grades offered, DG 21: School type, DG 27: Charter status, DG 39: Membership, DG 74: Children with disabilities (IDEA) school age, DG 123: LEP students in LEP program, DG 565: Free or reduced-price lunch; 2012–13 EDFacts, DG 34: Improvement status - school (n = 1,000 Title I participating schools [150 Title I participating schools identified as priority or focus and 850 all other Title I participating schools]) Note: Technical notes for this exhibit appear in the Appendix.

11. Low Performance Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools

12. Large Subgroup Gaps Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools

13. Low Graduation Rates Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools

14. Large Subgroup Graduation Rate Gaps Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools

15. AMO Status Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools

16. Participation Rate Status Among Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools

17. Status on Graduation Rate Targets: Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools

18. ESEA Flexibility Analysis Data Extracts • Each profile is accompanied by an Excel-file data extract that includes: • Data sources, retrieval dates, and a data summary • Data summary includes: • list of all variables, data quality indicators, indicators that flag schools that are included in or excluded from each of the exhibits, and step-by-step instructions for re-creating selected multi-step descriptive analyses from the profile • See demonstration using example profile DATA EXTRACTS

19. Example Data Extract

20. Example Data Extract (continued)

21. NEXT STEPS • Profiles will be sent to groups of states in batches • The first batch of profiles will be sent on December 17th • After each release, states will have 10 business days to respond with any technical corrections that may be needed • Technical Assistance Process • State flex leads should submit questions to OSS state leads in writing; • PPSS staff will review and respond to technical questions in writing within 1-2 business days • If clarifications are still needed, the OSS state lead will schedule a call between PPSS and individual state flex leads

22. Questions?