Developing System Incentives: Rewarding Schools and Districts June 18, 2010 Daria Hall

1. Developing System Incentives:Rewarding Schools and Districts June 18, 2010 Daria Hall Alissa Peltzman

2. The Contrast Between Current Accountability Systems and a College-and Career-Ready Vision

3. What Do Current High School Accountability Systems Value? • “Proficiency” on high school tests, which typically measure the knowledge and skills students should learn by early in high school • Graduation rates, increasingly cohort graduation rates • Other measures, such as attendance • After-the-fact judgments, rather than indicators or progress • Consequences, rather than incentives • So what’s missing? • Indicators of college and career readiness

4. The Problems with Today’s Systems INDICATORS

5. Evolving Accountability Systems

6. A New Vision of Accountability • Accountability systems need to reflect the goal of college- and career readiness for all students. Readiness must become the central driver. • Readiness should not be viewed as a fixed state. Indicators should measure whether students are on a path toward, are meeting, and are exceeding college & career readiness. • Accountability should provide actionable information to that can help improve teaching and learning. Indicators should help schools now how they are progressing and suggest where they need to focus attention.

7. Indicators that Value College & Career Readiness

8. Range of Uses for College & Career Ready Indicators

9. The Baseline of a College- & Career-Ready High School Accountability System

10. What about Federal Accountability? • Administration Priorities: • “Commitment to raising achievement and closing gaps • Emphasis on college and career ready standards and assessments • Additional high school indicators: graduation rates, college enrollment rates, college enrollment without remediation • Incentives for high achievement, including financial rewards, participation in “communities of practice”, flexibility in use of funds, and competitive preference for funds • Dramatic intervention in the lowest-performing schools

11. Big Questions for Federal Accountability Policies • What to do “in the meantime” until college-and career-ready standards and assessments are available and implemented • How to support states and districts in the work of adopting these new tools

12. State Use of College- and Career-Ready Indicators Today

13. Percentage of High School Graduates Who Earn a College- And Career-Ready Diploma Source:

14. Percentage of High School Graduates Who Obtain a Readiness Score on a College & Career Ready High School Assessment Source:

15. Percentage of High School Graduates WhoEarn College Credit While Still in High School Source:

16. Percentage of Incoming First-Year College Students Who Require Remediation Source:

17. State Example: LouisianaSetting Statewide Performance Goals • Louisiana’s Board of Education adopted four college & career ready goals • Example: Goal #2 / Increase Readiness for Post-Secondary Education

18. State Example: HawaiiMeaningful Public Reporting • Hawaii’s College & Career Indicators Report • School-level data • Organized by indicators to reflect exceeding, meeting and approaching college & career readiness • Includes percentage of students: • Earning the college- and career-ready diploma • Enrolling in 2- and 4-year colleges • Last year’s graduates enrolled in remedial courses at the state’s 2-year community colleges • First report cards in 2009; state didn’t wait for all the data to get started, and continues to improve format For more information: http://www.p20hawaii.org/indicators_report.html

19. State Example: HawaiiMeaningful Public Reporting For more information: http://www.p20hawaii.org/indicators_report.html

20. State Example: ArkansasCreating Incentives • Arkansas Smart Core Incentive Fund • Provide financial rewards to schools in which 90% of students have completed the Smart Core curriculum • Schools must have maintained an overall graduation rate above the state average for the previous three years • Monetary incentives range between $50 and $125 per Smart Core graduate, depending on percentage of graduating students who complete the Smart Core curriculum and earn the Smart Core diploma in the preceding year For more information:see Act 1481, signed into law April 2009

21. State Example: FloridaAccountability Determinations • Florida State Board of Education approved changes in September 2009 • Accountability formula now incorporates: • High school cohort graduation rate, advanced-high school course-taking and success, and performance on measures of college readiness • Schools will earn weighted credits for: • Number of students scoring “ready” on SAT, ACT and/or the state’s College Entry-Level Placement Test (CPT) • Number of exams students take and the number of successful student outcomes (e.g., earning college credit, passing industry certification) For more information: see http://www.fldoe.org/board/meetings/2009_09_15/109981presentation.pdf

22. Putting the Pieces Together

23. Setting Statewide Performance Goals • Who is responsible for the goal setting process? • Who owns these goals? Who needs to support these goals? • How can you ground the goals with existing needs (e.g. statewide workforce and civic demands)? • How do you set goals that balance reality with ambition? • How do you make these goals real? How can the goals become integrated into your public reporting and accountability systems?

24. Public Reporting • What information do parents, policymakers and the public need to know about how schools are progressing towards the goal of college and career readiness? • Who ought to report this information (state, district, school) and how often?

25. Creating Incentives • What are the positive incentives for students and schools to work hard to reach the college-and career-ready goals?

26. Accountability Determinations • What matters the most if you are trying to hold schools accountable for graduating all students college-and career-ready? • How should the state measure those things we identified as most important? • How do you set expectations for performance on these important indicators? • What does the state do when the expectations are not met/met/exceeded?