John Gatta, Ph.D.President

The Measurement and Assessment

of Educational Quality

National and State Context

National and State Context

PERA and SB7

Race to the Top

NCLB

Common Core

Achievement Growth versus Achievement Status

GrowthStatus

Educational Quality Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201265%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

93%94% 93% 93% 93%

91%

90%

77% 79% 79% 80%81% 82%

82%

District 23 Overall Achievement

District 23Illinois

Quality Under NCLB

Redefining Quality Federal and State Policy Shifts

Race to the Top

“I am issuing a challenge to our nation’s governors and school boards, principals and teachers, businesses and non-profits, parents and students: if you set and enforce rigorous and challenging standards and assessments; if you put outstanding teachers at the front of the classroom; if you turn around failing schools – your state can win a Race to the Top grant.”

President Barack ObamaJuly 24, 2009

In 2010, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA).

PERA requires all schools in Illinois to incorporate measures of student growth into principal and teacher evaluation systems.

Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA)

In 2011, Governor Quinn signed into law Senate Bill 7.

SB7 connects teacher hiring and dismissal to teacher performance.

Illinois Senate Bill 7 (SB 7)

Illinois NCLB Waiver

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the most recent authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the principal federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. On September 23, 2011, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) invited states educational agencies to request flexibility on behalf of itself, its districts, and schools, in order to better focus on improving student learning and increasing the quality of instruction. Illinois' flexibility request was initially submitted on February 28, 2012 and resubmitted on January 31, 2014, was granted on April 18, 2014.

- ISBE Website

NCLB Waivers Nationally

Illinois NCLB WaiverMultiple Measures Index

2011 2012 2013 201450%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%93%

92%

75% 79%86% 86%

59%

District 23 Mathematics (% Meeting Standards)

District 23Illinois

2011 2012 2013 201450%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

88%88%

73%72%

79%79%

59%

District 23 Reading(% Meeting Standards)

District 23Illinois

NOTE: More Rigorous Standards Imposed in 2013

Higher Achievement Standards

 2014 ISAT Overall Asian Black Hispanic Other White Female Male

Reading 72.3% 82.5% 50.0% 44.7% 88.0% 78.4% 75.5% 69.0%

Math 78.7% 91.8% 58.3% 49.2% 84.0% 85.2% 78.8% 78.6%

 2014 ISAT LEP Not LEP IEP No IEP Low IncomeNot Low Income

Reading 20.7% 79.3% 35.4% 64.6% 49.8% 50.2%

Math 46.5% 53.5% 36.4% 63.6% 55.8% 44.2%

Percentage of District 23 students meeting or exceeding 2014 ISAT across subgroups and subjects

Achievement Gaps Remain Major National and State Focus

Educational Progress

ISBE Growth Value Tables

Educational Progress

District 23 Performance on Growth Value Tables (2013)

Adjusted status compares the performance of each district and school to a state benchmark after adjusting for student characteristics that may impact district outcomes. ISAT data from the 2013-2014 school year were evaluated to determine how District 23 district-level and school-level achievement compared to district-level and school-level achievement across the state after adjusting for district characteristics.

  The following characteristics were accounted for in the adjusted status model:

·         District-type (e.g., unit),·         District enrollment,·         Percentage race/ethnicity,·         Percentage Limited English Proficiency (LEP),·         Percentage low-income,·         Percentage mobility,·         Geographic location (e.g., Chicagoland),·         Equalized Assessed Value (EAV).

 

Performance in Context(Adjusted Status)

Subject Percentile Rank

Projected(% Meets Standards)

Actual*(% Meets Standards)

Reading 65.8% 74 77Mathematics 54.3% 74 74

District 23 Prospect Heights Adjusted Status

(2013)

Performance in Context(Adjusted Status)

*Based on criteria students in district for one year

Defining Quality at the Local District Level

What is your definition of quality?

Developing a District Dashboard

Local Academic Growth

Local Academic Growth

2014-2015 Priorities

Continue to support administration with data analysis and new portal resources

Work with administration to develop the district dashboard aligned to the district’s definition of quality

Develop individual student profile reports aligned to the dashboard

Questions?