School Accountability “Report Cards”<br>Formulas Used to Calculate Performance - Summaries
Education Commission of the States • 700 Broadway, Suite 810 • Denver, CO 80203-3442 • 303.299.3600 • Fax: 303.296.8332 • www.ecs.org

School Accountability “Report Cards”
Formulas Used to Calculate Performance - Summaries

December 2013


Formula summary
Alabama None evident
Alaska 100-point scale with weighting for various indicators
Arizona State statute requires that half of the letter grade determinations for schools and LEAs should consist of academic progress. The academic progress measurement consists of the relative growth of all pupils enrolled at the school or LEA and the relative growth of 25 percent of pupils with the lowest academic performance measurement enrolled at the school or LEA.

In order to comply with statute and offer more sensitive measures of school accountability, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) uses parallel models to evaluate the following types of schools:
1. Traditional schools
2. Alternative schools
3. Small schools
4. K-2 schools
 

Arkansas School-level Individualized Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

The Annual School Performance Rating System is based on augmented benchmark scores for grades 3-8, End-of-Course Algebra, End-of-Course Geometry, and Grade 11 Literacy Exams. School ratings include two categories: gains or improvement (changes in student performance across two adjacent years) and status (student performance from one year). 
 
https://adedata.arkansas.gov/arc/
California AB 484 (2013) modified so that beginning with the 2015–16 API cycle:
State assessment results may only constitute 60% of a high school’s API
 
40% must be from other indicators such as career and college readiness, graduation data, etc.
Academic Performance Index (API)

Details continue to evolve.

The Academic Performance Index (API) is a score on a scale of 200 to 1,000 that annually measures the academic performance and progress of individual schools in California. The state has set 800 as the API score that schools should strive to meet.
Colorado

Colorado Growth Model is both

  • A statistical model to calculate each student's progress on state assessments.
  • A tool for displaying student, school, and district results to educators and to the public.

Connecticut School performance index with weighted indices
Delaware Growth model
District of Columbia Classification system based on student proficiency and growth to provide each school with a school index score (covering all
students), and a subgroup index scores for all subgroups for which the school is accountable. Index scores identify high-performing, high-progress, and struggling schools on an annual basis. 

Florida Revised 2014, effective 2014-15 school year. Details coming.
Georgia Star Ratings beginning 2013-2014
College and Career Ready Performance Index Score
Hawaii None specified
Idaho
100-point scale

Under the Five-Star System, schools with grades K-8 are measured based on the following factors:
  • Academic growth: how much progress did students make over the past school year. 
  • Academic proficiency: how many students have reached grade-level or higher in each subject area on the ISAT. 
  • Participation: Schools must demonstrate that at least 95 percent of students in the schools were tested. 
Under the Five-Star System, schools with a grade 12 are measured based on the following factors: 
  • Academic Growth: The state measures how much progress students made over the past school year. 
  • Academic Proficiency: The state measures how many students have reached grade-level or higher in each subject area on the ISAT. 
  • Postsecondary and Career Readiness Metrics: The state measures a school’s graduation rate, the number of students enrolled in and successfully completing advanced courses, and student scores on college entrance exams, such as the SAT, ACT, ACCUPLACER or COMPASS. The state currently pays for all students to take the SAT or ACCUPLACER. 
  • Participation: Schools must demonstrate that at least 95 percent of students in the schools were tested. 
 
After calculating these measures, each school receives a Star Rating. 
 
Illinois None specified
Indiana 100-point scale index
Iowa None specified
Kansas None specified
Kentucky User-added image
Louisiana
  • Elementary schools: 100 percent of the school grade is based on student achievement on annual assessments in English language arts, math, science, and social studies.
  • Middle schools: 95 percent of the school grade is based on student achievement on annual assessments with the final 5 percent based on credits earned through the end of students’ 9th grade year.
  • High schools: Half of the school grade is based on student achievement (25 percent on the ACT and 25 percent on End-of-Course assessments). Half of the school grade is based on graduation (25 percent on the graduation index, which rewards achievements like Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exam credit, and 25 percent on the cohort graduation rate).
Maine None specified
Maryland School Progress Index
Massachusetts Progress and Performance Index (PPI)

Points assigned as Above Target, On Target, Improved Below Target, No Change or Declined -- across 4 core indicators

Above Target (100 points)
On Target (75 points)
Improved Below Target (50 points)
No Change (25 points)
Declined (0)
Michigan Based on target areas:
In general, meeting a target will yield 2 pts or the full point value.
Meeting a target through safe harbor or improvement will yield 1 point or half the point value (NOT true for Ed Evals and Compliance Factors targets)
Not meeting a target will yield 0 points.

Determine the school’s % points received and apply it to the color scale: 
Green: pts >85%         
Light Green: 70%-85%   
Yellow:: 60%-70%                       
Orange:  50%-60%          
Red: pts<50% 

http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-22709_25058---,00.html 
Minnesota Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR)

Uses four ratings, weighted equally, to measure school performance:

 Proficiency - Schools earn points in the MMR by meeting AYP proficiency goals in individual student subgroups. The percentage of subgroups that make AYP determines the percentage of points a school receives.

 Growth - Students are measured by their current performance on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) as relative to their performance in the most recent year they took the test. Each student receives a growth score, and schools get a growth score based on the average growth of all students in the school.

 Achievement Gap Reduction - Schools are measured based on how the growth of their students from the seven lower-performing subgroups (Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, English Learners, free and reduced lunch, and special education students) compares to the statewide average growth of higher-performing subgroups. Schools earn MMR points based on their ability to reduce the achievement gap. This measurement answers the question, “Is the growth of my lower-performing students such that it is reducing the achievement gap?”

 Graduation rate - Schools earn points through the same methodology as proficiency: by the percentage of the subgroups that reach the AYP target for graduation rates. Minnesota is using a new, federally-mandated, cohort-adjusted graduation rate calculation methodology.

In summary, the MMR is generated by dividing the total number of points earned by the total number of points possible. The percentage of possible points that each school earns will generate a Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR).
Source: 
http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/SchSup/ESEA/FedAcc/005949
 


Mississippi Annual Performance Report Score

Once the scores for Academic Achievement, Subgroup Achievement, College and Career or High School Readiness, Attendance Rate and Graduation Rate have been generated, they are combined into a single score. The APR score is used to differentiate among LEA performance, and to make classification determinations of accreditation, Accredited with Distinction, Accredited, Provisional and Unaccredited. 
Missouri
Annual Performance Report Score (APR)

Total points earned is divided by the total points possible for the school or LEA then multiplied by 100 to determine the percent of points earned rounded to the tenth. The total percent of points possible earned is then used at the district level to determine a district’s accreditation status. The accreditation status of three (3) consecutive APRs is then used to inform district classification recommendations to the State Board of Education. 
Montana None specified (except for determining AYP)
Nebraska Status scores- Status is calculated by determining the average of all the students’ scale scores. For example in reading for grades 3-5, all the students’ scale scores for reading will be added together and divided by the number of students.
Improvement Scores
- Improvement is calculated as the average scale score for all students in a group (i.e. third grade) one year compared to average scale score of the students in the same group (i.e. third grade) the next year. For example, all scores for students in grade 3 are averaged. The second year the scores are averaged for all students in grades 3. The difference in the two averages is the improvement. The two groups contain different individuals.
Growth Scores- Growth is a calculation in which the scale scores of the same individual students are matched—and the differences found. For example, student A takes the reading test in grade 3. He earns a 135 scale score. In grade 4 the same student takes the 4th grade reading test and earns a 140 scale score. His scale score from grade 3 is subtracted from the scale score for grade 4; the difference of 5 points is the growth. The differences in scale scores are averaged for all students in the group. For growth to be included for a student, the student must be in the same school district both years of the NeSA testing.
Nevada Index

The Nevada School Performance Framework or NSPF produces an index score based on 100 points for each of Nevada's public schools. The basis was determined using the performance of Nevada schools from the 2010-2011 school year. These thresholds determine leveled criteria that are rooted in the relative performance of Nevada schools. All of the indicators in the NSFP are measured against established criteria which define 5 levels. The maximum points possible for each indicator are determined by schools that perform at the 95th percentile of schools in that index. In this way, the NSPF sets high but attainable goals for all of Nevada's schools. The indicator levels and associated points can be found on the tables in the full text field. 
New Hampshire None specified
New Jersey Calculation of Annual Progress Targets, which are indicators to measure schools’ progress toward meeting the State proficiency benchmark of 90%
New Mexico
Schools are grouped into categories that have similar proportions of English language learners (ELL), students with disabilities (SWD), ethnicities, economically disadvantaged (ED), and mobile students. Different schools are in each category set. A composite score incorporates all categories into a general measure of at-risk students. Higher ranking schools had more points in that indicator.

Scaled scores (SS) range from 0 to 80, and 40 is the threshold for proficiency (on grade level). For a more detailed history see the NMPED website: http://www.ped.state.nm.us/AssessmentAccountability/AcademicGrowth/NMSBA.html
 

New York Proficiency and growth
North Carolina
0-point grading system with each school being designated as an A, B, C, D, or F
and 
potential inclusion of SAS’s Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) for measuring school growth.

North Dakota None specified (except for determining AYP)
Ohio Performance Index
Performance Indicators
Oklahoma 1.  Fifty percent (50%) on whole school performance, as measured by allocating one point for each student who scores proficient or advanced on the criterion-referenced tests and end-of-instruction tests and alternative test scores divided by the number of students taking the tests;
2.  Twenty-five percent (25%) on whole school growth, as measured by allocating one point for each student who improves proficiency levels or improves substantially within a proficiency level on criterion-referenced tests and end-of-instruction tests divided by the number of students taking the tests; and
3.  Twenty-five percent (25%) on growth in the bottom quartile of students, as measured by allocating one point for each student in the bottom quartile who improves proficiency levels or improves substantially within a proficiency level on criterion-referenced tests and end-of-instruction tests divided by the number of students taking the tests.
Oregon Growth model. Oregon’s approved ESEA waiver application shifts the emphasis to whether schools are helping individual students improve performance from one year to the next, and whether each student is on a trajectory towards eventual college and career readiness. 
Sources: 
http://www.ode.state.or.us/superintendent/priorities/oregon-esea-flexibility-approved_exec-summary.docx
http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/policy/accountability/growth/student-growth-percentiles-faq.pdf


Pennsylvania Growth model
Rhode Island Composite Index Score (CIS)
South Carolina Index - Absolute Ratings
Index - Growth

South Carolina uses a separate system for schools enrolling students in only grade two or below. See full text field for more details.
South Dakota Index

Accountability system is based on a 100-point index, called the School Performance Index, or SPI. The SPI consists of key indicators to measure a school’s performance. A numeric value is assigned to each of the indicators. These values are added to create a total SPI score out of 100 points. 

Two distinct indexes are used: 1) one for elementary/middle school accountability, and 2) one for high school accountability. Portions of the indexes will be phased in, with full implementation in the 2014-15 school year. 

Two metrics--effective teachers and principals and school climate--will take effect with the 2014-15 school year.
Tennessee Tennessee Value Added Assessment System
Grade Scale
Texas Index
(Performance index framework considers four areas 
(including student groups that are part of that index))
Utah A, 100% - 80%;
B, 79% - 70%;
C, 69% - 60%;
D, 59% - 50%; and
F, 49% or less.

When 85% of schools receive an A or B, the State Board of Education is to increase the endpoints of the ranges by five percentage points, except the lower endpoint of the A range may not be greater than 90%.

The board is to lower a school’s grade by one letter grade if: (a) student participation in a statewide assessment is fewer than 95%; or (b) the participation of nonproficient students as determined by prior year test scores is fewer than 95%.

User-added image
Vermont None specified
Virginia
Annual accountability ratings are based on achievement during the previous academic year or combined achievement from the three most recent years. School accreditation and federal accountability ratings for a specific school year are based on student achievement on tests taken during the previous academic year.
Source: report cards https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/report.do?division=All&schoolName=1548
 
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/statistics_reports/school_report_card/accountability_guide.pdf

Washington Index
West Virginia 100-point index
Wisconsin Index
Wyoming Index
American Samoa None evident
Guam Weighted average of numerical equivalents using a combination of indicators appropriate for each level. Extra credit for increasing percentage of students performing at proficient and advanced levels by at least 5 percentage points compared to previous year. 
Puerto Rico None evident except Adequate Yearly Progress status
Virgin Islands None evident

© 2014 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is the only nationwide, nonpartisan interstate compact devoted to education.
To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please fax a request to the attention of the ECS Communications Department, 303.296.8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org.
Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy