School Accountability “Report Cards”<br>Formulas Used to Calculate Performance - Full Text
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 - Full Text

December 2013


Formula full text
Alabama None evident
Alaska

•       Based on all students group
•       Average of % proficient on three tests
•       Reading
•       Writing
•       Math
•       Weighted 35% for grades K-8, 20% for grades 9-12
•       All students tested are included, not just “full academic year” students
•       Growth and proficiency index (capped at 100 points earned)
•       All students group and 4 primary subgroups:
•       AK Native/Am Indian
•       Economically disadvantaged
•       Students with disabilities
•       English learners (LEP students)
•       Subgroups included if 5 or more students test in that subgroup
•       Each subgroup included weighted 10% of progress score; all students group receiving remaining % of weighting
•       Progress indicator weighted at 35% for all grades
•        
For schools that have 25 or fewer students in the cohort (the denominator of the fraction used to compute the graduation rate), the school will receive points on the graduation indicator based on aggregated graduation rate data for up to three consecutive years, including the current year, so that the aggregated cohort (denominator of the fraction) is larger than 25. For schools that have insufficient data to make a graduation rate determination with a cohort of at least 25 students over three consecutive years, and the cohort for the current year is two or fewer, the school will receive 50 points on the graduation rate indicator if the graduation rate for four consecutive years, including the current year, demonstrates progress of at least 3%.
 
User-added image
User-added image
User-added image
User-added image
User-added image

Source: http://education.alaska.gov/akaccountability/esea/ak_waiver_principle2.pptx




 

 

Arizona State statute mandates 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, ADE uses parallel models to evaluate the following types of schools: 
1. Traditional schools 
2. Alternative schools 
3. Small schools 
4. K-2 schools

User-added image


Full academic year = FAY

User-added image
The following equation describes the method used to determine the percentage of students tested on the AIMS and AIMS A assessments. Schools held accountable to the K-2 model utilize the grade two Stanford 10 in assessing the percentage of students tested annually. For schools serving grades other
than K-2 only, the percentage of students tested is based on grade 3 through grade 8 and grade 10. For example, a school that serves grades 6 through 12 would be held accountable for testing all students enrolled in grades 6, 7, 8, and all students enrolled in the tested high school cohort (students enrolled in
their second year of high school). The majority of the students in the tested high school cohort are typically described as grade 10 students; cohort 2016 served as the tested high school cohort for fiscal year 2013.

Percent Tested = .50 (Number of students tested in Reading + Number of students tested in Mathematics) divided by .50 (Number of student enrolled on Reading test date + Number of students enrolled on Mathematics test date)
 
In addition to the 95% tested rule, federal mandates require that no more than 1% of an LEA’s percentage of students passing the statewide assessment come from the state’s alternative assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities. If AIMS A data compose more than 1% of the LEAs percentage of students passing the statewide assessment and there is no approved waiver of the 1% cap for the LEA, the performance level of those students exceeding 1% are recoded as non-passing.

Point Scale
All schools and LEAs, with the exception of alternative schools and LEAs consisting of only alternative schools, were assigned letter grades “A” through “D” using the point bands below. The total points earned by a school or LEA were compared to the classification scale as well as the test participation rate.

A-F Letter Grade Point Scale
A 140 – 200
B 120 - 139
C 100 - 119
D 0 - 99
 
Schools under the Alternative Model used a distribution-based letter grading scale.
More...see link.
 
 http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/files/2013/11/2013-a-f-technical-manual.pdf
Arkansas
Individualized Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) set for each school, district, and the state based on 2011 performance (percent proficient) and growth. The 2010 graduation rate data was used to set graduation rate AMOs. AMOs are yearly targets that each school and district should meet or exceed. Schools, districts and the state will be held accountable for a 50 percent reduction in the proficiency or growth gap, and the graduation rate gap by the year 2017. The proficiency gap is the percentage of students not scoring proficient. Growth measures whether or not a student’s scores improve enough for the student to be on track to proficiency by grade 8. The growth gap is the percentage of students who met growth subtracted from one hundred. The graduation rate gap is the difference between the graduation rate and one hundred.
 
To increase the number of schools accountable for students at risk, the Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG) was formed. The TAGG includes students in any or all of the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, English Learners (EL), and Students with Disabilities (SWD). Under NCLB, a school’s accountability status was not determined by the scores of student groups with less than 40 students. Under Flexibility, accountability status can be determined by the scores of student groups with as few as 25 students. 
 
Under Flexibility, every Arkansas school has been identified as one of the following: Achieving, Exemplary, Needs Improvement, Needs Improvement Focus or Needs Improvement Priority. A description of each classification is stated below: 
 
To be classified as Achieving, the school and district are accountable for meeting performance AMOs or growth AMOs for both math and literacy for All Students and the TAGG. In addition, they must test at least 95 percent of their students. High schools must also meet graduation rate AMOs for All Students and the TAGG. 
 
An Exemplary school based on performance is ranked in the top of its range and the scores were at or above the 99th percentile for grades K-5 or the 95th percentile for grades 6-8 and 9-12. Exemplary performance used test results to calculate a three-year weighted average percentage of students proficient for math and literacy combined for 2009 through 2011. A school can also be identified as Exemplary based on high progress, high TAGG performance or high TAGG progress. Progress was determined by comparing the three-year weighted average percent proficient for 2008 through 2010 to the three-year weighted average percent proficient for 2009 through 2011. 
 
A Needs Improvement school tests less than 95 percent of its students or has proficiency and growth less than the AMOs for All Students or TAGG or has graduation rates less than the AMOs for All Students or TAGG. 
 
Needs Improvement Focus schools include ten percent of Title I schools with the largest achievement gaps between TAGG and non-TAGG students. Non-Title I schools with the same achievement gaps as the selected Title I schools are also included in the Needs Improvement Focus schools group. Focus school calculations were based on 2009 through 2011 data. 
 
Priority schools include five percent of the lowest performing Title I schools based on 2009 through 2011 data. Non-Title I schools with commensurate low performance are also included in the Needs Improvement Priority group. 
 
If a school meets its AMOs for two consecutive years and follows its improvement plans, it becomes eligible to exit the Needs Improvement Focus or Needs Improvement Priority school status.
 
Flexibility is in place through the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years unless ESEA is reauthorized. 
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.

2.02(A) Student Longitudinal Academic Growth.

2.02(A)(1)

2.02(A)(2)

Student longitudinal academic growth shall be calculated based on the percentage of all students enrolled in the Public Schools in the state who attain adequate longitudinal academic growth, Move-Up Growth and Statewide Median Growth, as well as the Median Student Growth among students enrolled in the District’s Public Schools or the Institute’s Public Schools.

The Department shall calculate adequate longitudinal academic growth in such a way that adequate longitudinal academic growth means: (a) Catch-up Growth, for a student who scored at Unsatisfactory or Partially Proficient Achievement Level on the Statewide Assessments in the previous academic year, which is the amount of academic growth necessary to score at the Proficient Achievement Level within three years or by tenth grade, whichever comes sooner; and (b) Keep-up Growth, for a student who scored at the Proficient or Advanced2.02(A)(3)

Achievement Level on the Statewide Assessments in the previous academic year, which is the amount of academic growth necessary to score at the Proficient Achievement Level or higher for the succeeding three years or until the tenth grade, whichever is sooner.

The Department shall calculate Move-Up Growth in such a way that it means, for a student who scores at the Achievement Level of Proficient on the Statewide Assessments, the amount of academic growth the student must attain to score at the Advanced performance level on Statewide Assessments within three years or by tenth grade, whichever is sooner.

2.02(B) Student Achievement on the Statewide Assessments.

2.02(B)(1)

2.02(B)(2)

Student achievement on the Statewide Assessments shall be calculated based on the percentage of all students enrolled in the Public Schools in the state who score at each of the Achievement Levels included in the Statewide Assessments.

For purposes of calculating student achievement on the Statewide Assessments, the Department shall determine, for each student enrolled in a Public School in the state, the student’s Achievement Level in the subjects included in the Statewide Assessments, as demonstrated by the score achieved by the student on the Statewide Assessments.

2.02(C) Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness.

2.02(C)(1) Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness shall be calculated based on the following information:

2.02(C)(1)(a)

2.02(C)(1)(b)

2.02(C)(1)(c)

either: (i) the overall percentages of students enrolled in the eleventh grade in the public high schools of the state who score at each Achievement Level on the standardized, curriculum- based, achievement, college entrance examination administered as a Statewide Assessment; or (ii) following the adoption of a Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Assessment, as described in § 22-7-1003(16), C.R.S., the percentages of students enrolled in each of the grade levels included in the public high schools statewide who score at each Achievement Level on the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Assessment administered by the public high schools;

the statewide student dropout rate and the statewide student graduation rate, as defined by section 13.00 of these rules. In evaluating the level of attainment on student dropout and graduation rates, the Commissioner, to the extent practicable, shall ensure that Districts, the Institute, and Public Schools are not penalized for re-engaging students and ensuring that all students successfully graduate; and

beginning with the 2011-12 school year or as soon as practicable, the overall percentage of all students graduating from the public high schools of the state who receive diplomas that are endorsed for Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness, as described in § 22-7-1009(1), C.R.S., and the percentage who

received diplomas that are endorsed for exemplary demonstration of Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness, as described in § 22-7-1009(2), C.R.S.

2.02(D) Progress Made on Closing the Achievement and Growth Gaps.

2.02(D)(1) Progress made on closing the achievement and growth gaps shall be calculated based on the following information disaggregated by Student Group:

2.02(D)(2)

To calculate progress made on closing the achievement and growth gaps, the Department shall compare the percentages and the assessment Achievement Levels across Student Groups to determine progress made by the Public Schools of the state in increasing over time each Student Group’s longitudinal academic growth, academic achievement, Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness, and graduation rate, and in decreasing each Student Group’s dropout rate, especially for those Student Groups who are underperforming in comparison to other groups.
Source: http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/accountability/downloads/1ccr301-1-june2012.pdf

Colorado

9.02 (A)Student Longitudinal Academic Growth. Student longitudinal academic growth shall be calculated based on the following:

9.02 (A) (1) the percentage of all students enrolled in the Public School who attain adequate longitudinal academic growth, as calculated pursuant to section 2.02 (A) (2) of these rules;
9.02 (A) (2) the percentage of all students enrolled in the Public School who attain Move-up Growth as calculated pursuant to section 2.02 (A) (3) of these rules;

9.02 (A) (3) the percentage of all students enrolled in the Public School who attain Statewide Median Growth; and

9.02 (A) (4) the Median Student Growth among students enrolled in the Public School.

9.02 (B)Student Achievement on the Statewide Assessments.

Student achievement on the Statewide Assessments shall be calculated based on the percentage of all students enrolled in the Public School who score at each of the Achievement Levels included in the Statewide Assessments, as calculated pursuant to section 2.02 (B) (2) of these rules.

9.02(C) Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness.

Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness shall be calculated for each public high school based on the following information:

9.02(C)(1)

the overall percentages of students enrolled in the eleventh grade in the Public School who score at each Achievement Level on the standardized, curriculum-based, achievement, college entrance examination administered as a Statewide Assessment or the percentages of students enrolled in each of the grade levels included in the Public School who score at each Achievement Level on the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Assessments administered by the Public School;9.02(C)(2)

9.02(C)(3)

beginning with the 2011-12 school year and for each school year thereafter, the overall percentage of all students graduating from the Public School who receive diplomas that are endorsed for Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness as described in § 22-7- 1009(1), C.R.S., and the percentage who received diplomas that are endorsed for exemplary demonstration of postsecondary or workforce readiness as described in § 22-7-1009(2), C.R.S.; and

the Public School’s dropout rate and graduation rate, as calculated pursuant to section 13.00 of these rules.

9.02(D) Progress made on closing the achievement and growth gaps.

9.02(D)(1) Progress made on closing the achievement and growth gaps shall be calculated based on the following information disaggregated by Student Group:

9.02(D)(2) The Department shall compare the percentages and the assessment Achievement Levels across Student Groups to determine progress made by the Public School in increasing over time each Student Group’s longitudinal academic growth, academic achievement, Postsecondary

9.02(D)(1)(a) the percentage of students enrolled in the Public School who attain adequate longitudinal academic growth as calculated pursuant to section 2.02(A)(2) of these rules;
9.02(D)(1)(b) the percentage of students enrolled in the Public School who attain Move-up Growth as calculated pursuant to section 2.02(A)(3) of these rules;

9.02(D)(1)(c) the percentage of students enrolled in the Public School who attain statewide median growth;

9.02(D)(1)(d) the Median Student Growth attained by students enrolled in the Public School;
9.02(D)(1)(e) for a public high school, the percentage of students enrolled in the Public School at each grade level who score at each of the Achievement Levels in each of the subjects included in the Statewide Assessments; and

9.02(D)(1)(f) for a public high school, the overall percentage of students enrolled in the eleventh grade in the Public School who score at each Achievement Level on the standardized, curriculum-based achievement college entrance examination or the percentages of students enrolled in each of the grade levels included in the public high schools who score at each Achievement Level on the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Assessments administered by the public high schools; the overall percentages of students graduating from the Public School who receive a diploma that includes a Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness endorsement or an endorsement for exemplary demonstration of Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness; and the Public School’s dropout rateand graduation rate, as calculated pursuant to section 13.00 of these rules.

Source: http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/accountability/downloads/1ccr301-1-june2012.pdf


In terms of Colorado Growth Model, a student growth percentile of 60 indicates the student grew as well or better than 60% of her academic peers. It is not about how that recent test score compares to all the other test scores. Even students with test scores that are very low can receive high growth scores.

 The Adequate Growth calculation combines Catch Up and Keep Up student data into a single number: for Catch Up students, it uses their Catch Up number, and for Keep Up students it uses their Keep Up number.

A student needing to Catch Up had a previous year score in that content area that was below proficient; the growth model tells us the amount of growth that would probably get this student scoring at the proficient level in the near future: his or her Catch Up number. Similarly, a student needing to KeepUp had a previous year score in that content area that was above the minimum required for a Proficient rating; the growth model tells us the amount of growth that would probably keep this student scoring at the proficient level in the near future: his or her Keep Up number. Combining all the Catch Up and Keep Up numbers for every student and taking the median (a kind of average) gives us the amount of growth that these students on the whole needed to be meeting state goals for student achievement.


http://www.schoolview.org/GMFAQ.asp#Q29

Connecticut Sec. 18. Section 10-223e of the 2012 supplement to the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
(a) As used in this section:
(1) "School performance index" means the weighted sum of the subject performance indices for mathematics, reading, writing and science.
(2) "School subject performance index for mathematics" means the sum of the school mastery test data of record, as defined in section 10-262f, for mathematics weighted based on: (A) The percentage of students scoring below basic, (B) the percentage of students scoring at basic, (C) the percentage of students scoring at proficient, (D) the percentage of students scoring at goal, and (E) the percentage of students scoring at advanced, except that the State Board of Education may authorize the use of alternative versions of this formula at grade levels other than elementary grade levels.
(3) "School subject performance index for reading" means the sum of the school mastery test data of record, as defined in section 10-262f, for reading weighted based on: (A) The percentage of students scoring below basic, (B) the percentage of students scoring at basic, (C) the percentage of students scoring at proficient, (D) the percentage of students scoring at goal, and (E) the percentage of students scoring at advanced, except that the State Board of Education may authorize the use of alternative versions of this formula at grade levels other than elementary grade levels.
(4) "School subject performance index for writing" means the sum of the school mastery test data of record, as defined in section 10-262f, for writing weighted based on: (A) The percentage of students scoring below basic, (B) the percentage of students scoring at basic, (C) the percentage of students scoring at proficient, (D) the percentage of students scoring at goal, and (E) the percentage of students scoring at advanced, except that the State Board of Education may authorize the use of alternative versions of this formula at grade levels other than elementary grade levels.
(5) "School subject performance index for science" means the sum of the school mastery test data of record, as defined in section 10-262f, for science weighted based on: (A) The percentage of students scoring below basic, (B) the percentage of students scoring at basic, (C) the percentage of students scoring at proficient, (D) the percentage of students scoring at goal, and (E) the percentage of students scoring at advanced, except that the State Board of Education may authorize the use of alternative versions of this formula at grade levels other than elementary grade levels.
(6) "Category five schools" means schools with the lowest performance as indicated by factors set forth in the state-wide performance management and support plan, prepared pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, that may include, but are not limited to, the school performance index, change in school performance index over time, growth in student achievement as measured by standardized assessments, and high school graduation and dropout rates for the entire student population and for subgroups of students.
(7) "Category four schools" means schools with the lowest performance other than category five schools as indicated by factors set forth in the state-wide performance management and support plan, prepared pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, that may include, but are not limited to, the school performance index, change in school performance index over time, growth in student achievement as measured by standardized assessments, and high school graduation and dropout rates for the entire student population and for subgroups of students.
(8) "Category three schools" means schools with higher performance than category four and five schools, but lower performance than category one and two schools as indicated by factors set forth in the state-wide performance management and support plan, prepared pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, that may include, but are not limited to, the school performance index, change in school performance index over time, growth in student achievement as measured by standardized assessments, and high school graduation and dropout rates for the entire student population and for subgroups of students.
(9) "Category two schools" means schools that have higher performance than category three, category four and category five schools, but lower performance than category one schools as indicated by factors set forth in the state-wide performance management and support plan, prepared pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, that may include, but are not limited to, the school performance index, change in school performance index over time, growth in student achievement as measured by standardized assessments, and high school graduation and dropout rates for the entire student population and for subgroups of students.
(10) "Category one schools" means schools that have the highest performance as indicated by factors set forth in the state-wide performance management and support plan, prepared pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, that may include, but are not limited to, the school performance index, change in school performance index over time, growth in student achievement as measured by standardized assessments, and high school graduation and dropout rates for the entire student population and for subgroups of students.
(11) "Focus schools" means schools that have a low performing subgroup of students using measures of student academic achievement and growth in the aggregate or for such subgroups over time, including any period of time prior to July 1, 2014.
 

Delaware Delaware revisited the achievement standards in reading, writing and math for students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in the summer of 2005. Educators reviewed
the achievement levels that were set in 1999 and adjusted some of the performance cuts during the review. After the achievement levels were reviewed
and adjusted at grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in reading, writing and math, Delaware educators set five levels of performance for reading, writing and math at grades
4, 6, 7, and 9. The State Board of Education adopted these performance cut scores in the fall of 2005. Three achievement levels were also established for
reading and math at grade 2. The grade 2 assessments have fewer items; therefore three levels of performance were more appropriate than five.
 
Performance below proficiency has been divided into two subcategories to better demonstrate growth below the proficiency level for the growth model. In the
“Well Below” category, performance level 1, the performance cut score for the subcategory at each grade level and in each content area was statistically
determined to be at the scale score point where the cumulative percentage of students scoring in the well below category was fifty percent (50%). For the
“Below the Standard” category, performance level 2, the subcategory was set by dividing the scale score points from the lower bound to the upper bound in half.
The levels at or above proficiency, performance levels 3 through 5, are collapsed into one category. The subcategories are only used in the growth model and not
used in traditional model including status or safe harbor. Cut scores for reading and math have been determined. 

For further details, see: Delaware's approved growth model - 
http://www.doe.k12.de.us/aab/accountability/Accountability_Files/DE_Approved-Growth-Model-110906.pdf

District of Columbia User-added image
Source: http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/release_content/attachments/11_July_2012_DC_ESEA_Flexibility_Request_Name.pdf
Florida This section has been revised by S.B. 1642 (2014)  but not yet updated here. 

(3) 
DESIGNATION OF SCHOOL GRADES.
(a) Each school that has students who are tested and included in the school grading system shall receive a school grade, except as follows:
1. A school shall not receive a school grade if the number of its students tested and included in the school grading system is less than the minimum sample size necessary, based on accepted professional practice, for statistical reliability and prevention of the unlawful release of personally identifiable student data under s. 1002.22 or 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g.
2. An alternative school may choose to receive a school grade under this section or a school improvement rating under s. 1008.341. For charter schools that meet the definition of an alternative school pursuant to State Board of Education rule, the decision to receive a school grade is the decision of the charter school governing board.
3. A school that serves any combination of students in kindergarten through grade 3 which does not receive a school grade because its students are not tested and included in the school grading system shall receive the school grade designation of a K-3 feeder pattern school identified by the Department of Education and verified by the school district. A school feeder pattern exists if at least 60 percent of the students in the school serving a combination of students in kindergarten through grade 3 are scheduled to be assigned to the graded school.
(b)1. A school’s grade shall be based on a combination of:
a. Student achievement scores, including achievement on all FCAT assessments administered under s. 1008.22(3)(c)1., end-of-course assessments administered under s. 1008.22(3)(c)2.a., and achievement scores for students seeking a special diploma.
b. Student learning gains in reading and mathematics as measured by FCAT and end-of-course assessments, as described in s. 1008.22(3)(c)1. and 2.a. Learning gains for students seeking a special diploma, as measured by an alternate assessment tool, shall be included not later than the 2009-2010 school year.
c. Improvement of the lowest 25th percentile of students in the school in reading and mathematics on the FCAT or end-of-course assessments described in s. 1008.22(3)(c)2.a., unless these students are exhibiting satisfactory performance.
2. Beginning with the 2009-2010 school year for schools comprised of high school grades 9, 10, 11, and 12, or grades 10, 11, and 12, 50 percent of the school grade shall be based on a combination of the factors listed in sub-subparagraphs 1.a.-c. and the remaining 50 percent on the following factors:
a. The high school graduation rate of the school;
b. As valid data becomes available, the performance and participation of the school’s students in College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate courses, dual enrollment courses, and Advanced International Certificate of Education courses; and the students’ achievement of national industry certification identified in the Industry Certification Funding List, pursuant to rules adopted by the State Board of Education;
c. Postsecondary readiness of the school’s students as measured by the SAT, ACT, or the common placement test;
d. The high school graduation rate of at-risk students who scored at Level 2 or lower on the grade 8 FCAT Reading and Mathematics examinations;
e. As valid data becomes available, the performance of the school’s students on statewide standardized end-of-course assessments administered under 1s. 1008.22(3)(c)2.b. and c.; and
f. The growth or decline in the components listed in sub-subparagraphs a.-e. from year to year.
(c) Student assessment data used in determining school grades shall include:
1. The aggregate scores of all eligible students enrolled in the school who have been assessed on the FCAT and statewide, standardized end-of-course assessments in courses required for high school graduation, including, beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, the end-of-course assessment in Algebra I; and beginning with the 2011-2012 school year, the end-of-course assessments in geometry and Biology; and beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, on the statewide, standardized end-of-course assessment in civics education at the middle school level.
2. The aggregate scores of all eligible students enrolled in the school who have been assessed on the FCAT and end-of-course assessments as described in s. 1008.22(3)(c)2.a., and who have scored at or in the lowest 25th percentile of students in the school in reading and mathematics, unless these students are exhibiting satisfactory performance.
3. The achievement scores and learning gains of eligible students attending alternative schools that provide dropout prevention and academic intervention services pursuant to s. 1003.53. The term “eligible students” in this subparagraph does not include students attending an alternative school who are subject to district school board policies for expulsion for repeated or serious offenses, who are in dropout retrieval programs serving students who have officially been designated as dropouts, or who are in programs operated or contracted by the Department of Juvenile Justice. The student performance data for eligible students identified in this subparagraph shall be included in the calculation of the home school’s grade. As used in this section and s. 1008.341, the term “home school” means the school to which the student would be assigned if the student were not assigned to an alternative school. If an alternative school chooses to be graded under this section, student performance data for eligible students identified in this subparagraph shall not be included in the home school’s grade but shall be included only in the calculation of the alternative school’s grade. A school district that fails to assign the FCAT and end-of-course assessment as described in s.1008.22(3)(c)2.a. scores of each of its students to his or her home school or to the alternative school that receives a grade shall forfeit Florida School Recognition Program funds for 1 fiscal year. School districts must require collaboration between the home school and the alternative school in order to promote student success. This collaboration must include an annual discussion between the principal of the alternative school and the principal of each student’s home school concerning the most appropriate school assignment of the student.
4. For schools comprised of high school grades 9, 10, 11, and 12, or grades 10, 11, and 12, the data listed in subparagraphs 1.-3. and the following data as the Department of Education determines such data are valid and available:
a. The high school graduation rate of the school as calculated by the Department of Education;
b. The participation rate of all eligible students enrolled in the school and enrolled in College Board Advanced Placement courses; International Baccalaureate courses; dual enrollment courses; Advanced International Certificate of Education courses; and courses or sequence of courses leading to national industry certification identified in the Industry Certification Funding List, pursuant to rules adopted by the State Board of Education;
c. The aggregate scores of all eligible students enrolled in the school in College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate courses, and Advanced International Certificate of Education courses;
d. Earning of college credit by all eligible students enrolled in the school in dual enrollment programs under s. 1007.271;
e. Earning of a national industry certification identified in the Industry Certification Funding List, pursuant to rules adopted by the State Board of Education;
f. The aggregate scores of all eligible students enrolled in the school in reading, mathematics, and other subjects as measured by the SAT, the ACT, and the common placement test for postsecondary readiness;
g. The high school graduation rate of all eligible at-risk students enrolled in the school who scored at Level 2 or lower on the grade 8 FCAT Reading and Mathematics examinations;
h. The performance of the school’s students on statewide standardized end-of-course assessments administered under 1s. 1008.22(3)(c)2.b. and c.; and
i. The growth or decline in the data components listed in sub-subparagraphs a.-h. from year to year.
The State Board of Education shall adopt appropriate criteria for each school grade. The criteria must also give added weight to student achievement in reading. Schools designated with a grade of “C,” making satisfactory progress, shall be required to demonstrate that adequate progress has been made by students in the school who are in the lowest 25th percentile in reading and mathematics on the FCAT and end-of-course assessments as described in s. 1008.22(3)(c)2.a., unless these students are exhibiting satisfactory performance. Beginning with the 2009-2010 school year for schools comprised of high school grades 9, 10, 11, and 12, or grades 10, 11, and 12, the criteria for school grades must also give added weight to the graduation rate of all eligible at-risk students, as defined in this paragraph. Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year, in order for a high school to be designated as having a grade of “A,” making excellent progress, the school must demonstrate that at-risk students, as defined in this paragraph, in the school are making adequate progress.
(4) SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT RATINGS.The annual report shall identify each school’s performance as having improved, remained the same, or declined. This school improvement rating shall be based on a comparison of the current year’s and previous year’s student and school performance data. Schools that improve at least one grade level are eligible for school recognition awards pursuant to s.1008.36.

Source: 
http://archive.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=1000-1099/1008/Sections/1008.34.html

Georgia Greatest Gain in Percentage of Students Meeting and Exceeding Standards
or
Highest Percentage of Students Meeting and Exceeding Standards
 
The Performance Index recognizes schools with the greatest gains and schools with the highest percentage meeting and exceeding standards.
• Includes Full Academic Year (FAY) student assessment results.
• Utilizes scores from grades 1-8 for all 5 CRCT subjects (reading, English language arts, math, science, social studies).
• Utilizes scores from 4 GHSGT subjects (English, math, science, social studies) from grade 11 first time test takers.

The state has a data system with a unique student identifier that allows for assessment data to be tracked and matched from year to year for each student. 
The proposed growth model assigns points based on the combination of a student’s performance level in two consecutive years (see value tables in 
Appendix I). The calculations for the content areas of reading and math are done separately. Points are assigned to the outcomes that are more highly valued by 
the NCLB stakeholder group. The model values individual student growth from one year to the next and increases the validity and reliability of the state’s 
accountability system. This is realized by not misclassifying schools or districts that are indeed helping the lowest achieving students move toward or to 
proficient and then maintaining proficiency. 

Hawaii None specified
Idaho 100-point scale. All of the measures are rolled into a cumulative measure.
For More details: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/assessment/docs/Star%20Rating%20Business%20Rules%20Spring%202013_FINAL.pdf
Illinois None specified
Indiana Accountability System Review Panel's recommendations (October 2013):

IV. SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
The Panel recommends the following interdependent components for the Indiana school accountability system:
(1) The grading scale for the A - F system, currently a 4-point scale, will be changed to a 100-point scale.
(2) The accountability system model will have different frameworks for grades 1-8 and grades 9-12.
(3) The accountability system will have two domains: performance and growth.
(4) The model will allow for changes in assessments, including any new assessments that may be selected once CCR standards are adopted as required under HEA 1427-2013.
(5) As required under IC 20-31-8-1, the performance of a school's students on the ISTEP program test and other assessments recommended by the Education Roundtable and approved by the State Board are the primary and majority means of assessing a school's improvement.
(6) The model will include the data points to measure reading growth and performance in grades 1-10 (possibly to grade 11), when data becomes available. 
(7) The model will measure CCR indicators in both domains of performance and growth.
(8) The CCR indicators will include the PSAT as a data point.
(9) The model will measure targeted growth.
(10) The targeted growth for each student will be determined annually.
(11) The model will measure categorical growth improvement.
(12) The model will allow targeted growth to be measured for high school when data becomes available following the adoption by the State Board of new assessments that enable the development of a vertical scale.
(13) The model will use improvement rates as data points for growth in the 10th to 12th grade.
(14) The model will retain the CCR goal at 25% student attainment (the current level) and the data will be multiplied by 4 to create points. The model will allow for an increase in the significance of the CCR goal.
(15) The model will use a categorical improvement indicator for the super subgroups in the growth domain.
(16) Title I category descriptors will be aligned with the model by identifying terms that align with A - F categories of the accountability system; however, the Panel makes no recommendation concerning what the terms should be.
(17) The model will be developed to have vertical scale alignment with assessments in grades 1-10 (possibly grade 11).
(18) The model will expand to at least 5 performance categories that are delineated within the current 3 performance levels to show improvement in growth.
http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/news/asrpgb1-rp.pdf

Iowa None specified
Kansas None specified
Kentucky User-added image
(Excerpt from revised, approved ESEA flexibility request: http://education.ky.gov/comm/UL/Documents/Revised%20Approved%20KY%20ESEA%20flexibility%20waiver%20Sept%2028%202012%20final%20version%20mam.pdf)
Louisiana See formula summary.
Maine None specified
Maryland The School Progress Index (SPI) and the school’s result on each of the Indicators of the Index will give the school a very clear picture of their progress to meeting targets. Once the School Progress Index is calculated (with values of 0 to 1 or greater), the scores will be broken into five strands for identifying interventions, support, and recognition to schools. Schools in Strand 1 will be schools meeting all targets and schools not meeting any of their targets will likely be in Strand 5. Although schools will, as always, have very unique profiles, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) will group the schools based on a measure of the magnitude of the issues these schools face when meeting their targets. This Strand categorization allows MSDE and the Local Education Agency (LEA) to differentiate resources to schools by magnitude of need while precise diagnosis occurs at the school.

STRAND 1
If schools fall into Strand 1, the schools have a School Progress Index score of 1.0 or better and will have met their targets for Achievement, Gap, and Growth (elementary/middle schools) or Achievement, Gap, and College- and Career-Readiness indicators (high schools) per grade span. These schools are usually meeting and exceeding the academic standards for all students. Schools that score in this Strand may have met the minimum standards set by the State for closing the achievement gaps but will, through development of the School Improvement Plan (SIP), want to set even higher standards. Additionally, schools will examine the data they have that indicate any need whether academic, physical, emotional, or cultural and develop intervention plans.

Monitoring for these schools is left to the LEA and its theory of action. Each year the LEA will review the SIPs of a random sample of one to three percent of the schools in Strand 1. The LEA Superintendent will report on the examination of these plans through the Master Plan process (reviewed by MSDE) assuring that any omissions or inadequacies will be addressed in these and all other SIPs. This will allow MSDE to have insight into the School Improvement Plan process from the school’s perspective and the school will receive feedback that will assist with the continued improvement of the school’s ability to diagnose and prescribe interventions.

STRAND 2
If schools fall into Strand 2, the schools have a School Progress Index score greater than or equal to 0.9 and will have met at least two of their three targets for Achievement, Gap, and Growth (elementary/middle schools) or Achievement, Gap, and College- and Career-Readiness indicators (high schools) per grade span. The successes and challenges of schools in Strand 2 will be varied. Schools may excel at Mathematics but lag in reading or vice-versa. In this case, the balance of Achievement, Growth, Gap Reduction and College- and Career-Readiness Goals can yield relatively high-performing schools with targeted needs that, when addressed, could lead them to enter Strand 1.

STRAND 3
If schools fall into Strand 3, the schools have a School Progress Index score greater than or equal to 0.9 and have met at least one of their three targets for Achievement, Gap, and Growth (elementary/middle schools) or Achievement, Gap, and College- and Career-Readiness indicators (high schools) per grade span. Strand 3 schools will show an increase in the intensity of needs identified by the School Improvement Process. Schools in Strand 3 may have multiple subgroups struggling to achieve standards or may have intensive, pervasive problems for one very low-performing subgroup. 

STRAND 4
If schools fall into Strand 4, the schools have a School Progress Index score greater than or equal to 0.9 and have not met any of their targets for Achievement, Gap, and Growth (elementary/middle schools) or Achievement, Gap, and College- and Career-Readiness indicators (high schools) per grade span. Strand 4 schools are those that are generally not meeting targets. These schools fall close to the bottom of progress for schools in the State. They are not identified as falling into the last strand but they are near that point. Rarely will these schools have focused problems with one specific subgroup. Most often, a systemic change will be necessary to address all instruction as well as those ancillary supports, like classroom management training, that can prevent other problems from interfering with instruction. Support for the improvement of instruction, the retraining of the leadership staff, and intensified outreach to families to become involved with their child’s school should be addressed by all schools in this strand and with LEA oversight. LEAs should look carefully at the existing supports in the schools to determine effectiveness of the current path to improvement. Schools with serious needs require the attention and support of the whole community and Strand 4 schools will consider intentional activities to create community involvement.

STRAND 5
If schools fall into Strand 5, the schools have a School Progress Index score lower than 0.9 but may have met as many as two of their targets for Achievement, Gap, and Growth (elementary/middle schools) or Achievement, Gap, and College- and Career-Readiness indicators (high schools) per grade span. The lowest-progressing schools in the State will fall into Strand 5. Schools falling into this strand will generally display school-wide issues that require additional, differentiated services from the LEA. These schools are also going to present the most need from student services. Required supports for Strand 5 schools that are not Title I include using the School Improvement Grant (SIG) process. The SIG process provides clear needs assessments and support through the LEA Turnaround offices. Those Title I schools in this Strand may have access to additional school improvement dollars with well defined plans for improvement. All schools, Title I or non-Title I, will receive differentiated support from the LEA.

http://msp.msde.state.md.us/SpiStrands.aspx?PV=14:0:15:0812:3
Massachusetts

Composite Performance Index or CPI shall mean a 100-point index that assigns 100, 75, 50, 25, or 0 points to each student participating in MCAS and MCAS-Alt tests based on their performance. The total points assigned to each student are added together and the sum is divided by the total number of students assessed. The result is a number between 0 and 100, which constitutes a district, school or group's CPI for that subject and student group. The CPI is a measure of the extent to which students are progressing toward proficiency (a CPI of 100) in English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics, and science. CPIs are generated separately for ELA, mathematics, and science, and at all levels-state, district, school, and student group.

 
Classification of schools. All schools with sufficient data, including charter schools, are classified into Levels 1-5, with schools that are meeting their gap-narrowing goals in Level 1 and those that require the most intervention and assistance in Levels 3, 4, and 5. “Sufficient data” means that, at a minimum, at least 20 students in a school or at least 30 students in a subgroup were assessed on ELA and mathematics MCAS tests.
 
Approximately eighty percent of schools are classified into Level 1 or 2 based on the cumulative PPI for all students and high needs students. For a school to be classified into Level 1, the cumulative PPI for all students and high needs students must be 75 or higher, and at least 95 percent of all student groups in a school must be assessed on ELA, mathematics, and science MCAS tests. If either condition is not met, the school is classified into Level 2.
 
A school is classified into Level 3 if: it is among the lowest performing 20 percent relative to other schools in its school type category statewide as measured by the school percentile; one or more subgroups in the school are among the lowest performing 20 percent of subgroups relative to all subgroups statewide; the school has persistently low graduation rates (defined as a 2012 four-year cohort graduation of less than 60 percent and 2011, 2010, and 2009 five-year cohort graduation rates of less than 60 percent) for any student group; or the school has very low MCAS participation rates for any group (less than 90 percent).
 
The lowest achieving, least improving Level 3 schools are candidates for classification into Levels 4 and 5, the most serious designations in Massachusetts’ accountability system. The decision to classify a school into Level 4 or 5 is made by the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education.
 
A small number of schools each year are not classified into a level: very small schools, schools ending in grades PK, K, 1 or 2, and schools without four years of sufficient data.
Table 9: School classifications and potential reasons
Level Reason Description
Insufficient data Insufficient data Very small schools, schools ending in grades 1 or 2 or new schools
Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals Schools for which the cumulative PPI for all students and high needs students is 75 or higher that do not otherwise meet the criteria for classification into Levels 2-5
Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals Schools for which the cumulative PPI for all students and/or high needs students is 74 or lower that do not otherwise meet the criteria for classification into Levels 3-5
Low MCAS participation (less than 95%) Schools with less than 95 percent participation for any group in any subject that do not otherwise meet the criteria for classification into Levels 3-5
Level 3 Among lowest performing 20% of schools Schools with school percentiles between 1 and 20 that do not otherwise meet the criteria for classification into Levels 4-5
Among lowest performing 20% of subgroups Schools with one or more student subgroups (A) placing in the 20th percentile or lower relative to all subgroups in the state, and (B) placing in the 20th percentile or lower relative to that particular subgroup within the school type category, that do not otherwise meet the criteria for classification into Levels 4-5; designated  focus schools
Among lowest performing 20% of schools and subgroups Schools meeting both of the above criteria that do not otherwise meet the criteria for classification into Levels 4-5; designated  focus schools
Persistently low graduation rate for one or more groups Schools in which one or more groups in the school has a 2012 four-year cohort graduation of less than 60 percent and 2011, 2010, and 2009 five-year cohort graduation rates of less than 60 percent that do not otherwise meet the criteria for classification into Levels 4-5
Very low MCAS participation (less than 90%) Schools with less than 90 percent participation for any group in any subject that do not otherwise meet the criteria for classification into Levels 4-5
Level 4 Among lowest achieving and least improving schools Level 3 schools classified into Level 4 by the commissioner
Level 5 Chronically underperforming school Level 4 schools classified into Level 5 by the commissioner

 

Commendation schools

A subset of Level 1 schools are recognized as Commendation schools for their academic accomplishments. Commendation schools are identified for one or more of the following reasons:
 
High achievement: High achieving schools are those with the highest relative performance in both the aggregate and for the high-needs subgroup across the PPI achievement indicators (i.e., CPI, percent Warning/Failing, percent Advanced, annual dropout rate, and four-year and five-year cohort graduation rates). To be eligible to be commended for high achievement, a school must

  • Be classified in Level 1;
  • Assess 30 or more high needs students in each of the last four years;
  • Rank within the top 10 percent of schools (90th percentile) in the same school type category for both the aggregate and the high needs subgroup;
  • Demonstrate improvement on the CPI for all subgroups in both ELA and mathematics over the most recent four school years;  and
  • For high schools, achieve an aggregate five-year cohort graduation rate of 94 percent or higher.
High progress: High progress schools are those with the highest relative performance on the PPI growth/improvement indicators (median SGP and changes in CPI) in both ELA and mathematics for students in the aggregate. To be eligible to be commended for high progress, a school must:
  • Be classified in Level 1;
  • Assess 20 or more students in the aggregate in each of the most recent four years;
  • Rank within the top 10 percent of schools in the same school type category on the PPI growth/improvement indicators for students in the aggregate;
  • Demonstrate improvement on the CPI in the aggregate and for all subgroups in both ELA and mathematics over the most recent four years; and 
  • For high schools, demonstrate improvement in the five-year cohort graduation rate for students in the aggregate over the most recent four years of data, or achieve an aggregate five-year cohort graduation rate of 94 percent or higher for three consecutive years.
Narrowing proficiency gaps: Schools commended for narrowing proficiency gaps are those with the highest relative performance on the PPI growth/improvement indicators in both ELA and mathematics for students in the high needs subgroup. To be eligible to be commended for narrowing proficiency gaps, a school must:
  • Be classified in Level 1;
  • Assess 30 or more high-needs students in each of the most recent four years;
  • Rank within the top 10 percent of schools in the same school type category on the PPI growth/improvement indicators for students in the high needs subgroup; 
  • Demonstrate improvement on the CPI for all subgroups in both ELA and mathematics over the most recent four years; and 
  • For high schools, demonstrate improvement in the five-year cohort graduation rate for students in the high needs subgroup over the most recent four years of data, or achieve a five-year cohort graduation rate of 94 percent or higher for the high needs subgroup for three consecutive years.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/accountability/
(NOTE: “Criteria for awarding Progress and Performance Index (PPI) points to districts, schools, and subgroups” here: http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/ayp/2013/PPICriteria.pdf)
 
Michigan
  • Reward Schools, based on the top 5% of schools in the ranking as well as the schools with the highest improvement values from this list. Beating the Odds schools, which are those schools either outperforming their expected ranking or outperforming other similarly-situated schools, are also Reward Schools.
  • Focus Schools, based on the achievement gap component of this list.
  • Priority (formerly Persistently Lowest Achieving), Schools based on the bottom 5% of this list.
     
All schools are included in the ranking if they have two years of assessment data for 30 or more full academic year students in two or more tested subjects.
 
PRIORITY SCHOOL - Identified in bottom 5% if Michigan’s Top-to-Bottom list of schools FOCUS SCHOOLS – Identified as the ten percent (10%) of MI schools having the widest gap
In student achievement between their lowest and highest performing students.
The top to bottom ranking uses three metrics: Achievement, Improvement in achievement, gaps in achievement.
REWARD SCHOOLS consist of schools that made AYP and were also identified in one of three ways below: Beating the Odds schools are those that are overcoming traditional barriers to student achievement and are outperforming schools with similar risk factors and demographic makeup.

Identification as a Reward School results from:
  • Making Adequate Yearly Progress
AND
  • Achieving one or more of the following distinctions:
-   Being in the top 5% of the Top-to-Bottom ranking
-   Being in the top 5% of schools on the improvement metric in the Top-to-Bottom ranking
-   Being a school identified as “Beating the Odds” (BTO). BTO schools will be identified in fall 2012.
  • Determined by Based on the Top-to-Bottom (TTB) ranking methodology which includes data from:
-       Achievement results
-       Improvement results
-        Achievement gap results
  • All tested subjects are included in the ranking where possible for a school.
  • A ranking is determined for all schools with 2 years of data for:
-   30 or more students
-   In 2 or more tested subjects
  • After all schools are ranked based on achievement, improvement, and achievement gap, the highest 5% of ranked schools are designated as Reward Schools.
 
Minnesota User-added image
Source: http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=005941&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary

Also see pp. 58-60 of H.F. 630 (enacted May 2013):  http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS88/HF0630.4.pdf
Mississippi See details at: http://ors.mde.k12.ms.us/report/lettergrade.aspx

Missouri Missouri MSIP 5 chart
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. 
 
Notes: 
• Three (3) APRs, each reflecting three (3) years of performance data, will be used for classification recommendations. This means that for the vast majority of districts, the department will review a district’s 2013 APR, 2014 APR, and 2015 APR for MSIP 5 accreditation classifications in fall of 2015. If a district’s accreditation warrants a change from its classification prior to 2015, the district’s fourth cycle APR will be reviewed in conjunction with the MSIP 5 APR. 
• The percent of overall points may be earned through Status, Progress or Growth (where applicable). 
• APR Reports located in Missouri Comprehensive Data System at http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/Pages/default.aspx. 
 
http://www.dese.mo.gov/qs/documents/MSIP-5-comprehensive-guide-3-13.pdf 
 

Montana None specified (except for determining AYP)
Nebraska None specified
Nevada  
How is the NSPF index score computed?
The Nevada School Performance Framework index score is a composite of several performance indicators, each worth a predetermined maximum number of points. Each performance indicator is itself a composition of multiple factors. The index score is the sum of all of these factors that is then measured against the star rating criteria. Details regarding the performance indicators and their factors can be found on the "Index Point Criteria" page.
Elementary/Middle School Index (100 points possible)
Growth (40 points possible)
  Math Reading
School Median Growth Percentile (MGP) 10 10
Overall % of Students Meeting Adequate Growth Percentile (AGP) 10 10
Status (30 points possible)
Overall % of Students Meeting Proficiency Expectations 15 15
Gap (20 points possible)
% of IEP, ELL and FRL Students Meeting AGP 10 10
Other Indicator (10 points possible)
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) 10
 
The Nevada School Performance Framework index score is a composite of several performance indicators, each worth a predetermined maximum number of points. Each performance indicator is itself a composition of multiple factors. The index score is the sum of all of these factors that is then measured against the star rating criteria. Details regarding the performance indicators and their factors can be found on the "Index Point Criteria" page.
High School Index (100 points possible)
Status/Growth (30 points possible)
  Math Reading
Overall % of 10th Grade Students Meeting Proficiency Expectations 5 5
Cumulative % of 11th Grade Students Meeting Proficiency Expectations 5 5
School Median Growth Percentile for 10th Grade (MGP) 5 5
Gap (10 points possible)
Cumulative % of 11th Grade IEP, ELL, FRL Proficiency Gap 5 5
Graduation (30 points possible)
Overall Graduation Rate 15
Graduation Rate Gap for IEP, ELL and FRL Students 15
College and Career Readiness (16 points possible)
% of Students in NV Colleges Requiring Remediation 4
% of Students Earning an Advanced Diploma 4
AP Proficiency 4
ACT/SAT Participation 4
Other Indicators (14 points possible)
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) 10
% of 9th Grade Students who are Credit Deficient 4
 Source: http://nspf.doe.nv.gov/Home/Points 
New Hampshire None specified
New Jersey See for details: http://www.state.nj.us/education/title1/accountability/progress/13/understanding.pdf


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

The Statewide C grade was established in the first year of school grading as the midpoint of all schools. It was fixed in 2011 as the framework for all future letter grades and is not recalculated each year.
 
Final letter grades are established at the 90th and 50th percentiles, which represent 75 and 50 points respectively. For high schools that do not have members of 4-year 5-year or 6-year graduation cohorts, the scale is abbreviated and letter grades are adjusted to account for the school's remaining non-cohort indicators or non-cohort years. However high high schools that were graded on this restricted scale have their points adjusted upward to the 100 point scale in order to report 3-year averages.

User-added image

Source: http://webapp2.ped.state.nm.us/SchoolData/docs/1112/SchoolGrading/A-F_School_Grading_Technical_Guide_2012_V2.0.pdf 
New York
Subdivision (j) establishes the Performance Criteria (Elementary-Middle Level and High School English language arts and mathematics, 
Elementary-Middle Level science and graduation rate) used to make school and school district accountability determinations; the Annual Measurable Objectives for English language arts, mathematics, and science; and the goals and progress targets for the four year and five year graduation rate cohorts. The subdivision also defines the annual high school cohort, the annual high school alternative cohort, and the graduation rate cohorts. 
 
Subdivision (k) specifies the processes by which schools will be identified for registration review, including special provisions for transfer high schools and schools in Special Act School Districts. 

Excerpt, Regulations:

2. Section 100.18 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education is added, effective September 11, 2012, as follows:
§100.18 ESEA accountability system
(13) Performance criteria shall mean the performance criteria set forth in subdivision (j) of this section.
 (14) Performance levels shall mean:
 (i) for elementary and middle grades:
 (a) Level 1 (Below Standards) 
 (1) not on track to be proficient: a score of level 1 on State assessments in English language arts and mathematics provided that using the student’s threeyear percentile growth targets as established by the commissioner, the student’s growth percentile does not meet or exceed his or her growth percentile target; or the student does not have a growth percentile target; or a score of level 1 on a State alternate assessment. 
 (2) on track to be proficient: a score of level 1 on State assessments in English language arts and mathematics, provided that using the student’s three-year percentile growth targets as established by the commissioner, the student’s growth percentile meets or exceeds his or her growth percentile target; 
 (3) for science: a score of level 1 on State assessments in science or other State assessments, or a score of level 1 on a State alternate assessment;
 (b) Level 2 (Meets Basic Standards)
 (1) not on track to be proficient: a score of level 2 on State assessments in English language arts and mathematics provided that using the student’s three-year percentile growth targets as established by the commissioner, the student’s growth percentile does not meet or exceed his or her growth percentile target; or the student does not have a growth percentile target; or a score of level 2 on a State alternate assessment;
 (2) on track to be proficient: a score of level 2 on State assessments in English language arts and mathematics, provided that using the stud (2) on track to be proficient: a score of level 2 on State assessments in English language arts and mathematics, provided that using the student’s three-year percentile growth targets as established by the commissioner, the student’s growth percentile meets or exceeds his or her growth percentile target;
 (3) for science: a score of level 2 on State assessments in science or other State assessments, or a score of level 2 on a State alternate assessment;
 (c) Level 3 (Meets Proficiency Standards)
 (1) a score of level 3 on State assessments in English language arts, mathematics and science or a score of level 3 on a State alternate assessment;
 (2) a score of 65 or higher on a Regents Examination in science for students in grade eight pursuant to subdivision 100.4(d) of this Part;
 (d) Level 4 (Exceeds Standards): a score of level 4 on State assessments in English language arts, mathematics and science or a score of level 4 on a State alternate assessment;
 (ii) for high school:
 (a) Level 1 (Below Standards)
 (1) a score of 64 or less on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English
or a Regents mathematics examination;
 (2) a failing score on a State-approved alternative examination for those
Regents examinations.
 (3) a score of level 1 on a State alternate assessment;  
 (4) a cohort member who has not been tested on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English or a Regents mathematics examination or State-approved alternative examination for these Regents examinations;
 (b) Level 2 (Meets Basic Standards)
 (1) a score between 65 and 74 on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English or between 65 and 79 on a Regents examination in mathematics.
 (2) a score of level 2 on a State alternate assessment;
 (c) Level 3 (Meets Proficiency Standards)
 (1) a score between 75 and 89 on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English or between 80 and 89 on a Regents examination in mathematics; or passes a State-approved alternative to those Regents examinations;
 (2) a score of level 3 on a State alternate assessment;
 (d) Level 4 (Exceeds Standards)
 (1) a score of 90 or higher on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English or a Regents mathematics examination;
 (2) a score of level 4 on a State alternate assessment;
 (14) Performance index shall be calculated based on the student performance levels as follows:
 (i) For elementary and middle grades, each student scoring at level 1 who is not on track to be proficient will be credited with 0 points, each student scoring at level 2 who is not on track to be proficient with 100 points, and each student scoring at level 1 or 2 who is on track to be proficient or at level 3 or 4 with 200 points. The performance index for each accountability group will be calculated by summing the points and dividing by the number of students in the group.
 (ii) For high school, each student scoring at level 1 will be credited with 0 points, each student scoring at level 2 with 100 points, and each student scoring at level 3 or 4  with 200 points. The performance index for each accountability group will be calculated by summing the points and dividing by the number of students in the group.
 (15) Student growth means the change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time.
 (16) Student growth percentile means the result of a statistical model that calculates each student’s change in achievement between two or more points in time on a State assessment and compares each student’s performance to that of similarly achieving students.
 (17) Median student growth percentile means the result of rank-ordering the student growth percentile results for an accountability group at the school, district, or state level.
 (18) The student growth percentile target means the rate of annual growth necessary in English language arts and mathematics for a student to meet proficiency standards in three years, or by 8th grade, whichever is earlier.  

Source: http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2012Meetings/September2012/912p12a2.pdf
 
Additional source: Summary of ESEA flexibility waiver - http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/ESEAFlexibilityWaiver.html

North Carolina Calculation Methodology
To calculate the school performance grades, use the state mean to set the criteria for each
indicator and then translate to a point scale for A, B, C, D, and F reporting. The criteria will be
static, or fixed, and periodically re-visited. This provides schools an opportunity to demonstrate
progress over time.
 
The first step is to analyze the statewide data to determine, for each component of the School
Performance Grades, the state mean, or average performance, and standard deviation. Using the
state mean as the center of the distribution, values will be converted to a scale for use in applying
letter grades, consistent with a point scale as specified in the Session Law. In order to prevent
extreme values for any given component from skewing the final grade, each component will be
capped on each end of the scale.
 
The positive outcomes of this methodology are that it allows for each indicator to be reported
based on the true statewide performance of students, increasing the validity of the overall grade.
Starting with the state mean as the baseline in year one of calculating school performance grades
ensures that the grades will meaningfully differentiate between schools. The relative difficulty of
the indicators are, in some cases, unknown at this point (the new EOCs and EOGs). In the cases
where the relative difficulty of achieving the standards for each indicator are known, they are
quite variable in difficulty. Starting with the state mean to assign points, ensures that the
indicators that are easier to achieve will not inflate all schools’ grades and indicators that are
harder to achieve will not deflate all schools’ grades.
 
Growth
Incorporate growth as a one-step increase in the letter grade for schools that meet or exceed
growth expectations as calculated by EVAAS.
 
Given this, the NCDPI has recommended increasing a school’s grade by one letter grade if the school
meets or exceeds growth. For example, a school with a letter grade of C that met growth would
have a final letter grade of B. 
Source: http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/JLEOC/Reports%20Received/2013%20Reports%20Received/School%20Performance%20Grades%20Report.pdf

North Dakota None specified (except for determining AYP)
Ohio Performance Indicators show how many students have a minimum, or proficient, level of knowledge. These indicators are based on a series of 24 state tests that measure the level of achievement for each student in a grade and subject. For each test, starting in the 2013-14 school year, a district or school needs to have 80 percent of their students reach “proficient” or better in order to “meet” an indicator. This change signals that more students are expected to be at least proficient.
 
The Performance Index measures the achievement of every student, not just whether or not they reach “proficient.” Schools receive points for every
student’s level of achievement. The higher the student’s level, the more points the school applies towards its index. This rewards schools and districts that
improve the performance of highest and lowest performing students.
Source: 
http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Report-Card/The-New-A-F-Report-Card-1.pdf.aspx


Statutory language:

3302.01 Performance standard definitions.

As used in this chapter:
(A) "Performance index score" means the average of the totals derived from calculations for each subject area of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of the weighted proportion of untested students and students scoring at each level of skill described in division (A)(2) of section 3301.0710 of the Revised Code on the assessments prescribed by divisions (A) and (B)(1) of that section. The department of education shall assign weights such that students who do not take an assessment receive a weight of zero and students who take an assessment receive progressively larger weights dependent upon the level of skill attained on the assessment. The department shall assign additional weights to students who have been permitted to pass over a subject in accordance with a student acceleration policy adopted under section 3324.10 of the Revised Code. If such a student attains the proficient score prescribed under division (A)(2)(c) of section 3301.0710 of the Revised Code or higher on an assessment, the department shall assign the student the weight prescribed for the next higher scoring level. If such a student attains the advanced score, prescribed under division (A)(2)(a) of section 3301.0710 of the Revised Code, on an assessment, the department shall assign to the student an additional proportional weight, as approved by the state board. For each school year that such a student's score is included in the performance index score and the student attains the proficient score on an assessment, that additional weight shall be assigned to the student on a subject-by-subject basis.
Students shall be included in the "performance index score" in accordance with division (K)(2) of section 3302.03 of the Revised Code.
(B) "Subgroup" means a subset of the entire student population of the state, a school district, or a school building and includes each of the following:
(1) Major racial and ethnic groups;
(2) Students with disabilities;
(3) Economically disadvantaged students;
(4) Limited English proficient students;
(5) Students identified as gifted in superior cognitive ability and specific academic ability fields under Chapter 3324. of the Revised Code. For students who are gifted in specific academic ability fields, the department shall use data for those students with specific academic ability in math and reading. If any other academic field is assessed, the department shall also include data for students with specific academic ability in that field.
(6) Students in the lowest quintile for achievement statewide, as determined by a method prescribed by the state board of education.
(C) "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001" includes the statutes codified at 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. and any amendments, waivers, or both thereto, rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to those statutes, guidance documents, and any other policy directives regarding implementation of that act issued by the United States department of education.
(D) "Adequate yearly progress" means a measure of annual academic performance as calculated in accordance with the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."
(E) "Supplemental educational services" means additional academic assistance, such as tutoring, remediation, or other educational enrichment activities, that is conducted outside of the regular school day by a provider approved by the department in accordance with the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."
(F) "Value-added progress dimension" means a measure of academic gain for a student or group of students over a specific period of time that is calculated by applying a statistical methodology to individual student achievement data derived from the achievement assessments prescribed by section 3301.0710 of the Revised Code. The "value-added progress dimension" shall be developed and implemented in accordance with section 3302.021 of the Revised Code.
(G)
(1) "Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate" means the number of students who graduate in four years or less with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for the graduating class.
(2) "Five-year adjusted cohort graduation rate" means the number of students who graduate in five years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for the four-year graduation rate.
(H) "State institution of higher education" has the same meaning as in section 3345.011 of the Revised Code.
(I) "Annual measurable objectives" means a measure of student progress determined in accordance with an agreement between the department of education and the United States department of education.


Oklahoma §70-1210.545 (D through G)
D.  The grade of a school shall be based on a combination of:
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 administered under Section 1210.508 of this title and alternative test scores administered to students pursuant to Section 1210.523 of this title 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 administered under Section 1210.508 of this title 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 administered under Section 1210.508 of this title divided by the number of students taking the tests.
E.  In addition to the components outlined in subsection D of this section, the following bonus points shall be considered in determining the grade of a school site:
1.  For schools comprised of high school grades:
a.  five points for meeting the criteria for an "A" for the high school graduation rate of the school, as defined by rules adopted by the Board,
b.  one point for meeting the criteria for an "A" for performance or participation of students in College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate courses, concurrent enrollment courses, Advanced International Certificate of Education courses, or the achievement of students on national industry certification, as defined by rules adopted by the Board,
c.  one point for meeting the criteria for an "A" for participation or performance in SAT tests administered by the College Board or the American College Test (ACT), as defined by rules adopted by the Board,
d.  one point for meeting the criteria for an "A" for the high school graduation rate of students who scored at limited knowledge or unsatisfactory on the eighth-grade criterion-referenced tests in reading and mathematics,
e.  as valid data becomes available, one point for the performance of students on the end-of-instruction tests administered under Section 1210.508 of this title, as defined by rules adopted by the Board, and
f.   one point for the growth or decline in the components listed in subparagraphs a through e of this paragraph from year to year, as defined by rules adopted by the Board;
2.  For schools comprised of middle school grades:
a.  two points for meeting the criteria for an "A" for the drop-out rate of the school, as defined by rules adopted by the Board,
b.  two points for meeting the criteria for an "A" for the percentage of students who are taking higher level coursework at a satisfactory or higher level, as defined by rules adopted by the Board, and
c.  six points for meeting the criteria for an "A" for attendance, as defined by rules adopted by the Board; and
3.  For schools comprised of elementary school grades, ten points for meeting the criteria for an "A" for attendance, as defined by rules adopted by the Board.
F.  Student test data used in determining school grades shall include:
1.  The aggregate scores of all eligible students enrolled in the school who have been administered the criterion-referenced tests and end-of-instruction tests administered under Section 1210.508 of this title; and
2.  For schools comprised of high school grades, the data listed in paragraph 1 of this subsection, and the following data as the State Department of Education determines the data are valid and available:
a.  the high school graduation rate of the school as calculated by the Department,
b.  the participation rate of all eligible students enrolled in the school in College Board Advanced Placement courses whether taught at a high school, a technology center school, or a regional site of the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics, International Baccalaureate courses, concurrent enrollment courses, Advanced International Certificate of Education courses, courses or sequence of courses leading to national industry certification identified pursuant to rules adopted by the Board, courses or sequence of courses granted cooperative college alliance credit taken at a technology center school, and science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses taken at a regional site of the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics,
c.  the aggregate scores of all eligible students enrolled in the school in College Board Advanced Placement courses whether taught at a high school, a technology center school, or a regional site of the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics, International Baccalaureate courses, and Advanced International Certificate of Education courses,
d.  earning of college credit by all eligible students enrolled in the school in concurrent enrollment programs as provided for in Section 628.13 of this title and in cooperative college alliance courses taken at a technology center school,
e.  earning of a national industry certification identified pursuant to rules adopted by the Board,
f.   the aggregate scores of all eligible students enrolled in the school in reading, mathematics, and other subjects as measured by the SAT test administered by the College Board and the ACT,
g.  the high school graduation rate of all eligible students enrolled in the school who scored at limited knowledge or unsatisfactory on the eighth-grade criterion-referenced tests in reading and mathematics,
h.  the performance of students on statewide end-of-instruction tests administered under Section 1210.508 of this title, and
i.   the growth or decline in the data components listed in subparagraphs a through h of this paragraph from year to year.
G.  Grades shall be calculated by combining the points earned for whole school performance, whole school growth and growth in the bottom quartile of students, measured pursuant to subsection D of this section, and any bonus points earned pursuant to subsection E of this section.  Grades shall be assigned based on the following scale:
1.  Ninety-seven percent (97%) to one hundred percent (100%) = A+;
2.  Ninety-three percent (93%) to ninety-six percent (96%) = A;
3.  Ninety percent (90%) to ninety-two percent (92%) = A-;
4.  Eighty-seven percent (87%) to eighty-nine percent (89%) = B+;
5.  Eighty-three percent (83%) to eighty-six percent (86%) = B;
6.  Eighty percent (80%) to eighty-two percent (82%) = B-;
7.  Seventy-seven percent (77%) to seventy-nine percent (79%) = C+;
8.  Seventy-three percent (73%) to seventy-six percent (76%) = C;
9.  Seventy percent (70%) to seventy-two percent (72%) = C-;
10.  Sixty-seven percent (67%) to sixty-nine percent (69%) = D+;
11.  Sixty-three percent (63%) to sixty-six percent (66%) = D;
12.  Sixty percent (60%) to sixty-two percent (62%) = D-; and
13.  Fifty-nine percent (59%) and below = F.
Oregon Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) are targets set for student achievement in the subjects of reading and math, as well as for graduation, attendance and participation. Oregon’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver revised the AMOs for reading and math and also changed the way these AMOs are used in school accountability. School and district Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) will no longer be reported. Instead, the new Oregon Report Card will provide a 5-level rating for each school. The overall rating for a school is a combination of the ratings received in each of the following five indicators: 
 Achievement 
 Growth 
 Subgroup Growth 
 Graduation (high schools only) 
 Subgroup Graduation (high schools only) 
AMO targets are incorporated into the Achievement, Graduation, and Subgroup Graduation ratings.
Source: 
http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/data/schoolanddistrict/reportcard/docs/amosummary1213.pdf
Pennsylvania The Growth Model recognizes the efforts of schools and districts/LEAs whose students have not achieved proficiency but are on trajectories towards proficiency on future PSSA exams. The Growth Model will be calculated for Performance Indicators (i.e., the all student group and up to nine subgroups). Projected scores are calculated for all students - including students who are proficient. If a projected score cannot be calculated for a particular student, the student’s actual score is used. The Growth Model will be applied to an AYP Performance Indicator only if the indicator cohort has not met AYP performance by any of the existing goals or targets. Actual, not projected, PASA scores, PSSA-M scores, 3rd grade scores, and 11th grade scores are always used, as well as the scores for any students with insufficient data points to make a projection.
Source: http://paayp.emetric.net/Home/About
Rhode Island Each of Rhode Island’s schools will have a Composite Index Score (CIS) ranging from 20 to 100 points, in order to be classified appropriately. Each district will have a CIS for each applicable level (i.e. elementary, middle and high). The scores will be earned within each of the seven measures of performance. Within each metric, cut scores were assigned to divide the range of scores into five levels of performance. There are also three metrics which are not used for determining points in the CIS, but which are potential limiting factors in the classification of schools and districts. These are the Graduation Rate Target, the Participation Rate, and Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs).
 
Each of the metrics of the accountability system, except for the high school graduation rate, is comprised of various subcomponents, based on different subject areas (i.e. reading and mathematics) and different student population subgroups. The subgroups used include:
1. All Students who were tested;
2. The Consolidated Minority and Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup, which includes African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American students, as well as students receiving Free/Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL);
3. The Consolidated Program Subgroup, which includes students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP, also referred to as Students with Disabilities) as well as English Language Learner (ELL) students; IEP students include those who are actively receiving IEP services as well as students who have exited the IEP program within the last two years; ELL students included Monitored Year 1 and Monitored Year 2 students and
4. The Performance Reference Subgroup, which includes students who are not economically disadvantaged, not in ELL programs and not receiving IEP services. This subgroup is not used for independent measurements but is used for calculating gaps.
5. ESEA Subgroups, which are subgroups required to be measured by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964, as reauthorized in 2001 and in the 2012 ESEA Flexibility Request. 
 
For all of the metrics, each subcomponent is measured separately. For the point-bearing metrics, subcomponents are scored using the five levels. The mean of the subcomponent scores is then calculated to create a score for each metric. The scores for each individual metric are then weighted, from a possible maximum of 5 points to a possible maximum of 30 points, together totaling a possible maximum of 100 points. The individual scores for each metric are then added together to arrive at a total score (i.e. the CIS). Table 1 below provides a summary of the metrics of performance, the subcomponents, and the weights assigned.

For more details: http://www.eride.ri.gov/eride40/reportcards/13/documents/RI%20Accountability%20System%20-%20Techn%20Bulletin-May%202013.pdf
South Carolina
South Carolina uses a separate set of metrics for schools enrolling students in only grade two or below
Since February 2006, the state has used the following criteria: 
 
  • To ensure that sufficient data are available, ratings are calculated only for schools that have been in operation for four years or more; ratings will not be calculated for primary schools in operation for less than four years.
  • Prime instructional time: Prime instructional time is a measure of the amount of school instructional time during which both teachers and students are present and is calculated in the same manner as for other South Carolina schools. (See Appendix A of the Accountability Manual for the formula.)
  • Pupil-teacher ratios: Pupil-teacher ratio is calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled in the school on the forty-fifth day of school by the total number of teachers in the school (excluding counselors, librarians, administrative personnel, specialists, and teachers of the arts, physical education, or special education).
  • Parent involvement: Involvement is calculated by dividing the number of students in the school whose parents/guardians attend at least one individual parent conference (unduplicated count) during the school year by the 135th-day average daily membership (ADM).
  • External accreditation: Accreditation that is early childhood specific is determined by application and/or receipt of accreditation. The scale ranges from SC Department of Education (SCDE) accreditation through early childhood specific accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to the accreditation by the American Montessori Society or the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
  • Professional development: The professional development time devoted exclusively to knowledge and skills working with young children (less than eight years) is calculated.
  • Percentage of teachers having advanced degrees: Percentage of teachers having advanced degrees, a measure of the qualifications of the teachers in the school, is calculated in the same manner as for other South Carolina schools. (See Appendix A of the Accountability Manual for the formula.)
  • Percentage of teachers returning from the previous school year: Percentage of teachers returning from the previous school year, a measure of the instructional continuity and stability, is calculated in the same manner as for other South Carolina schools. (See Appendix A of the Accountability Manual for the formula.) 

The Absolute Ratings are calculated using a mathematical formula that results in an index.
Growth Ratings: For schools enrolling students in only grade two or below, the rating will be calculated based upon the change in the absolute performance rating index from year to year. The Growth Ratings are calculated using a mathematical formula that results in an index. The index is calculated by subtracting the school’s Absolute Rating index for the prior year from the Absolute Rating index for the year on which the report card is based. The amount of change determines the rating.
 
For other schools and districts: 

For Schools with grades 3-8:
Absolute Ratings are calculated using a process that results in a number (the Absolute Index) that reflects the average performance level of students in the school. The Absolute Index is converted to the Absolute Rating, a verbal description of the overall achievement level of students in the school. To create the Absolute Index & Rating, indices are first created for each of four subject areas: ELA, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. The indices for these 
subject areas are then combined to create an Absolute Index. The Absolute Index is then converted to an Absolute Rating.

When a school contains both elementary school grades, the computation is more complex because the subject area weights for creating an elementary school absolute index differ from the subject area weights for creating a middle school absolute index (Table 7). To be consistent with the weightings defined by school type, creating the absolute index for a school with both elementary and middle school occurs in three steps: 
1) Create an absolute index using data from any elementary grades (3, 4, & 5). 
2) Create an absolute index using data from any middle grades (6, 7, & 8). 
3) Create the school absolute index as a weighted average of the elementary absolute index and the middle school index. The weightings are the number of students in the elementary school grades and the middle school grades. 

The EOC adopted the following Growth Value Table to be used in the calculation of elementary and middle schools beginning with the release of the 2013 annual report cards. Students scoring Not Met 1 or Not Met 2 receive 20 additional points for increasing their achievement by one level rather than 10 points as in alternative 2. Further increases in achievement are rewarded by an additional 10 points.
 
The Growth Ratings are calculated using a mathematical formula that results in an index. The index is calculated by subtracting the school’s Absolute Rating index for the prior year from the Absolute Rating index for the year on which the report card is based. The amount of change determines the rating.

High Schools

http://www.eoc.sc.gov/Reports%20%20Publications/Current%20Reports%202008-14/Accountability/2013-14%20Accountability%20Manual/2013-14%20Accountability%20Manual.pdf
 
Absolute Ratings—School Districts
The district Absolute Rating index is calculated based on the following components:
(1) Student data used for the ratings calculations are listed in the table below. (data from students attending a charter school authorized by a local school district are not to be included in the calculation of the local school district ratings. Ratings for charter schools authorized by a local school district are to be reported separately on the school district report card.)

User-added image
(2) An index calculated using PASS and End-of-Course assessment performance and SC-Alt
Assessment performance of district students in grades three through eight using the same
mathematical formula for calculating an Absolute rating index for schools enrolling students
in grades three through eight. The index should be calculated using the subject area
weights for grades 3-5 and grades 6-8 specified in Act 254. The district index is an average
of the indices from grades 3-5 and grades 6-8 weighted by the total number of test scores
across grades 3-8. Students who should be tested on PASS or HSAP but are not tested will
be assigned a weight of zero points in the Absolute rating.
 
Note: Since the performance rating categories Not Met 1 and Not Met 2 are not available from the SC-Alt results, the following weights for the calculation of Absolute and Growth Indices should be used:
User-added image
User-added image
(5) The sum of the weighted index points awarded to each component in the district index.
Round the sum to the nearest hundredth; this is the district Absolute rating index.
The resulting index determines the school district’s Absolute rating as follows:

South Dakota School Performance Index - Elementary/Middle Schools
SCHOOL YEAR INDICATOR #1:

Student Achievement
INDICATOR #2: 

Academic Growth
INDICATOR #3:

Attendance
INDICATOR #4: 

Effective Teachers & Principals
INDICATOR #5: 

School Climate
Fall 2012 (transition) Points: 80 Points: 0 Points: 20 Points: 0 Points: 0
2012-13 & 2013-14 Points: 80 Points: 0 Points: 20 Points: 0 Points: 0
2014-15 & beyond Points: 25 Points: 25 Points: 20 Points: 20 Points: 10


School Performance Index – High Schools
SCHOOL YEAR INDICATOR #1:

Student Achievement
INDICATOR #2: 

High School Completion
INDICATOR #3:

College & Career Ready
INDICATOR #4: 

Effective Teachers & Principals
INDICATOR #5: 

School Climate
Fall 2012 (transition) Points: 50 Points: 25 Points: 25 Points: 0 Points: 0
2012-13 & 2013-14 Points: 50 Points: 25 Points: 25 Points: 0 Points: 0
2014-15 & beyond Points: 25 Points: 25 Points: 20 Points: 20 Points: 10
CLASSIFICATION OF SCHOOLS

Based on SPI scores, the Department of Education classifies schools as follows: 

• Exemplary schools = SPI score at or above the top 5 percent of schools 
• Status schools = SPI score at or above the top 10 percent (minus Exemplary schools)
• Progressing schools = SPI score less than top 10 percent and greater than bottom 5 percent 
• Priority schools =

- SPI score at or below the bottom 5 percent OR 
- Title I eligible high school with graduation rate below 60 percent for last two years

• Focus schools are classified based on specific SPI indicators, as they relate to the performance of a school’s Gap Group. This classification applies only to Title I schools. 
Tennessee One piece of the formula:
User-added image

Grade Scale

 Grades Based on NCE Scores
Grade Status Writing Assessment Achievement
3 - 8
    Goal: 4 Reading/
Language
Math Science Social Studies
A Exemplary 4 – 6 >=55 >=55 >=55 >=55
B Above Average 3.5 – 3.9 50-54 50-54 50-54 50-54
C Average 3 – 3.4 45-49 45-49 45-49 45-49
D Below Average 2.5 – 2.9 40-44 40-44 40-44 40-44
F Deficient 0 – 2.4 <=39 <=39 <=39 <=39
 
 
Grades Based on Value Added
Grade Status Mean Gain Range
    Reading/
Language
Math Science Social Studies
A Exceptional >=1.75 >=1.75 >=1.75 >=1.75
B Exceeds State Growth Standard 0.5 to 1.74 0.5 to 1.74 0.5 to 1.74 0.5 to 1.74
C Maintains State Growth Standard -0.49 to 0.49 -0.49 to 0.49 -0.49 to 0.49 -0.49 to 0.49
D Below State Growth Standard -2 to -0.50 -2 to -0.50 -2 to -0.50 -2 to -0.50
F Deficient <-2.0 <-2.0 <-2.0 <-2.0
 

Note:   The 2009 baseline provides a fixed transition point prior to the 2009-10 school year implementations of the new curriculum standards and assessments more reflective of national and international student performance in the 21st Century. The 2009 achievement scores and all grades connected with these scores are considered the new baseline for future public reporting. These converted achievement scores and grades are based on restructured calculations and a redefined grade scale that are updated to reflect the current status of educational attainment in the state. The 2009 change has prohibited comparisons to previous years’ data for achievement reporting including state, district, and school-level scores and grades. For 2009 only, the most appropriate and meaningful comparsion would be to State level data.

(*3-yr average of state CRT NCE's)

Status:

Above
 means that students in this school made significantly more progress in this subject than students in the average school in the state. 
Below means that students in this school made significantly less progress in this subject than students in the average school in the state. 
NDD means that the progress of students in this school was Not Detectably Different from the progress of students in the average school in the state.


Source: http://edu.reportcard.state.tn.us/pls/apex/f?p=200:504:167227483463527
 
Texas Performance index framework that considers four areas (including student groups that are part of that index):
  • Student Achievement – Represents a snapshot of performance across all subjects, on both general and alternative assessments, at an established performance standard. (All Students)
  • Student Progress – Provides an opportunity for diverse campuses to show improvements made independent of overall achievement levels. Growth is evaluated by subject and student group. (All Students; Student Groups by Race/Ethnicity; English Language Learners; Special Education)
  • Closing Performance Gaps – Emphasizes advanced academic achievement of the economically disadvantaged student group and the lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups at each campus or district. (All Students; Student Groups by Race/Ethnicity)
  • Postsecondary Readiness – Includes measures of high school completion, and beginning in 2014, State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) performance at the postsecondary readiness standard. This measure emphasizes the importance of students receiving high school diplomas that provide the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs or the military. (All Students; Student Groups by Race/Ethnicity; English Language Learners; Special Education)
District and campuses with students in Grade 9 or above must meet targets on all four indexes. Districts and campuses with students in Grade 8 or lower must meet targets on the first three indexes (excluding Postsecondary Readiness).
Districts, campuses and charters will receive one of three ratings:
  • Met Standard – Met accountability targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in 2013
  • Met Alternative Standard – Met modified performance index targets for alternative education campuses or districts
  • Improvement Required – Did not meet one or more performance index targets
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/20130328coe/overview_20130423.pdf
Utah See formula summary o S.B. 209, enacted 2014:http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/SB0209.html
Vermont None specified
Virginia User-added image
Washington Index
 
There are four indicators: achievement by students who are not from low-income families,
achievement by students from low-income families, achievement vs. a school’s “statistical
peers,” and a school’s improvement from the previous year. A separate achievement gap matrix
measures the progress a school is making in closing achievement gaps by comparing White and
Asian student achievement (combined) to Hispanic, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander student achievement (combined). The achievement gap measure
indicates improvement from one year to the next as well as a peers rating.

Numbers and tiers:
Each cell of the matrix is rated on a 7-point scale (from 1 to 7). The 7-point scale gives
sufficient “spread” in the results. Each of the four subjects is rated using the same set of
benchmarks across the entire school/district (i.e., all subjects have the same set of
benchmarks and the assessment results are the aggregate totals for all the tested grades).
The overall Index is the simple average of all 20 ratings, ranging from 1.0 to 7.0. The higher
the Index score, the better the performance level of the school/district. The 7- point scale
lines up to a 5-level tier scale ranging from Exemplary to Struggling.

A Learning Index is used to calculate Achievement vs. Peers and Improvement.
 
The Achievement vs. Peers measure is determined by predicting the average level of
achievement that would occur in schools and districts with similar student characteristics –
that is, similar percentages of students who are from low-income families, are English
Language Learners, are mobile, or who are in special education or gifted programs. Ratings
are based on how far a school or district is above or below the predicted level.
 
The Learning Index measures Achievement vs. Peers in reading, writing, math, and science.
This Index is based on the percentage of students who score at each proficiency level on
Washington’s standards-based tests:
 
4 = exceeds standards
3 = meets standards
2 = partially meets standard
1 = well below standard
 
The Learning Index averages all the student results. The Learning Index ranges from 0 to 4 and is similar to a grade point average.
 
Thus, if a school’s Learning Index is above what is predicted by .20 (similar to a difference in grade point average of 2.50 and 2.70), the school receives a rating of 7. This score recognizes that the school outperformed those with similar student characteristics. Scores in the middle of the range (-.05 to .05) show that a school or district is performing on par with peers with similar student characteristics. Scores at the bottom of the range indicate that a school or district has fallen behind its peers.
 
A distinctive feature of the Learning Index is that it includes a measure for students who exceed standards. In the current federal AYP system, there is no recognition or reward for having students meet the highest level of achievement.
 
The Learning Index is also used to measure Improvement. The improvement score is the amount of change that took place in the Learning Index from the previous year. Higher ratings are given when the Learning Index increases and lower ratings are given when they
decline.
 
Source: http://www.sbe.wa.gov/documents/FAQ%20Achievement%20Index.pdf
 
West Virginia 100-point Index

Elementary
Proficiency: 95% of the index
Attendance: 5% of the index

Intermediate
Proficiency: 40% of the index
Achievement gaps closed: 20% of the index
Observed growth: 15% of the index
Adequate growth: 20% of the index
Attendance: 5% of the index

High School
Proficiency: 35% of the index
Achievement gaps closed: 20% of the index
Observed growth: 5% of the index
Adequate growth: 10% of the index
Graduation rate: 30% of the index
Source: http://wvde.state.wv.us/esea/performance/scores.php
Wisconsin
Beginning in 2011‐12, a comprehensive accountability index replaced the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) system. The index approach uses multiple measures and classifies schools along a rating continuum. The ratings determine the level of support a school receives, ranging from rewards and recognition for high performing schools to state intervention for the lowest performing schools in the state. Accountability Determinations (the index score and rating) will be reported annually in the School Report Card.
 
Accountability report cards include outcomes in four priority areas:
  • Student Achievement measures the level of knowledge and skills among students in the school, compared to state and national standards. It includes a composite of reading and mathematics performance by the “all students” group in the Wisconsin Student Assessment System (WSAS) for all tested grades in the school.
  • Student Growth describes how much student knowledge of reading and mathematics in the school changes from year to year. It uses a point system that gives positive credit for students progressing toward higher performance levels, and negative credit for students declining below proficiency. This area focuses not on attainment, but the pace of improvement in student performance, no matter where students begin. All improvement is treated as a positive. Schools with high performance and little room to grow are not penalized.
  • Closing Gaps shows how the performance of student groups experiencing statewide gaps in achievement and graduation is improving in the school. It recognizes the importance of having all students improve, while focusing on the need to close gaps by lifting lower-performing groups. Specific race/ethnicity groups, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and English language learners are compared against their complementary groups.
  • On-Track to Graduation and Postsecondary Readiness indicates the success of students in the school in achieving educational milestones that predict postsecondary success. It includes the graduation rate for schools that graduate students, or the attendance rate for other schools. It also includes measures of third-grade reading and eighth-grade mathematics achievement, and ACT participation and performance, as applicable to the school.
 
Accountability scores are provided for each priority area. Student Engagement Indicators are measures outside the four priority areas that affect student success and the soundness of the index. Each indicator has a goal, and schools that fail to meet that goal receive a point deduction from their overall score. Goals were set by looking at statewide data and establishing thresholds that identify schools contributing the most to lowering Wisconsin’s overall performance in the areas below.
 
1. Test Participation (minimum 95%) - The calculation is based on three years of data. The lowest group rate of all students and subgroups is used for this indicator.
2. Absenteeism (below 13%) - Related to attendance, the absenteeism rate is the percentage of the school’s students whose attendance rate is 84% and below.
3. Dropout Rates (below 6%)
Schools not meeting the threshold for any Student Engagement Indicator will have points deducted from their index score. For Test Participation, if the rate is less than 95 percent, but at least 85 percent, five points are deducted from the school’s overall score; for rates less than 85 percent, 10 points are deducted. If the absenteeism rate in the school is 13 percent or more, 5 points are deducted from its score. The goal for every middle and high school is to have a dropout rate of less than 6 percent. If the school does not meet that goal, 5 points are deducted from its score. The resulting overall accountability score will determine the Accountability Rating a school receives.

Source: http://acct.dpi.wi.gov/acct_home
 
Wyoming 21-2-204. Wyoming Accountability in Education Act; statewide education accountability system created.
 ...
(h) Measured performance results obtained and collected pursuant to this section, together with subsequent actions responding to results, shall be combined with other information and measures maintained and acquired under W.S. 21-2-202(a)(xxi), 21-2-304(a)(v)(H), 21-3-110(a)(xxiv) and otherwise by law, to be used as the basis of a statewide system for providing periodic and uniform reporting on the progress of state public education achievement compared to established targets. The statewide accountability system shall include a process for consolidating, coordinating and analyzing existing performance data and reports for purposes of aligning with the requirements of this section and for determinations of student achievement incorporated into the statewide system. In establishing a reporting system under this subsection, the department shall describe the performance of each public school in Wyoming. The performance report shall:
 
(i) Include an overall school performance rating along with ratings for each of the indicators and content levels in the accountability system that:
 
(A) Supports the overall school performance rating; and
 
(B) Provides detailed information for analysis of school performance on the various components of the system.
 
(ii) In a manner to maintain student confidentiality, be disaggregated as appropriate by content level, target level, grade level and appropriate subgroups of students. For purposes of this paragraph, reported subgroups of students shall include at minimum, economically disadvantaged students, English language learners, identified racial and ethnic groups and students with disabilities;
 
(iii) Provide longitudinal information to track student performance on a school, district and statewide basis;
 
(iv) Include, through the use of data visualization techniques, the development of longitudinal student-level reports of assessment and other relevant readiness indicators that provide information to parents, teachers and other school personnel regarding student progress toward college and career readiness and other relevant outcomes. These reports shall be maintained by the district in each student's permanent record within the district's student data system; and
 
(v) Provide valid and reliable data on the operation and impact of the accountability system established under this section for use by the legislature to analyze system effectiveness and to identify system improvements that may be necessary.
 
(j) Beginning school year 2014-2015, and each school year thereafter, the state board shall through the director, annually review the statewide education accountability system, including but not limited to a review of the appropriateness of the performance indicators, the measures used to demonstrate performance, the methods used to calculate school performance, the target levels and statewide, district and school attainment of those levels and the system of support, intervention and consequences. Not later than September 1, 2015, and each September 1 thereafter, the state board shall report to the joint education interim committee on the information required under this subsection and the results of the accountability system for each school in the state.
 
(k) As used in this section, the "January 2012 education accountability report" means the report prepared by legislative consultants submitted to and approved by the legislature that addresses phase one of the statewide accountability in education system and establishes the design framework for this system. The report is on file with and available for public inspection from the legislative service office.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes.aspx?file=titles/Title21/T21CH2.htm
 
American Samoa None evident
Guam See summary.
Puerto Rico See formula summary
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