CORE and the School Quality Improvement Index

A presentation to the State Board of Education

September 3, 2015

CORE is a collaboration among 10 California school districts.

We’re working together to significantly improve student outcomes.

Over 1.1

million student

s in CORE

California CORE Districts0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Participating CORE districts

Other districts in CA

Los Angeles Unified

Long Beach Unified

Fresno Unified

San Francisco Unified

Santa Ana UnifiedOakland UnifiedSacramento City

Unified

Garden Grove Unified

Clovis Unified

Sanger Unified

Our School Quality Improvement Index

• Guiding principles: Information as “flashlight” (and not a “hammer”) From a narrow focus to a holistic approach Making all students visible From just achievement to achievement and growth

College & Career Ready Graduates

Academic Domain Social-Emotional & Culture-Climate

Domain

• Achievement and Growth*

• Graduation Rate*• High School Readiness

Rate (Gr. 8)*

• Chronic Absenteeism• Student/Staff/Parent

Culture-Climate Surveys• Suspension/Expulsion

Rate*• Social Emotional Skills

• ELL Re-Designation Rate*• Special Education

Disproportionality

Elimination of Disparity and Disproportionality

All Students Group &

Subgroups

Making all students visible:

N size of 20 resulting in over

150,000 additional students counted!

* Indicates metrics calculated with data collected by CDE.

• Developed through collaboration and partnership: Led by the CORE Superintendents Guided by the experts in our districts With input from hundreds of educators across the CORE districts With support from our key partners (e.g. Stanford University, Harvard University) With guidance from our Oversight Panel (e.g. ACSA, CSBA, Ed Trust West, PACE,

PTA)

Each indicator is carefully developed, refined, and analyzed before inclusion in the Index

Measurable• Evidence of validity, reliability and stability through the

examination of baseline and/or field test data.

Actionable• Evidence from research that schools can influence and

impact the outcome in question.• Evidence from baseline data that schools serving similar

youth demonstrate notably different outcomes (such that there is evidence that schools play a substantive role in the outcome).

Meaningful• Clearly connected (e.g., through research) to college and

career readiness, and the elimination of disparity and disproportionality (e.g., based upon the current presence of substantive gaps in performance).

Examples of metric development effortsMetric Some highlights in our development process Final Metric Approach

Chronic Absenteeism

• Considered school-wide attendance rates, but results are generally similar across schools, and can mask challenges with chronic absenteeism (which is linked to success in school and in life).

• Landed on chronic absenteeism, using the nationally accepted threshold of students with 90% or lower attendance.

Number of students w/ 90% or lower attendance

÷

Number of students enrolled

High School Readiness of 8th Graders

• Initial concept was to look at the percentage of 8th graders who persisted into their 2nd year of high school, but most students meet that bar and stakeholders raised concerns about connecting this to middle schools.

• Through a series of analyses, we identified a set of criteria predicting that a student is highly likely to graduate in four years (~90% likely to graduate on time).

Percentage of 8th graders meeting the following criteria:• 8th grade GPA of 2.5 or better,

AND• Attendance 96% or better in 8th

grade, AND• No D’s or F’s in ELA or Math in

8th grade, AND• Never suspended in 8th grade.

English Learner Re-Designation

• Current CA metric looks at all of the students who reclassify in a given year divided by the number of ELs from the prior year (regardless of how long those students have been ELs).

• We sought an indicator that took into account the research on the appropriate amount of time it takes for a student to reclassify (+/- 5 years).

• Started with one version of the indicator, iterated with stakeholders, and landed on our final version.

(Count of all ELs who re-designate in the current year)

÷

(Count of all ELs who re-designate at that school site in the current year) + (All 5-year-plus non-re-

designated ELs)

Find full metric descriptions at http://coredistricts.org/core-index

In this example, we identify several middle schools with

relatively high chronic absence & suspension rates.

Our comprehensive set of indicators is allowing CORE Districts to explore important patterns to enable support where it is needed

most.

In less than two years, the CORE districts have voluntarily and collaboratively developed a comprehensive, secure, longitudinal

data system focused on continuous improvement.

• Standardized test scores CST SBAC*

• Student Characteristics Demographics Special Education status English Learner information Foster Care status*

• Enrollment US, District and School Entry Dates School entries and exits

• Attendance Days attended & days enrolled Attendance rates

*New indicator currently being collected. **Collected in selected grade levels. ***Collected in select CORE Districts.

• Discipline Suspensions Expulsion

• Course Taking, School Completion, and Grades Course enrollment** Course grades** GPA** School Exit and Graduation Codes***

• Social Emotional Skills Student self-report Teacher report on students***

• Culture-Climate Perceptions Student surveys Staff surveys Parent/Family surveys

This fall, CORE Districts will

release the 1st version of the School Quality Improvement

Index

Reports support continual

improvement for school

leaders and teachers.

Results will include

performance by the “all

students” group and subgroups

We’re partnering with greatschools.org to make data widely

available and accessible for families and key

stakeholders.

Current school

profile gives limited

information

New school profile

provides holistic view

CORE is currently developing a student growth model that will examine individual student growth, comparing

each student’s progress to his/her academic peers.

For illustrative purposes only.

The CORE Growth Model will reflect the scoring and performance level system of SBAC.

These measures will provide stakeholders with important information about achievement and growth, creating a more complete picture of

performance.

Ach

ievem

ent

Growth

Low MediumHigh

Sample District Report: Growth & Achievement

TEACHING SOCIAL SKILLS TO

IMPROVE

GRADES AND LIVESWe’re putting a flashlight on the social and emotional

skills to help schools think about the role they play. We think

school quality is not only about academic success but also

about developing the whole child.“ ”

CORE is also part of the national dialogue on including Social Emotional Skills in Multiple Measure approaches to school

quality

With over half a million students participating, our Spring 2015 Field Test of measures of social-emotional skills lets us explore

how to measure these essential skills at scale.

With over half a million students participating in our Spring 2015 Field Test of SEL Skills, schools and districts have received critical information about the youth that they

serve.

Here, we see a strong

relationship between student growth mindset and classroom performance

(GPA).

We provide support to schools in need of assistance thorough Communities of Practice and School Pairings which are informed by data and enable educators and

school leaders to take collective responsibility for continual improvement

Plan

Do

Study

Act

Combining CDE’s data and reports with CORE’s data and reporting system leads to a truly comprehensive LCAP

summary.LCAP Priority LCAP Indicator CORE Measure State Measure Already

Publicly Available?

Student Achievement

Performance on standardized tests Academic performance and growth in ELA & Math Yes

Score on API n/a n/a

Share of students that are college and career ready In development n/a

Share of English learners that become English proficient (none) Yes

English learner reclassification rate English learner redesignation rate YesShare of students that pass AP exams (none) Yes

Share of students determined prepared for college by EAP (none) Yes

Student Engagement

School attendance rates (none) NoChronic absenteeism rates Chronic absenteeism rate No

Middle school dropout rates High school readiness rate of 8th graders NoHigh school dropout rates (none) Yes

High school graduation rates 4, 5, and 6 year rates YesOther Student Outcomes Other indicators of student performance Social-emotional skills n/a

School Climate

Student suspension rates Percent of students suspended and/or expelled YesStudent expulsion rates Percent of students suspended and/or expelled No

Other local measures Student, staff, and parent perceptions of school climate n/a

Parental InvolvementEfforts to seek parent input Student, staff, and parent perceptions of school

climate No

Promotion of parental participation (none) No

Basic Services

Rate of teacher misassignment (none) Yes, not regularly

Student access to standards-aligned instructional materials (none) Yes

Facilities in good repair (none) Yes

Implementation of State StandardsImplementation of CCSS for all students (none) No

Implementation of English language development standards (none) No

Course Access Student access and enrollment in all required areas of study (none) No

Sample LCAP dashboard

utilizing CORE format and measures

Metric result2014

Metric result2015

Change in Metric Performancefrom 2014 to

2015

Index Level 2015Change in IndexLevel from 2014

to 2015

LCAP Priority: Student AchievementLCAP Indicator: Student achievement on standardized tests

CORE Measure: Academic performance in ELA

--- 40% MEET STANDARDS

--- 5/10 ---CORE Measure: Academic performance in Math

--- 44% MEET STANDARDS

--- 5/10 ---CORE Measure: Growth in ELA Coming in Fall 2016CORE Measure: Growth in Math Coming in Fall 2016LCAP Indicator: English learner reclassification rate

CORE Measure: English learner re-designation 10% RE-DESIGNATED

14% RE-DESIGNATED

+4% 8/10 2LCAP Priority: Student EngagementLCAP Indicator: Chronic Absenteeism

CORE Measure: Chronic absenteeism rate 24% CHRONICALLY ABSENT

21% CHRONICALLY ABSENT

-3% 5/10 2LCAP Indicator: High School Graduation Rate

CORE Measure: 4-year cohort graduation rate 84% GRADUATED

84% GRADUATED

0% 6/10 0

CORE Measure: 5-year cohort graduation rate 81% GRADUATED

86% GRADUATED

5% 7/10 1

CORE Measure: 6-year cohort graduation rate 90% GRADUATED

87% GRADUATED

-3% 7/10 1LCAP Priority: Other Student Outcomes          

LCAP Indicator: Other indicators of student performance

CORE Measure: Social-emotional skills Coming in Fall 2016

LCAP Priority: School ClimateLCAP Indicator: Student suspension rates

CORE Measure: Suspension/expulsion rates 8% SUSPENDED/EXPELLED

8% SUSPENDED/EXPELLED

0% 6/10 0LCAP Indicator: Other local measures

CORE Measure: Student, staff, and parent perceptions of school climate Coming in Fall 2016

Areas for future development of the CORE Index and Continuous Improvement Data

SystemArea Possible Approaches

Developing the next generation of measures for Social Emotional Skills

• Performance Tasks• Game-based assessments• Observational assessments

Developing measures of College & Career Ready Graduates

• AP/IB enrollment/exam passage• SAT/ACT/SBAC college ready thresholds• Linking analyses between college

going/college completion and current Index indicators

• Partnering with the Linked Learning field on career readiness indicators (e.g., pathway completion)

• High school capstone projects, graduate portfolios, etc.

Student growth measures non-achievement indicators

• SEL• Attendance• Probability of being HS Ready or Graduating

Adding LCAP subgroups • Foster care students• Homeless students

Pre-K and the Early Grades • School readiness indicators• Early reading and math indicators• Assessment of social emotional skills (e.g.,

teacher report on students)

Thank you!Learn more at

http://coredistricts.org/core-index