ESEA Flexibility Analysis

1
ESEA Flexibility Analysis
December 15, 2014
2
Purpose of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis
The flex analysis was designed to examine the
characteristics of schools identified by each
SEAs differentiated accountability system for
the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years, including
the performance of all students and all subgroups
based on, respectively, 2011-12 and 2012-13
student achievement and graduation rate data
3
Purpose of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis
(continued)
CAVEATS The Flexibility Analysis is

• Not a replication of individual state
  identification systems
• An examination of school characteristics at the
  time of school identification 2011-12 for
  Windows 1 and 2 2012-13 for Windows 3 and 4.
• One tool that states can use to analyze whether
  their identification systems worked as intended
  to capture the lowest-performing schools and
  subgroups

4
Focus of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis
Examine the relationship between school
identification and

• Student achievement in reading and mathematics
  (proficiency rates and AMOs) for ESEA and
  combined subgroups
• Schools and subgroups performing at or below the
  5th percentile
• Schools with large subgroup proficiency gaps
• Schools and subgroups meeting AMO targets
• Graduation rates and targets for ESEA and
  combined subgroups
• Schools and subgroups with graduation rates below
  60 percent
• Schools with large subgroup graduation rate gaps
• Schools and subgroups meeting graduation rate
  targets
• Performance against the 95 percent participation
  rate target on state assessments for ESEA and
  combined subgroups

5
Description of the ESEA Flexibility Analysis

• Uses data to produce 14 analyses/exhibits for
  each state profile
• 2011-12 data for year 1 profiles, Windows 1 and
  2
• 2012-13 data for year 1 profiles, Windows 3 and
  4 year 2 profiles, Windows 1 and 2
• Data Quality Checks Extensive Data Outreach to
  States
• ED through the EDFacts Partner Support Center
  (PSC) contacted specific states that had large
  amounts of missing or low-quality data
• Examples include large percentage of operational
  schools missing Title I participation or
  eligibility status, not reporting graduation rate
  indicator data, not reporting reading or
  mathematics data for ESEA subgroups
• Missing or low-quality data submitted by states
  may result in
• Exclusion of an analysis/exhibit from a states
  profile
• Explanations for these exclusions are provided in
  the cover letter to each state
• Exclusion of schools from a specific
  analysis/exhibit
• Explanations for these exclusions are provided in
  the technical notes for each exhibit

6
Priority and Focus School Identification
7
Priority and Focus School Identification by
School Level
8
School Identification by State-Defined Status
Levels
9
Distribution by School Characteristics
Exhibit 4. At the time of identification, what
were the demographic characteristics of priority
and focus schools compared to all other Title I
participating schools?
Characteristics Schools Identified as Priority or Focus for 201213 All Other Title I Participating Schools
School Level (Percentage of Schools)
Elementary 67.3 70.6
Middle 15.3 17.1
High 12.0 8.6
Non-standarda 5.3 3.8
Total 100.0 100.0
School Type (Percentage of Schools)
Regular 90.7 96.6
Alternative 7.3 2.6
Special education 1.3 lt1
Vocational lt1 lt1
Total 99.3 99.2
Charter School Status (Percentage of Schools) 8.7 6.7
10
Distribution by School Characteristics (continued)
Exhibit 4. At the time of identification, what
were the demographic characteristics of priority
and focus schools compared to all other Title I
participating schools?
Characteristics Schools Identified as Priority or Focus for 201213 All Other Title I Participating Schools
Urbanicity (Percentage of Schools)
Large or middle-sized city 48.7 22.1
Urban fringe and large town 36.7 43.1
Small town and rural area 14.7 34.8
Total 100.0 100.0
Percentage of Students by Race/Ethnicity
American Indian 1.9 2.6
Asian 2.7 2.4
Black 40.0 21.8
Hispanic 28.2 20.9
White 24.4 49.2
Totalb 97.3 97.0
Percentage of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 79.5 62.4
Percentage of Students with Disabilities 14.1 12.0
Percentage of Limited English Proficient Studentsc 15.0 10.5
Average Total School Enrollment 529 470
Exhibit reads In STATE, 67 percent of Title I
participating schools identified as priority or
focus for 201213 were elementary schools,
compared to 71 percent of all other Title I
participating schools. Source 201112 EDFacts,
Data Group (DG) 18 Grades offered, DG 21 School
type, DG 27 Charter status, DG 39 Membership,
DG 74 Children with disabilities (IDEA) school
age, DG 123 LEP students in LEP program, DG 565
Free or reduced-price lunch 201213 EDFacts, DG
34 Improvement status - school (n 1,000 Title
I participating schools 150 Title I
participating schools identified as priority or
focus and 850 all other Title I participating
schools) Note Technical notes for this exhibit
appear in the Appendix.
11
Low Performance Among Priority, Focus, and All
Other Title I Schools
12
Large Subgroup Gaps Among Priority, Focus, and
All Other Title I Schools
13
Low Graduation Rates Among Priority, Focus, and
All Other Title I Schools
14
Large Subgroup Graduation Rate Gaps Among
Priority, Focus, and All Other Title I Schools
15
AMO Status Among Priority, Focus, and All Other
Title I Schools
16
Participation Rate Status Among Priority, Focus,
and All Other Title I Schools
17
Status on Graduation Rate Targets Priority,
Focus, and All Other Title I Schools
18
ESEA Flexibility Analysis Data Extracts
DATA EXTRACTS

• Each profile is accompanied by an Excel-file data
  extract that includes
• Data sources, retrieval dates, and a data summary
• Data summary includes
• list of all variables, data quality indicators,
  indicators that flag schools that are included in
  or excluded from each of the exhibits, and
  step-by-step instructions for re-creating
  selected multi-step descriptive analyses from the
  profile
• See demonstration using example profile

19
Example Data Extract
20
Example Data Extract (continued)
21
NEXT STEPS

• Profiles will be sent to groups of states in
  batches
• The first batch of profiles will be sent on
  December 17th
• After each release, states will have 10 business
  days to respond with any technical corrections
  that may be needed
• Technical Assistance Process
• State flex leads should submit questions to OSS
  state leads in writing
• PPSS staff will review and respond to technical
  questions in writing within 1-2 business days
• If clarifications are still needed, the OSS state
  lead will schedule a call between PPSS and
  individual state flex leads

22
Questions?