Monday, October 9, 2017

2017 KPREP: Mixed results for students eligible for free/reduced meals

Post By Susan Perkins Weston

In 2017 KPREP results released late last month, students who qualify for free or reduced-price meals had mixed results, with improvement strong enough to narrow gaps in six of fourteen assessed subjects. On three other assessments, their results improved while results for their classmates improved faster, yielding wider gaps.

At the elementary level, results for students eligible for free/reduced meals:
  • Improved and narrowed gaps in social studies and writing
  • Improved with a widening gap in language mechanics
  • Declined in reading and mathematics, though by less than results for their classmates
 At the middle school level, results for students eligible for free/reduced price meals:
  • Improved and narrowed gaps in reading, mathematics, and social studies
  • Improved with a widening gap in language mechanics
At the high school level, results for students eligible for free/reduced price meals:
  • Improved and narrowed gaps only in writing
  • Improved with a widening gap in science
  • Declined in reading and mathematics, though by less than results for their classmates
  • Declined in social studies by more than results for their classmates

2017 KPREP Results: Slow but fairly steady progress for students with disabilities

Post by Susan Perkins Weston

Assessment results released in late September show results students for with disabilities improving in nearly all subjects and moving forward at a pace that reduced gaps in reading at all three levels, math in elementary and middle school, social studies in elementary school, and science in high school. Overall, the pattern shows movement in the right direction, though at a slower pace than we should want for a group that has such consistently low results overall.

At the elementary level, results for students with identified disabilities:
  • Improved in all subjects
  • Improved enough to narrow gaps in reading, mathematics, and social studies
  • Improved, though by less than results for their classmates in writing and language mechanics
    At the middle school level, results for students with identified disabilities:
    • Improved in all subjects
    • Improved enough to narrow gaps in reading and mathematics
    • Improved, though by less than results for their classmates in social studies and language mechanics
    At the high school level, results for students with identified disabilities:
    • Improved enough to narrow gaps in reading and science
    • Improved, though by less than results for their classmates in writing
    • Declined in mathematics and social studies, resulting in narrowed gaps because results for their classmates declined more rapidly
    Source note: The results shown above for students with identified Disabilities were provided by the Kentucky Department of Education. In spite of the requirements of KRS 158.649, the Department has not published results for students who do not have identified disabilities. Instead, the results shown for that group reflect calculations I made using the information the Department has released.

    Monday, October 2, 2017

    2017 KPREP: Troubling English Learner Results

    Post by Susan Perkins Weston

    Compared to 2016, English learner results show rising levels of proficiency on only four of 14 KPREP assessments, narrowing only three achievement gaps compared to classmates who are not English learners.

    In 2016, Kentucky's English learners had the lowest proficiency levels and the largest gaps of any student group. Seeing them slip further in 2017 warrants special concern and attention.

    At the elementary level,  English learner proficiency levels:
    • Declined in reading by more than results for other students
    • Declined in mathematics by less than for other students
    • Rose in social studies and writing by less than results for other student improved
    • Declined in language mechanics while results improved for other students
    • Narrowed the gap only in mathematics
    At the middle school level,  English learner proficiency levels:
    • Declined in reading, mathematics, and social studies while results for other students rose
    • Saw no change in language mechanics while other students gained
    At the high school level,  English learner proficiency levels:
    • Rose in reading while results for other students declined
    • Declined in mathematics by less than results for other students dropped
    • Declined in social studies and science by more than results for other students
    • Rose in writing by less than results for other students improved
    • Narrowed gaps only in reading and writing
    Source note: The results shown above for English learners were provided by the Kentucky Department of Education. In spite of the requirements of KRS 158.649, the Department has not published results  for students who are not English learners. Instead,  the results shown for that group reflect calculations I made using the information the Department has released.

    Sunday, October 1, 2017

    2017 KPREP Results: Mixed Results for Hispanic Students and Students of Two or More Races

    Post by Susan Perkins Weston
     
    Comparing 2017 KPREP results released late last week to comparable, 2016 results, Hispanic students' proficiency levels improved at a pace that narrowed gaps compared to white students on four of 14 assessments, and improved without narrowing gaps on six others. Results for Hispanic students declined on five assessments.

    Over the same period, results for students of two or more races improved at a pace that narrowed gaps on five assessments and improved without narrowing gaps on three others. Results for students with two or more races dropped on six assessments.

    Here comes a more detailed look.

    At the elementary level, Hispanic student proficiency levels:
    • Declined in reading by more than those results dropped for white students
    • Declined in mathematics by less than the drop experienced by white students
    • Rose in social studies, writing, and language mechanics, though by less than white results improved
    • Narrowed only the mathematics achievement gap
    For Hispanic middle school students, proficiency levels:
    • Rose in every subject (hooray!)
    • Rose enough to narrow gaps slightly compared to white students in reading and mathematics
    For Hispanic high school students, proficiency levels:
    • Rose in reading while white results declined
    • Dropped in math and social studies at a quicker pace than white results declined
    • Rose in writing by more than white results did
    • Rose in science by less than white results did
    • Narrowed achievement gaps in reading and writing
    For elementary students of two or more races,  proficiency levels:
    • Declined in reading and mathematics by less than white results dropped
    • Increased in social studies and language mechanics by less than white results increased
    • Increased in writing by more than white results rose
    • Narrowed achievement gaps in reading, mathematics and writing
    For middle school students of two or more races, proficiency levels:
    • Rose in every subject
    • Rose enough to narrow gaps in reading, mathematics, and social studies
    Finally, for high school students of two or more races, proficiency levels:
    • Declined in reading, mathematics, studies, and science, dropping more quickly than white results
    • Rose in writing by more than they rose for white students
    • Narrowed gaps only in writing
    The proficiency results shown here were downloaded from the Department's school report card portal on September 28.  The calculations of changes and gaps are my own.


    Friday, September 29, 2017

    2017 KPREP Results: Bleak Trends for African American Students

    Post By Susan Perkins Weston

    2016 to 2017 KPREP trends were grim for Kentucky's African American students. Out of 14 assessments that can be compared from year to year, eight show proficiency declines, and all but two have widening gaps compared to white students.

    We cannot mobilize to change those results until we face them, so here is a blunt statement of a year when we moved in the wrong direction. In the charts that follow, green highlights good news: rising proficiency or narrowing gaps. Yellow marks flat or declining proficiency levels and stagnant or growing gaps.
    On elementary assessments, African American student results show:
    • Reading and math proficiency going down, and going down faster than proficiency levels for white students
    • Social studies proficiency going down while white results improved
    • Writing and language mechanics proficiency improving, but with less improvement than for white students
    • On balance, an increased gap in every assessed  elementary subject
    Middle school African American student results show:
    • Reading and language mechanics proficiency rising, but rising less quickly than for white students
    • Mathematics proficiency declining slightly while white performance was flat
    • Social studies results declining slightly while white results improved a little
    • On balance, an increased gap in every assessed subject

    Finally, as shown below, high school African American results show:
    • English II proficiency improving slightly while white performance showed mild decline
    • Algebra II and U.S. History proficiency declining and declining more than white results did
    • Writing proficiency improving and improving more than for white students
    • Biology results improving, but improving less than for white students
    • On net, smaller gaps in reading and writing, and wider gaps in mathematics, social studies, and science
    Our challenge is to find the approaches that can change these results: changes in instruction, changes in school climate, changes in resources, changes in leadership and community engagement, changes in whatever must change for African American students to flourish in our schools. I very much hope that work will begin immediately to meet that challenge much more effectively than we did last year.

    Thursday, September 28, 2017

    Kentucky Results: A Look At Some Trends

    Post By Susan Perkins Weston

    Here's how some key 2017 results released today by the Kentucky Department of Education compare to 2016 results on using the same measures.

    In reading, the percent of students reaching or exceeding proficiency declined for elementary and high school students, while increasing 1.7 points for middle school students.
    In mathematics, elementary and high school results showed declines, while middle school results had no change compared to 2016.
    Social studies also had declines at two levels, with middle school showing an improvement of 0.8 points
    Writing offers a contrast with a gain of nearly 6 points at the elementary level and a full 15 points at the high school level, but a 3.5 point decline for eighth grade results.  (In 2016, sixth graders and eighth graders took middle school writing assessments, but this year only eighth grade was assessed. The comparison below uses only eighth grade results from each year.)
    Graduation rates rose again, along with evidence of college readiness as shown by the percent of 11th-graders meeting the benchmark scores established by the Council For Postsecondary Education. (Correction: the initial version of this post identified the data in the chart below as ACT results for graduates, when it actually reflects grade 11 test-takers. The replacement chart below shows the corrected labeling.)

    Senate Bill 1, enacted earlier this year, brought an end to Kentucky's most recent accountability system, including its rules for identifying schools as distinguished, proficient, or needs improvement and its process for selection new focus and priority schools.  As a result, key measures like the ones above remain available for local and state discussion, but there are no legal consequences attached to these statewide results or for the school and district patterns shown in the newest school report cards.




    Prichard Statement on 2017 Results

    Declines in Reading and Math Raise Concerns, Along with Losses for African Americans and English Learners 

    Renewed commitment to high expectations and adequate supports is necessary going forward 

    LEXINGTON, KY –Statewide assessment and accountability results for academic year 2017 released today show declining reading and mathematics proficiency compared to 2016, along with declines in most tested subjects for African American students and English language learners. Although some areas of the annual assessment demonstrate improvement, those lowered results are cause for concern, discussion, and renewed effort across the Commonwealth.

    Good news is evident in rapidly rising proficiency in elementary and high school writing, stronger 11th grade ACT results, and increasing graduation rates.

    Other strengths noted in today’s report:
    • Graduation rates up for most student groups (but down for Asian students and English learners)
    • Rising science proficiency at the high school levels for most student groups (but declining for students of two or more races and English learners)
    • Rising proficiency for students with disabilities across most subjects (exceptions for middle school writing, high school math, and high school social studies), at a pace that can contribute importantly to narrowing one of our widest achievement gaps
    Other causes for concern:
    • Declining proficiency for many student groups in reading and math in high school
    • Declining proficiency for many groups for middle school writing and high school social studies
    • Declining proficiency for African American students in elementary and middle school social studies in a year when most student groups saw gains on those assessments
    • Declining proficiency for English learners in almost every subject
    “As Kentucky schools and communities begin their analysis of local 2017 results, the Prichard Committee encourages citizens and local leaders to ask hard questions, “ said Brigitte Blom Ramsey, Prichard Committee Executive Director. “Why are there disparities in student results, why aren’t more students reaching levels of proficiency and excellence, what can schools and communities do to help all students succeed?”

    The Committee remains confident that steady, collaborative effort can equip students from every background and region for higher achievement and for successful participation in college, the workplace, and community life.

    Our new statewide commitment to raise achievement and cut achievement gaps in half by 2030 are an important part of mobilizing citizens to realize the full potential of our rising generation and continue the momentum Kentucky has built over decades of leadership in education reform work.

    To meet those goals, Kentucky must now focus with increasing urgency on building excellence with equity. The Prichard Committee’s 2015 report, It’s Everybody’s Business, identified six BASICS that must be central efforts:
    • Bold leadership at the state and local levels and in every community
    • Accountability to drive substantial improvement in the performance of each student and student group
    • School climate and culture that welcome and support each student and family
    • Instruction in the classroom that engages each student in deep, effective learning opportunities
    • Communities that band together to demand and support excellence with equity
    • Sustainability of reforms

    Today’s results include some reasons for concern as well signs of progress, inviting important conversations at the school, district, and state level about the data, its implications, and the best ways to move forward in providing rich and deep learning for each student. Every Kentuckian has a stake in the success of that work.

    ###

    Saturday, August 19, 2017

    Kentucky Accountability: Equity Questions For The Revised Regulation

    | Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

    Achievement gaps get substantial attention in Kentucky’s proposed school accountability regulation. A revised version of the regulation is up for final vote at the August 23 Kentucky Board of Education meeting (see item VI on the agenda). This post summarizes the big approach to tackling gaps and flags some key elements that still need clearer language or further explanation.

    THE BIG APPROACH
    In Kentucky’s new system, schools will receive overall ratings of one to five stars, and student group results will matter in deciding those ratings, in several ways:
    • Student groups results compared to other groups will be one part of an achievement gap closure indicator that contributes to the overall ratings
    • Student group results compared to proficiency will also be part of that achievement gap closure indicator contributing to the overall rating
    • If student group results are troubling enough, that by itself will enough to limit a school to a maximum of three of the five possible stars
    There is impressive consensus around that broad approach, and the questions that follow address specifics of putting that approach to work.

    WHICH GAPS BETWEEN GROUPS WILL BE CONSIDERED “PRACTICALLY SIGNIFICANT"?
    As revised, the regulation says the Department will calculate the gaps between groups and take a new step to check whether each gap is “statistically and practically significant.” What kind of gap is “practically significant?” The regulation defines “practical significance” by saying it “means a measure of the differences between student groups has real meaning,” but “real meaning” does not seem any clearer. The term matters, because gaps that are not practically significant will not matter for the indicator rating or the five stars.

    FOR A GROUP’S GAP TO PROFICIENCY, WHAT “ANNUAL TARGET” WILL BE USED?
    The regulation says that group results will be compared to “the current year’s annual target for each student demographic group.” What are those targets? For this question, the regulation could mean the “Long Term and Interim Goals for Public Reporting” that are also on KBE’s August 23 agenda. However, those goals are in a separate document, not part of the regulation, and they are not identified as targets at all.

    WHAT WILL BE “A SUFFICIENT PERCENTAGE POINT” FOR A PARTIALLY REDUCED GAP TO PROFICIENCY?
    The regulation says that a school can get two gap closure points if a gap is reduced and one point if the gap is partially reduced. In a previous edition, partial reduction meant being at or above the annual target “minus five percentage points.” In the revised edition, partial reduction is explained as the annual target minus “a sufficient percentage point.” What will count as sufficient is not clear.

    HOW WILL A “FEDERAL STUDENT GROUP DESIGNATION” BE GIVEN?
    Federal student group designation is a new term in this version of the regulation, used in two places:
    • Early on the regulation defines that term by saying it “includes targeted support and improvement, and comprehensive support and improvement as provided in KRS 160.346“
    • Much later, the regulation says a school “shall receive a federal student group designation for statistically significant achievement gaps or low-performing students”
    Those two provisions do not seem to match. KRS 160.346 requires targeted support if a student group has results like the lowest 5% of schools for one year or the lowest 10% of schools for two years. It requires comprehensive support if the whole school is in the lowest 5%, graduation is below 80%, or a school stays in targeted support too long. KRS 160.346 never mentions statistical significance. The seeming use of two conflicting rules is an additional puzzle.

    WHAT WILL LIMIT A SCHOOL TO THREE STARS?
    As noted earlier, there’s broad agreement on limiting a school to three out of five stars based on problems with student group results.

    In one place, the regulation says that schools “with statistically significant achievement gaps may not be rated above three stars.”

    A bit later, the regulation offers matrix tables showing schools' star ratings will be decided. Each of those tables has a  columns saying “Can receive no higher than 3-Star rating if Achievement Gap Closure is “Low (l), “Very Low (VL),” or if identified for Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI).”

    That seems to set up three different routes to hitting the three-star limit:
    • significant gaps or
    • a low rating on the achievement gap closure rating or
    • qualifying for targeted support
    For legal interpretation, the wording appears clear, but having three routes seems unfamiliar from the earlier presentations and town hall discussions. The shift is important enough that it’s worth treating as something that still needs further explanation and understanding.

    A CLOSING NOTE
    This accountability regulation is a major chance to improve our schools and shape the futures of Kentucky’s students. It sets our course toward excellence with equity. The equity questions above are technical issues but important ones for getting the results we want and need. In effect, they’re final checks to be sure this policy plane is ready for takeoff.

    Monday, July 31, 2017

    K-12 Accountability: Goals And Questions About Goals

    | Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

    For the August 2 Kentucky Board of Education meeting, the Department has posted a set of tables showing “Kentucky Accountability System Long Term and Interim Goals for Public Reporting.” You can download the complete set here.

    The document includes goal tables for reading, mathematics, and writing at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, each showing goals that start from a 2018-19 baseline level of proficient/distinguished results and move upward in equal steps for each year through 2030. Elementary and middle school social studies, four-year graduation rates, and five-year graduation rates are also included.

    For this post, I'm going to look just at the 2030 math goals, sharing the main questions I have after studying them for a few hours. The yellow highlights flag the goals that I'll give the most attention.
    1. How were these goals set?
    The document does not explain the method. Each group and each grade moves upward at a different pace to a different 2030 destination. It does look like the gaps between white students and some other racial groups are cut in half. It is possible that the gaps based on eligibility for free/reduced meals, disability status, and English learner status are reduced the same way, but I can’t tell because the disadvantaged group is shown but the more privileged reference group is missing.

    2. When did we drop the 75% proficiency goal for elementary and middle schools?
    As recently as July 6, Department documents describing Kentucky’s goals said we were aiming:
    “To increase student proficiency rates significantly for all students in the state by 2030—for example, the goal is to increase elementary/middle school mathematics achievement from 55% proficient or above to 75% proficient or above, and equally importantly.”
    In these new tables, the elementary goal is higher, at 91.1%, but the middle version has dropped to 67.0%. That kind of change from a widely discussed example seems important.

    3. Why are we aiming for just 49.7% high school proficiency?
    Proficiency for barely half of our students doesn't feel like ambition. It feels like abandoning Kentucky’s commitment to equip each and every child for adult success.

    No Kentuckian should agree to lower our sights this far without serious explanation and discussion, and none of us should settle this low without first looking very hard for alternative strategies (instructional shifts, resource changes, other actions) we can use to deliver something better than half-proficiency for our rising generation.

    4. How can students eligible for free/reduced-price meals have stronger goals than all students?
    Historically, those students have been under-served, with results lower than their more economically privileged classmates. These goals turn that history upside down, with schools asked to move low income students to 75% proficiency in middle school while moving students overall to just 67%. Similarly, the high school goals ask for 54.2% proficiency for low income students and just 49.7% for all students. Doesn't that entail that students with higher family incomes will be expected to score lower than the rest of their classmates?

    5. How can the consolidated group have lower goals than any of its member groups?
    The consolidated group will be made up of students with disabilities, English learners, and students who are African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The lowest elementary goal for any of those groups is 76.6% proficient, but the consolidated group is only asked to reach 70.6%. How can the combined result be lower than any of the groups that are combined? Similarly, the lowest middle school goal for the included groups is 50.9%, but the combined goal is just 42.0%.

    ESSA has required Kentucky to “establish ambitious State-designed long-term goals, which shall include measurements of interim progress toward meeting such goals” since that legislation was signed into law in 2015. Yes, it’s late in the process to be raising questions like these, but this is the first time a full set of goals has been made fully public. The method isn’t clear, the expectations are lower than previously described for middle schools, and startlingly low for high schools, and the expectations for low income students and consolidated group students just don’t mesh with the rest of the goals. Serious and sustained discussion of this plan definitely seems appropriate.

    K-12 Accountability: Changes to Five Star Ratings

    | Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

    Kentucky’s new accountability system calls for schools to be rated from one to five stars, based on their performance on a set of dashboard indicators. Earlier today, I shared a quick list of how those indicators have been changed in the most recent (July 27) edition of the proposed regulation. Here, I’ll note recent changes to the five star ratings proposal. The Kentucky Board of Education will hold its second reading of the regulation on Wednesday, August 2, and you can download the full regulation here.

    THE MATRIX APPROACH TO FIVE STARS
    The proposed regulation now shows a matrix (or table) approach to translating indicator ratings (from very low to very high) into overall ratings of one star to five stars. The matrix concept has been shared widely in the Department of Education’s town halls, presentations, and overview documents, with some minor changes over the months of discussion and public input. It was not included in the previous regulation text, but the July 27 edition includes separate matrix versions for districts, high schools, and elementary/middle schools.

    NOT THE SAME MATRIX APPROACH TO FIVE STARS
    In past versions of the matrix, a five star rating required very high ratings for most indicators.

    The versions included in the proposed regulation change that, saying that:
    • Schools can earn five stars with just high rating on most indicators
    • Elementary/middle schools can earn five stars even if they have low ratings for growth
    • High schools can earn five stars even they have low ratings for transition readiness
    These changes will make the star ratings substantially easier to earn. At the end of this post, I’ll share the older and newer matrix versions to allow readers to do their own comparisons.

    A MATRIX APPROACH THAT OTHERS WILL BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE
    The regulation versions of the matrix say at the top that “standard setting will confirm level of indicator performance necessary for the Star ratings.” That appears to mean that the standard setting participants will have the power to change the matrix rules.

    There is also new language that says:
    “During the standard setting process, the approximate weights in the following table shall be considered. The proposed ranges in the table indicate the relative emphasis between indicators. The ranges are set to guide Kentucky educators to determine the combination of performance from very high to very low within the indicator during standard setting.”
    The table shows weights that could be used for each indicator. For example, at the high school level, the Proficiency indicator is shown with a 15-25 range, and the Graduation indicator is shown with a 5-15 range. The weights look like a formula for combining indicator scores into a single score for the school. I’m puzzled about how the standard setting group or groups could use those weights to change the matrix approach.

    On this issue, I hope the August 2 presentation and discussion will provide important clarification on which elements will be decided by the Kentucky Board of Education regulation and which elements will be open to change by the future standard setting process.

    A THREE STAR MAXIMUM IF STUDENT GROUP RESULTS ARE WEAK
    Even if results for the whole school are very strong, schools will be limited to a maximum of three stars if one of their student groups has troubling results. That approach has been discussed for quite a while, and there are now two different ways the three-star limit can apply.

    First, the school can be designated as having a “Gap Issue.” The earlier version of the regulation based the Gap issue designation on “very large” gaps or low performance. The July 27 edition has more precise language:
    “A school or district shall be designated as a “Gap Issue School” or “Gap Issue District” for statistically significant achievement gaps or low-performing students. Schools or districts with statistically significant achievement gaps may not be rated above three stars.”
    Second, schools that are identified for targeted support and improvement will also be limited to three stars. Under Senate Bill 1, schools will receive that targeted support if any student group has results like the lowest-performing 5% of schools or if any group results has results like the lowest-performing 10% of schools for two years. Under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), those targeted support decisions must be based on all the indicators, and all indicators must be reported separately for each student group (with an exception allowing progress toward English Proficiency to be reported only for English learners).

    That second three-star limit based on targeted support is shown in the matrix for elementary/middle schools and the one for high schools. It appears to meet a key ESSA requirements that all states:
    • Have an approach to identifying schools where any group is “consistently underperforming”
    • Change a school’s rating if a school is identified under that approach (a step ESSA calls “differentiation”)
    • Provide targeted support and assistance to schools identified under that same approach

    Finally, as promised, here are the matrix versions shown in the July 27 regulation, along with a version from a July 6 overview document from the Kentucky Department of Education


    K-12 Accountability: Proposed Changes To Dashboard Indicators

    | Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

    Kentucky’s new accountability system is being designed around a planned dashboard that will show how each school is doing on a set of indicators. In this post, I’ll share a quick list of how those indicators have been changed in the most recent (July 27) edition of the proposed regulation. For a little more detail, this PrichBlog one-pager describes the basics of each indicator as well as showing these changes. In upcoming posts, I’ll address the changes to the overall five star ratings approach that will combine these indicators, and share news on proposed goals for schools and groups. The Kentucky Board of Education will hold its second reading of the regulation on Wednesday, August 2, and you can download the full regulation here.

    PROFICIENCY INDICATOR
    Spins off science and social studies, but still addresses reading/writing and mathematics assessment results

    Drops added credit for students who take assessment for a higher grade (but keeps .05 credit for apprentice, 1.0 credit for proficient, 1.25 credit for distinguished on assessment for grade in which students are enrolled)

    SEPARATE ACADEMIC INDICATOR
    Becomes a new indicator using science and social studies assessment results, with same 0.5/1.0/1.25 credit approach as the proficiency indicator

    OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS INDICATOR
    Adds lack of behavior events and restraint/seclusion to school quality component (along with lack of chronic absenteeism)

    Drops primary talent pool out of equitable access component

    Specifies that essential skills (part of the high school rich curricula component) will be part of a Work Ethic Certification

    Will require Kentucky Board of Education approval of measures “including the accumulation of credit”

    ACHIEVEMENT GAP CLOSURE INDICATOR
    For group comparison:
    • Gives 1 point for each insignificant gap
    • Uses highest scoring racial/ethnic group that is 10% of school enrollment (rather than just highest scoring group)
    For goal comparison:
    • Uses “current year’s annual target” as goal (but annual targets not established in regulation)
    • Gives 2 points for at or above target, 1 point for up to 5 points below target
    For whole indicator
    • Counts group-to group component as 33% of total, group to target component as 67%
    GROWTH INDICATOR (FOR ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS)
    Includes value table of points to be given for each student’s current reading and mathematics performance compared to previous year

    Calls for but does not provide value table for each English learner’s progress toward English language proficiency

    TRANSITION READINESS INDICATOR (FOR ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS)
    No changes for composite based on reading/writing, math, science, and social studies results

    TRANSITION READINESS INDICATOR (FOR HIGH SCHOOLS)
    Gives school credit for each student achieving readiness, career readiness and/or military readiness (which may mean one student can earn several credits for the school)

    Gives 1.25 credit for “students obtaining specialized career pathways in state and regional high demand sectors as approved by Workforce Innovation Board,” with 1 credit for students obtaining “other readiness indicators”

    GRADUATION INDICATOR (FOR HIGH SCHOOLS)
    Adds four-year cohort rate (averaged with five-year rate)

    INDICATOR RATINGS
    Adds a "very low" rating option and changes "moderate" rating to "medium (keeping the low, high, and very high options from previous editions of the regulation)