Background on the New State School Recognition System

Since the spring 2018, the State Board of Education (SBE), Educational Opportunity Gap Accountability Oversight Committee (EOGOAC), and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) have been collaborating on redesigning the Washington system of school recognition. Approximately one year ago, the SBE, EOGOAC, and OSPI publicly reported on the identification of 216 schools for recognition in the spring 2019 based on the metrics in the state accountability system as used in the Washington School Improvement Framework (WSIF). The Phase 1 methodology provided schools with the opportunity to achieve recognition status via one or more of three separate routes. Each of the routes relied on multiple measures, primarily based on the performance of the All Students group at schools.

Over the previous year and as planned, the SBE, EOGOAC, and OSPI met for a series of full day work sessions for the purpose of revising the Phase 1 recognition methodology. At the December 3 work session, the work group reached consensus on the Phase 2 school recognition methodology that would provide schools with the added opportunity to be identified for recognition on the basis of a high performing student group. The Phase 2 methodology developed by the workgroup was adopted by the SBE at the January board meeting and presented to the Board and collaborating partner meetings in March.

Download a spreadsheet of the 2018-19 honorees. Fore more detail and technical data information, find the recognition system business rules linked here: 2018-19 Business Rules (Phase 2). Find also a detailed file for all public schools containing the data elements required to understand why a school or was not identified for recognition.

On April 17, SBE hosted a webinar about this year's school recognition methodology. Find the recording on Zoom, and download the PowerPoint presentation.

Phase 2 of the New State School Recognition System (April 2020)

Overview
The Phase 2 school recognition methodology follows the overarching approach of identifying schools through any of three routes: Closing Gaps, Growth, and Achievement. Each of the routes relies on multiple measures. 

• Closing Gaps: recognizes schools previously identified for ESSA Comprehensive or Targeted Supports demonstrating substantial improvements for the school or student groups.
• Growth: recognizes schools where the All Students group or other student groups are making the largest annual gains on the WSIF measures and meeting other eligibility requirements including the High/Low Gap measure for the All Students group.
• Achievement: recognizes the highest achieving schools on ELA and math proficiency, high school graduation rate, and the School Quality and Student Success (SQSS) measures, and meeting the winter 2019 WSIF performance requirement – all student groups must be performing at 6.0 or higher on the 2019 WISF, well above the state average.

Closing Gaps Route
The Phase 2 methodology for the Closing Gaps route is unchanged from the Phase 1 methodology. Schools identified for Targeted (Tiers 1 and 2) or Comprehensive (Tier 3) support in the winter 2018 WSIF version are preliminarily identified for recognition when any of the following criteria are met. Also, a school must meet the assessment participation requirements in ELA and math for the spring 2019 statewide assessments. 

• For Comprehensive supports schools, the All Students group must post a gain of at least 0.35 decile points (top 20 percent threshold cut) from the winter 2019 WSIF to the winter 2020 WSIF.
• For Targeted support schools, all of the school’s student groups with a winter 2018 WSIF less than or equal to 2.30 must post an increase on the winter 2020 WSIF from the winter 2019 WSIF and at least one of those student groups must post an increase of at least 0.35 decile points from the winter 2019 WSIF version to the winter 2020 WSIF version. Also, no new student groups may fall below the 2.30 threshold cut and at least one student group previously identified as for Targeted Support must move above the 2.30 threshold cut.
• Schools identified in the winter 2018 WSIF version for Tier 2: Targeted-Low EL Progress supports must post an EL progress rate higher than the winter 2018 WSIF threshold cut for EL Progress identification.
• Schools identified in the winter 2018 WSIF version for Tier 3: Comprehensive Low Grad Rate must post a four-year graduation rate of at least 66.7 percent for the class of 2019.

Growth Route
All Students Group
The Phase 2 methodology for the Growth route for the All Students group is unchanged from the Phase 1 recognition methodology, except that the identification threshold is higher. All schools are eligible to be identified on the basis of posting the largest gains in annual performance on any of a number of different measures, which include student growth percentiles (SGPs), proficiency rates, four-year graduation rate, extended graduation rate, EL progress, and SQSS measures. The measures are generally defined (Table A1) as follows:

• The one-year 2019 school median SGP for ELA and math (separately) is in the top 10 percent of schools.
• The change in the ELA and math proficiency rates is sufficiently large to place the school in the top 10 percent of schools, and additional participation requirements are met.
• The change in the four-year graduation rates is sufficiently large to place the school in the top 10 percent of schools.
• The extended graduation rate measure from the winter 2019 WSIF is amongst the top 10 percent of schools.
• The annual change in the percentage of English learner students making progress is among the top 10 percent of schools.
• The annual changes in the school performance on the regular attendance, 9th grade on-track, and dual credit completion measures (separately) are sufficiently large to place the school in the top 10 percent of schools.

For a school to be identified under the Growth route for the All Students group, the school must have posted outcomes in the top 10 percent of schools on at least 60 percent of the reportable measures for which the school was eligible. The school must also meet the assessment participation requirements in ELA and math for the spring 2019 statewide assessments and the school must have been open for at least the two most recent years. Finally, the school must have met the requirement of reducing the WSIF High/Low Gap from the winter 2019 WSIF to the winter 2020 WSIF.

Student Groups
For a school to be identified under the Growth route for a student group, at least one student group at the school must have posted outcomes in the top 10 percent of schools on at least 60 percent of the measures for which the school was eligible. A student group at a school will not be recognized if the only top performing measure was the regular attendance metric. The school must also meet the assessment participation requirement in ELA and math for the spring 2019 statewide assessments. 

Achievement Route
The Phase 2 methodology for the Achievement route is unchanged from the Phase 1 recognition methodology. All schools are eligible to be identified through the achievement route on the basis of placing among the highest performers on ELA and math proficiency, four-year high school graduation rate, and SQSS measures. A school qualifies for recognition under the Achievement route if at least two of the following criteria are met.

• The All Students group at the school performed in the top 20 percent of schools on the three-year proficiency rates for the ELA and math assessments (separately).
• The All Students group at the school performed in the top 20 percent of schools on the four-year high school graduation rate aggregated over three years.
• The All Students group at the school performed in the top 20 percent of schools on the separate SQSS measures aggregated over three years.

In order to be identified for recognition under the achievement route, the All Students group and all other reportable student groups must have posted a winter 2020 WSIF rating of 6.00 or higher. The school is also required to meet the assessment participation requirements in ELA and math for the spring 2019 statewide assessments and the school must have been open for at least the two most recent years.

Other Information

• The High/Low Gap from the winter 2019 and winter 2020 WSIF will be used in the same manner as is used for the Phase I Growth route for the All Students group. The gap for a school must be declining and the scores for groups used in the gap analysis must be improving.
• Schools must meet the ESSA assessment participation requirements for the spring 2019 assessment administration.
• For the Closing Gaps – Targeted schools, none of the identified groups may show a decline from the winter 2019 to the winter 2020 WSIF rating if the school is to be recognized through this route.
• For the ELA and math proficiency rate changes, a participation rate of less than 95 percent in 2018 or 2019 will result in “no harm”, as the record will be removed from the numerator and denominator calculations.
• A student group must have at least 10 valid records in both years to result in a reportable value.
• The top 10 percent threshold cut points for each measure are included in Table A2.
• A school will be not be identified for recognition via the Growth or Achievement route if the regular attendance measure is the only reportable measure.
• A school must have been open for the two most recent years as indicated by a regular attendance denominator of at least one student in each of the two most recent years.

Proficiency Rate Changes
The ELA and math proficiency rate changes from the spring 2018 testing to the spring 2019 testing was computed as follows:

1. Spring 2019 proficiency rate for the student group minus the spring 2018 proficiency rate for the corresponding student group.
2. The computation was made separately for ELA and math using a minimum n-count of 10 student records.

The workgroup members acknowledged that the annual proficiency rates were particularly sensitive to testing participation rates, and that it would be virtually impossible to distinguish an increase attributed to increased performance on tests from an increase attributed to higher participation in testing. In order to minimize the possibility of an erroneous identification, the change in proficiency rate was computed for schools only if the 2018 and 2019 participation rates were at least 95 percent. For calculations relying on these measures, numerators and denominators were coded as a zero so as to not penalize a school for low participation rate on a given change score.

High/Low Gap
In order for the All Students group to qualify for recognition by way of the Growth route, a school was required to demonstrate a decreasing High/Low Gap. As an added control, the highest and lowest performing group from the winter 2019 WSIF was required to show an increase on the winter 2019 WSIF.

1. The High/Low Gap for winter 2019 WSIF was computed as the WSIF rating for the highest performing student group minus the WSIF rating for the lowest performing student group. The 2020 WSIF Gap was computed for the winter 2020 WSIF in the same manner.
2. The High/Low Gap change was computed as the winter 2020 WSIF High/Low Gap minus the winter 2019 WSIF High/Low gap. Three outcomes are possible:

• A positive value means the winter 2020 WSIF gap increased from the winter 2019 WSIF, so the All Students group for the school would not qualify for recognition via the Growth route.
• A value of zero means the winter 2020 WSIF gap was unchanged from the winter 2019 WSIF, so the All Students group for the school would not qualify for recognition via the Growth route because the gap was not reduced.
• A negative value means the winter 2020 WSIF gap decreased from the winter 2019 WSIF, so the All Students group for the school could qualify for recognition via the Growth route provided other criteria are met.

Table A1 in the linked document includes a brief description of the Phase 2 data elements for the Growth route and the top 10 percent threshold cut points for each of the ten possible reportable measures for the All Students group.

Table A2 in the linked document shows the threshold values (change from 2018 to 2019) for the top 10 percent of schools by student group.