First Phase of the New State School Recognition System (May 2019) - Three Routes to Recognition

Closing Gaps

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 requirement of 95 percent in ELA and math for the spring 2018 statewide assessments.

1. For Comprehensive supports schools, the All Students group must post a gain of at least 0.65 decile points (top quintile threshold cut) from the winter 2018 WSIF to the winter 2019 WSIF.
2. For Targeted support schools, all of the school’s low performing student groups must post an increase on the 2019 WSIF and at least one low performing group must post an increase of at least 0.65 decile points from the winter 2018 WSIF version to the winter 2019 WSIF version. No new student groups may fall below the 2.30 threshold cut and at least one student group previously identified as low performing must move above the 2.30 threshold cut.
3. 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.
4. Schools identified in the winter 2018 WSIF version for Tier 3: Comprehensive Low Grad Rate must post a four-year graduation rate of 66.7 percent or higher for the class of 2018.

Growth

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 (Figure 2), 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 as follows:

1. The one-year 2018 school median SGP for ELA and math (separately) is in the top quintile of schools and the school met the performance gap requirement.
2. The change in the ELA and math proficiency rates is sufficiently large to place the school in the top quintile of schools, and additional participation requirements are met.
3. The change in the four-year graduation rates is sufficiently large to place the school in the top quintile.
4. The extended graduation rate measure from the winter 2019 WSIF is amongst the highest.
5. The annual change in the percentage of EL students making progress is among the highest.
6. The annual changes in the school performance on the regular attendance, 9th grade on-track, and dual credit participation measures (separately) are sufficiently large to place the school in the top quintile of schools.

For a school to be identified under the Growth route, the school must have posted outcomes in the top quintile of like schools on at least 60 percent of the measures for which the school was eligible. The school must also meet the assessment participation requirement of 95 percent in ELA and math for the spring 2018 statewide assessments. Finally, the school must have met the requirement of reducing the WSIF high/low gap from the winter 2018 WSIF to the winter 2019 WSIF.

Achievement

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. In this model, a school would qualify for recognition under the achievement route if at least two of the following criteria are met.

1. The school performed in the top quartile of schools on the three-year proficiency rates for the ELA and math assessments (separately).
2. The school performed in the top quintile of schools on the four-year high school graduation rate aggregated over three years.
3. The school performed in the top quintile 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 2019 WSIF rating of 6.00 or higher. The school also was required to meet the assessment participation requirement of 95 percent in ELA and math for the spring 2018 statewide assessments.

Results of the Phase I School Recognition Methodology

Table 1: Support tiers for schools identified for recognition by route to recognition.

	Closing Gaps	Closing Gaps and Growth	Growth	Growth and Achievement	Achievement	Total
Tier 3: Comprehensive	24	2	4			28
Tier 2: Targeted 3+ Groups or Low EL Progress	13		2			15
Tier 1: Targeted 1-2 Groups	71	7	3			74
Foundational			30	1	68	99
Total	99	9	39	1	68	216

 

Table 2: shows the regional distribution of recognized schools by ESD. For example, of the 216 recognized schools, 32 schools (14.8 percent of the recognized schools) were situated in ESD 101.

	ESD 101 Spokane	ESD 105 Yakima	ESD 112 Vancouver	ESD 113 Tumwater	ESD 114 Bremerton	ESD 121 Renton	ESD 123 Pasco	ESD 171 Wenatchee	ESD 189 Anacortes
Number of Schools Recognized	32	15	15	15	4	86	14	5	32
Percent of Recognized Schools by ESD	14.8	6.9	6.9	6.9	1.9	39.8	6.5	2.3	14.8
Percent of Total Schools by ESD	11.2	5.5	8.4	7.7	4.6	31.1	5.8	5.4	14.2

 

Table 3: student demographics at identified schools compared to the student demographics at schools not identified.

	Native Amer. and Alaskan %	Asian %	Black and African Amer. %	Hispanic and Latino %	Hawaiian and Pacific Islander %	White %	Two or More Races %	English Learner %	Low Income %	Special Education %
Not Recognized	2.4	5.3	4.1	21.6	0.9	55.4	7.6	10.1	44.4	15.8
Recognized	1.4	8.1	3.8	20.3	0.9	57.6	7.8	11.6	40.1	13.8

High/Low Gap

In order 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 lowest performing group from the winter 2018 WSIF was required to show an increase on the winter 2019 WSIF.

1. The High/Low gap for winter 2018 WSIF was computed as the WSIF rating for the highest performing student group minus the WSIF rating for the lowest performing student group. The 2019 WSIF gap was computed for the winter 2019 WSIF in the same manner.
2. The High/Low gap change was computed as the winter 2019 WSIF High/Low gap minus the winter 2018 WSIF High/Low gap. Three outcomes are possible:
   • A positive value means the winter 2019 WSIF gap increased from the winter 2018 WSIF, so the school would not qualify for recognition via this route.
   • A value of zero means the winter 2019 WSIF gap was unchanged from the winter 2018 WSIF, so the school would not qualify for recognition via this route because a gap reduction was required.
   • A negative value means the winter 2019 WSIF gap decreased from the winter 2018 WSIF, so the school could qualify for recognition via this route.

The WSIF performance by the All Students group was not allowed to factor into the gap calculations as only the seven race/ethnicity groups and the program participation groups (Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRL), English Learners (EL) and special education (SWD) were considered. The workgroup acknowledged that some recognized schools could have a substantial gap between the highest and lowest performing student groups but found this to be more acceptable knowing that, to be recognized, the gap must be decreasing.

Proficiency Rate Changes

The ELA and math proficiency rate changes from the spring 2017 testing to the spring 2018 testing was computed as follows:

1. Spring 2018 proficiency rate for the All Students group minus the spring 2017 proficiency rate for the All Students 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 2017 and 2018 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.