John Gatta, Ph.D.President
The Measurement and Assessment
of Educational Quality
National and State Context
National and State Context
PERA and SB7
Race to the Top
NCLB
Common Core
Achievement Growth versus Achievement Status
GrowthStatus
Educational Quality Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201265%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
93%94% 93% 93% 93%
91%
90%
77% 79% 79% 80%81% 82%
82%
District 23 Overall Achievement
District 23Illinois
Quality Under NCLB
Redefining Quality Federal and State Policy Shifts
Race to the Top
“I am issuing a challenge to our nation’s governors and school boards, principals and teachers, businesses and non-profits, parents and students: if you set and enforce rigorous and challenging standards and assessments; if you put outstanding teachers at the front of the classroom; if you turn around failing schools – your state can win a Race to the Top grant.”
President Barack ObamaJuly 24, 2009
In 2010, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA).
PERA requires all schools in Illinois to incorporate measures of student growth into principal and teacher evaluation systems.
Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA)
In 2011, Governor Quinn signed into law Senate Bill 7.
SB7 connects teacher hiring and dismissal to teacher performance.
Illinois Senate Bill 7 (SB 7)
Illinois NCLB Waiver
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the most recent authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the principal federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. On September 23, 2011, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) invited states educational agencies to request flexibility on behalf of itself, its districts, and schools, in order to better focus on improving student learning and increasing the quality of instruction. Illinois' flexibility request was initially submitted on February 28, 2012 and resubmitted on January 31, 2014, was granted on April 18, 2014.
- ISBE Website
NCLB Waivers Nationally
Illinois NCLB WaiverMultiple Measures Index
2011 2012 2013 201450%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%93%
92%
75% 79%86% 86%
59%
District 23 Mathematics (% Meeting Standards)
District 23Illinois
2011 2012 2013 201450%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%
100%
88%88%
73%72%
79%79%
59%
District 23 Reading(% Meeting Standards)
District 23Illinois
NOTE: More Rigorous Standards Imposed in 2013
Higher Achievement Standards
2014 ISAT Overall Asian Black Hispanic Other White Female Male
Reading 72.3% 82.5% 50.0% 44.7% 88.0% 78.4% 75.5% 69.0%
Math 78.7% 91.8% 58.3% 49.2% 84.0% 85.2% 78.8% 78.6%
2014 ISAT LEP Not LEP IEP No IEP Low IncomeNot Low Income
Reading 20.7% 79.3% 35.4% 64.6% 49.8% 50.2%
Math 46.5% 53.5% 36.4% 63.6% 55.8% 44.2%
Percentage of District 23 students meeting or exceeding 2014 ISAT across subgroups and subjects
Achievement Gaps Remain Major National and State Focus
Educational Progress
ISBE Growth Value Tables
Educational Progress
District 23 Performance on Growth Value Tables (2013)
Adjusted status compares the performance of each district and school to a state benchmark after adjusting for student characteristics that may impact district outcomes. ISAT data from the 2013-2014 school year were evaluated to determine how District 23 district-level and school-level achievement compared to district-level and school-level achievement across the state after adjusting for district characteristics.
The following characteristics were accounted for in the adjusted status model:
· District-type (e.g., unit),· District enrollment,· Percentage race/ethnicity,· Percentage Limited English Proficiency (LEP),· Percentage low-income,· Percentage mobility,· Geographic location (e.g., Chicagoland),· Equalized Assessed Value (EAV).
Performance in Context(Adjusted Status)
Subject Percentile Rank
Projected(% Meets Standards)
Actual*(% Meets Standards)
Reading 65.8% 74 77Mathematics 54.3% 74 74
District 23 Prospect Heights Adjusted Status
(2013)
Performance in Context(Adjusted Status)
*Based on criteria students in district for one year
Defining Quality at the Local District Level
What is your definition of quality?
Developing a District Dashboard
Local Academic Growth
Local Academic Growth
2014-2015 Priorities
Continue to support administration with data analysis and new portal resources
Work with administration to develop the district dashboard aligned to the district’s definition of quality
Develop individual student profile reports aligned to the dashboard
Questions?