Graduation Conversation Doug Kosty Assistant Superintendent Office of

Graduation Conversation Doug Kosty Assistant Superintendent, Office of Learning Derek Brown Manager, Assessment of Essential Skills Cristen Mc. Lean Operations Policy Analyst, 1 Assessment of Essential Skills

OVERVIEW This briefing will include a review of the following items: • Review of Essential Skills assessment categories, including upcoming statewide assessment transition • 09 -10 Cohort data (all assessment categories, not yet validated) • 10 -11 Cohort data (only statewide assessment data) • Statewide assessment performance trends • Oregon’s graduation calculation and comparison to other states 2 • Graduation policy review process

ESSENTIAL SKILLS REQUIREMENT ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES FOR MEETING GRADUATION REQUIREMENT 3 INCLUDING STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT TRANSITION

Cohort year (when they entered grade 9) 07 -08 and earlier Essential Skill that students must demonstrate in order to earn a diploma None 08 -09 • Reading 09 -10 • Reading • Writing 10 -11 and beyond • Reading • Writing • Math 4 ESSENTIAL SKILLS TIMELINE

APPROVED ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES Statewide Assessment (OAKS) Work Samples 5 Other standardized assessment

STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT TRANSITION Statewide Assessment (OAKS) 2014 -2015 academic year and beyond Statewide Assessment (Smarter Balanced) Work Samples Other standardized assessment 6 Through 2013 -2014 academic year

STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT TRANSITION Late Fall/Winter 2014 If there is a discrepancy between the “meets” achievement level on Smarter as compared to OAKS, the State Board will make a decision regarding the achievement level required for students to meet Essential Skills graduation requirements. 7 • Option 1: Use the achievement level on Smarter Balanced that represents an equivalent level of rigor to the “meets” achievement level on OAKS • Option 2: Use the “meets” achievement level on Smarter Balanced (assuming that it is a higher achievement level) If the State Board decides Option 2 students must be given adequate notice (March 1 st of the 8 th grade year).

STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT TRANSITION The two other assessment options will be stable in terms of achievement levels while equivalent levels of rigor are being established. OAKS 2014 -2015 academic year and beyond Smarter Balanced Work Samples Other standardized assessment 8 Through 2013 -2014 academic year

09 -10 COHORT DATA, ALL ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES AND COMPARISON TO STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT 10 -11 COHORT DATA, STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT 9 STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT PERFORMANCE TRENDS

09 -10 Cohort PERCENTAGE WHO USED EACH ASSESSMENT CATEGORY FOR THE READING REQUIREMENT 100% 5% 9% 7% 90% 16% 20% 12% 5% 4% 13% 3% Preliminary Data NOT YET VALIDATED 96% Other Assessment 36% 80% 70% 60% 50% 94% 91% 92% 79% 40% 82% 87% 94% 95% 87% OAKS 63% 30% Work Sample 20% 10% M (43 5) U L (1 2 PA 70 ) C W (1 H 65 T ) (2 13 22 ) 10 IN D 03 ) ) (4 9 IS (6 94 H 3) K BL (1 44 O AS ( SW 150 5) D (2 13 5) 18 ) P LE (1 44 D EC Al l( 30 2 32 ) 0%

09 -10 Cohort 11 PERCENTAGE WHO USED EACH ASSESSMENT CATEGORY FOR THE WRITING REQUIREMENT

09 -10 Cohort OAKS PERFORMANCE FOR STUDENTS WHO MET READING ESSENTIAL SKILL THROUGH WORK SAMPLE OR OTHER ASSESSMENT 100% 7% 6% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 4% 8% 9% 10% 90% 80% 49% 70% 56% 57% 42% 56% 53% 58% 60% Preliminary Data NOT YET VALIDATED 45% 68% 59% 56% Exceed/Met 50% Nearly Met Low/Very Low 40% 30% 49% 34% 42% 28% 10% 0% 24% 45% 22% 35% 7% 3% 1% 0% All ECD LEP SWD (1880)(1364) (564) (448) 9% 2% 2% 0% 11% 0% ASO BLK HIS IND MUL PAC WHT (116) (125) (642) (25) (63) (22) (887) 12 20% No Test 47%

09 -10 Cohort OAKS PERFORMANCE FOR STUDENTS WHO MET WRITING ESSENTIAL SKILL THROUGH WORK SAMPLE OR OTHER ASSESSMENT 100% 3% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 4% 6% 4% 90% Preliminary Data NOT YET VALIDATED 80% 50% 70% 63% 62% 57% 51% 54% 61% 60% 66% 51% 65% Exceed/Met 50% Nearly Met Low/Very Low 40% No Test 30% 41% 45% 20% 40% 28% 31% 38% 33% 29% 24% 3% 2% 41% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 1% All ECD LEP SWD (6462)(4247) (975) (1182) 6% 5% 6% 2% 6% ASO BLK HIS IND MUL PAC WHT (304) (242) (1768) (131) (230) (51) (3736) 13 0%

10 -11 Cohort PERCENTAGE MET REQUIREMENTS USING OAKS 100% 90% Reading 80% Writing 70% 60% Math 60% 52% 51% 50% Reading and Writing 40% 30% Reading and Math 34% 32% Writing and Math 23% 20% 10% Met All Three ASO (1799) BLK (1025) HIS (7668) IND (737) MUL (1891) PAC (256) WHT (28030) 14 0%

PERCENTAGE MET REQUIREMENTS USING OAKS 10 -11 Cohort 100% 90% Reading 80% Writing 70% Math 60% 50% 47% 40% Reading and Writing 35% Reading and Math 30% Writing and Math 20% 9% 10% 11% Met All Three All (41406) ECD (23127) LEP (3238) SWD (5617) 15 0%

Multiple Cohorts PERFORMANCE TREND: OAKS HIGH SCHOOL READING 100, 0% 90, 0% 83, 2% 80, 0% 70, 0% 65, 4% 65, 1% 64, 8% 66, 1% 83, 6% 84, 5% 71, 3% 60, 0% 50, 0% 40, 0% 30, 0% 20, 0% 10, 0% Ø 2005 -06 through 2009 -10 based on grade 10 student performance Ø 2010 -11 through present based on grade 11 student performance 16 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 09 -10 10 -11 (2005 -06) (2006 -07) (2007 -08) (2008 -09) (2009 -10) (2010 -11) (2011 -12) (2012 -13)

Multiple Cohorts PERFORMANCE TREND: OAKS HIGH SCHOOL WRITING 100, 0% 90, 0% 80, 0% 68, 2% 70, 0% 60, 0% 55, 6% 55, 2% 56, 0% 55, 0% 66, 7% 53, 2% 59, 5% 50, 0% 40, 0% 30, 0% 20, 0% 10, 0% 07 -08 08 -09 09 -10 10 -11 (2008 -09) (2009 -10) (2010 -11) (2011 -12) (2012 -13) Ø 2005 -06 through 2009 -10 based on grade 10 student performance Ø 2010 -11 through present based on grade 11 student performance 17 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 (2005 -06) (2006 -07) (2007 -08)

Multiple Cohorts PERFORMANCE TREND: OAKS HIGH SCHOOL MATH 100, 0% 90, 0% 80, 0% 68, 3% 70, 0% 60, 0% 55, 3% 55, 1% 52, 2% 53, 6% 65, 7% 68, 8% 56, 3% 50, 0% 40, 0% 30, 0% 20, 0% 10, 0% Ø 2005 -06 through 2009 -10 based on grade 10 student performance Ø 2010 -11 through present based on grade 11 student performance 18 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 09 -10 10 -11 (2005 -06) (2006 -07) (2007 -08) (2008 -09) (2009 -10) (2010 -11) (2011 -12) (2012 -13)

19 GRADUATION RATE CALCULATION

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS Cohort Year For most students this is their first year as a ninth grader. Technically: The first school year in which the student attended any high school grade in the United States or elsewhere. # of students in original cohort, adjusted for students who transferred in and out of the public school system. 20 Adjusted Cohort

CALCULATIONS: % OF STUDENTS WITH EACH OUTCOME 21 All calculations made based on adjusted cohort

Graduate Completer Non-Completer # of students who earned: # of students who: q. Regular Diplomas q. All Diplomas: # of students total § § Regular Modified Extended Adult learning q. Are still enrolled q. Dropped out Or earned: q. GED q. Alternate certificate # of students total 22 Denominator Numerator CALCULATIONS

23 GRADUATION REQUIREMENT COMPARISON

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS ACROSS STATES There is substantial variability from state to state. For example, some states have: • • Similar graduation requirements, but easier assessments or more difficult assessments. More graduation requirements, such as requiring more assessments. Fewer graduation requirements, such as only requiring credits and not requiring assessments results. 24 •

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEAR STATES FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES—NOT COMPREHENSIVE REPRESENTATION State Credits required Achievement Level required on an assessment(s) Planning/counseling required OR 24 Reading, Writing, and Math Personalized Learning Requirement CA 13 Reading, Writing, and Math None WA 19 Reading, Writing, and Math Must develop a plan for high school and beyond ID 23 Reading, Language Usage, and Math Must develop a plan for high school and beyond 25 from state dept. website and/or http: //mb 2. ecs. org/reports/Report. aspx? id=735

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS CHANGES State Year Law Minnesota 2013 Requires one of the three required Carnegie units for mathematics be Algebra II or its equivalent. Indiana 2013 Requires school counselor to meet with students who do not achieve passing score on graduation exam to explore available remediation options to meet requirements necessary for a graduation waiver. Virginia 2012 Directs the Board of Education to modify the credits necessary for a student to earn a standard or an advanced studies diploma. Arizona 2012 Directs the State Board of Education to adopt rules to define competency-based educational pathways for college and career readiness. http: //www. ecs. org/ecscat. nsf/Web 2013 All? Open. View&Start=1&Count=1000&Collapse. View 26 FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES—NOT COMPREHENSIVE REPRESENTATION

COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS REVIEW 27 THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF GRADUATION POLICIES IN LIGHT OF COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS

1. Small internal team will collect information about policies and educational landscape. 2. College and Career Readiness (CCR) team, comprised of representatives from the Office of Learning, will analyze collected information using a variety of tools, including a SWOT. 3. CCR team will seek additional internal and external expertise to ensure full examination of policies and educational landscape. 4. If needed, CCR team will draft policy recommendations then collect feedback from internal staff and a representative group of external stakeholders. 5. Based on this feedback, CCR team will revise policy recommendations then survey the field. 6. If survey results indicate support, policy recommendations will presented to the State Board of Education for adoption. State Board will be kept apprised of progress throughout. 28 PROCESS OVERVIEW

NEXT STATE BOARD DISCUSSION TOPICS • Cohort comparisons on Essential Skills • Validated Essential Skills data as a part of Essential Skills Report release 29 • Updates on the progress with the College and Career Readiness Review

QUESTIONS? ØDerek Brown, Manager – Assessment of Essential Skills Ø derek. brown@state. or. us Ø 503 -947 -5841 ØCristen Mc. Lean, Assessment Operations and Policy Analyst 30 Ø cristen. mclean@state. or. us Ø 503 -947 -5742