High Red Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Greater than 6.0% to 10.0% Very High Red Red Red Orange Yellow Greater than 10.0% <end add> Annual Meaningful Differentiation (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(C)) Describe the system of annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools in the State, consistent with the requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the ESEA, including a description of (i) how the system is based on all indicators in the State’s accountability system, (ii) for all students and for each subgroup of students. Note that each state must comply with the requirements in 1111(c)(5) of the ESEA with respect to accountability for charter schools. California has developed a multiple measures accountability system that uses percentile distributions to create a five-by-five grid. This by five grid provides 25 results that combine and to make an “Status” “Change” overall determination for each of the indicators. The accountability system provides equal weight to both and “Status” “Change.” is determined using the current year performance (i.e., current “Status” year graduation rate), and is the difference between “Change” performance from the current year and the prior year, or between the current year and a multi-year weighted average. To determine the percentile cut scores for LEAs and schools “Status,” were ordered from highest to lowest and four cut points were selected based on the distribution. These cut points created five levels: “Status” Very High High Medium Low Very Low For cut scores, LEAs and schools were ordered separately “Change” from highest to lowest for positive change and lowest to highest for negative change. cuts points created five levels: “Change” Increased significantly Increased Maintained
High Greater than 6.0% to 10.0% Red Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Very High Greater than 10.0% Red Red Red Orange Yellow <end add> Annual Meaningful Differentiation (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(C)) Describe the system of annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools in the State, consistent with the requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the ESEA, including a description of (i) how the system is based on all indicators in the State’s accountability system, (ii) for all students and for each subgroup of students. Note that each state must comply with the requirements in 1111(c)(5) of the ESEA with respect to accountability for charter schools. California has developed a multiple measures accountability system that uses percentile distributions to create a five-by-five grid. This by five grid provides 25 results that combine “Status” and “Change” to make an overall determination for each of the indicators. The accountability system provides equal weight to both “Status” and “Change.” “Status” is determined using the current year performance (i.e., current year graduation rate), and “Change” is the difference between performance from the current year and the prior year, or between the current year and a multi-year weighted average. To determine the percentile cut scores for “Status,” LEAs and schools were ordered from highest to lowest and four cut points were selected based on the distribution. These cut points created five “Status” levels: Very High High Medium Low Very Low For “Change” cut scores, LEAs and schools were ordered separately from highest to lowest for positive change and lowest to highest for negative change. cuts points created five “Change” levels: Increased significantly Increased Maintained
jan18item05a2.docx