Educational Accountability System Updates and Revisions

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT INDICATOR Feedback: The participation rate component must consider all students enrolled for at least 162 days during the school year Response: The denominator of the participation rate calculation was revised to equal the total number of students enrolled for at least 162 days during the school year

ACADEMIC PROGRESS INDICATOR Feedback: This indicator is only for elementary and middle schools. A state may include an Academic Progress Indicator for high schools as part of the Academic Achievement Indicator, or as a School Quality/Student Success Indicator. Response: The Academic Progress Indicator for High Schools was removed, and growth was incorporated in the Academic Achievement Indicator for high schools. A note was included that the growth metric will likely no longer be included once Indiana switches to the ECA and/or college entrance exam for accountability purposes.

GRADUATION RATE INDICATOR Feedback: It was unclear whether the five-year improvement score considered two different cohorts of students or the same cohort of students. Response: While the submitted plan indicated that the five year improvement score utilizes the most recent cohort with the both a finalized five year and four year graduation rate, further explanation of this was provided in the response to ensure clarity.

SCHOOL QUALITY/STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR Feedback: The School Quality/Student Success Indicator for high schools (college/career readiness achievement) must measure the performance of all students in the graduation cohort. Response: The denominator of the college/career readiness achievement score was revised to equal the total number of students in the cohort.

SYSTEM OF ANNUAL MEANINGFUL DIFFERENTIATION Feedback: A request for further explanation of the A-F system was made, specifically as it pertains to the points scale used. Response: While the submitted plan included the points scale used to assign each respective letter grade, further explanation of this was provided in the response to ensure clarity.

WEIGHTING OF INDICATORS Feedback: The requirement to describe the weighting of each indicator in the accountability system was not met because of the provision of extra points in the system of annual meaningful differentiation Response: Further explanation of the indicator weights was provided, including a statement that all final indicator scores will be capped at 100.0 points, and the overall summative rating score will also be capped at 100.0 points.

DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY FOR ANNUAL MEANINGFUL DIFFERENTIATION Feedback: An explanation of how small schools will be evaluated to identify for comprehensive and/or targeted support was missing. Response: A system of evaluation was added that averaged the scores for each indicator over three years to evaluation small schools, and a statement that further review will be conducted that may result in a future amendment was included. Feedback: Further explanation of how the Indiana Schools for the Blind and Deaf are evaluated was requested. Response: A statement was provided to explain that the Schools for the Blind and Deaf do not meet the definition of a school under Indiana Code and therefore do not receive an A-F letter grade under the system of annual meaningful differentiation

EXIT CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT & IMPROVEMENT FOR SCHOOLS Feedback: Further explanation of the C letter grade exit criteria was requested to ensure continued progress to improve student academic achievement and school success Response: Explanations of the C letter grade threshold and the bottom 5% threshold were provided to ensure that a C letter grade demonstrates continued progress and achievement to appropriately exit a school from comprehensive support. A statement that the exit criteria would be reevaluated should the bottom 5% threshold fall within the C letter grade points was also provided.