2010-11 Network Accountability Overview

Overall Scoring Structure

Network ratings are based on four components*: Principal Satisfaction 15%

Quality Review 20% Progress Report 45%

*Networks supporting schools with hi h need student populations are eligible for additional credit based *N t k ti h l ith high d t d t l ti li ibl f dditi l dit b d on qualitative performance

2010-2011 Progress Report (45%) g ( )

The 2010-11 Progress Report percentile of all schools in the network is averaged and peered relative to other networks supporting schools serving student populations of similar need. For school types without published percentiles, percentiles are calculated for use in the network ratings. For schools with more than one Progress Report, the average of the two percentiles i used. til is d School attribution to networks is as of 10/31/10.

Most Recent Quality Review (20%) y ( )

The most recent Quality Review score of all schools in the network is averaged and peered relative to other networks supporting schools with similar student populations. For 2010-2011 Quality Reviews, the published numeric score is used. For Quality Reviews prior to 2010-11, the Quality Review ratings are converted to scores using the below table: WD/O 75 P 65 UPF 45 U 25 School attribution to networks as of 10/31/10.

Peering g
Progress Report percentiles and Quality Review scores are incorporated as peer-horizoned scores, which compares each network to networks supporting schools serving student populations with similar need, similar to peering on the Progress Report.
Each network has from 15 to 30 peer networks. Peer networks are those with similar types of students, determined by the peer index of each school. Each network has up to 15 peer networks with peer indices above and 15 peer networks with peer i di t k ith indices b l below it it. Elementary and K-8 school need is calculated using student demographics; for other school types, need is based on student proficiency when entering the school and special education designation with an additional factor for overage students designation, in the high school index. Just as Progress Report scores are converted to percentiles and averaged for a network score percentiles of Progress Report peer indices are calculated within score, school type and averaged to determine a network peer index value.
5

Peering Methodology g gy
Peering generates a score that expresses how well a network did relative to networks serving student populations with similar levels of need.
This networks peered score

63% 46.6 46 6
Average within peer group minus two standard deviations

60.7 60 7
This networks un-peered un peered score

68.9 68 9
Average within peer group plus two standard deviations

Note: Peer horizons and peered scores are limited to the natural range from 0% to 100%.

Qualitative Evaluation (20%) ( )

Each network receives a score from 1.0 to 4.0 representing a qualitative evaluation for 2010-2011. The qualitative evaluation is based on the networks performance in the following functional areas: g Instructional Quality and Talent Development (40%), Core Functional Support (30%), and School Improvement, School Choice, and Community Engagement (30%). The percentile of the qualitative score across all networks is used in the calculation of the final score.

Principal Satisfaction (15%) ( )

The average response of principals in the network to the question of how satisfied they are with their network is used to determine this component. Responses are weighted as follows: Very Satisfied Satisfied No response Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 100% 66% 50% 33% 0%

Initial score calculation

The four components are incorporated by their weight. Progress Report: Average percentile, peered percentile Quality Review: Average score, peered Qualitative Evaluation: Score, percentile Principal Satisfaction: Average score p g (45%) (20%) (20%) ( (15%) )

Additional credit
Additional credit is intended to reward networks performing well and supporting schools serving the highest need student populations. Networks in the top quartile of the peer index (highest need) are eligible to receive extra credit. Those in the highest quartile for the qualitative evaluation receive 10 additional points in the final score. Those in the second-highest quartile for the qualitative evaluation receive 5 additional points in the final score.

10

Final Rankings and Quartiles g

All networks are ranked by final overall score Network performance is classified by position in the ranking: Top quartile Third quartile Second quartile Bottom quartile 4 3 2 1

11