Child pages
  • Identifying School Pairs: SY 2014-15

Identifying School Pairs: SY 2014-15

Nathalie Umaña
July 22, 2014

These guidelines assume that USED approves amendment 15. Please hold off on confirming pairs with schools until we receive further guidance from USED or we get to a point where we need to move forward.

Quick Navigation

 

SY 2014-15 School Pairing

Note1

These guidelines assume that USED approves amendment 15. Please hold off on confirming pairs with schools until we receive further guidance from USED or we get to a point where we need to move forward.

Note 2

The direction from the CORE Board was to keep existing pairs unless there is compelling reason to uncouple a pairing of schools. All but three of the current collaborative partner schools met the Summer 2014 CORE AMO and/or became a focus school. Each pairing has a status according to the following:

  • Continue pairing: 32 of 49; existing pairs where all schools met the CORE 2014 AMO and/or did not fall into focus status and/or the school did not request a change (one case)
  • Need pair: 14 of 49; either requested a change or did not have a named school pair last year
  • Examine pairing, probably needs a pair: 3 of 49; current pair either missed the CORE 2014 AMO and/or is now Focus. If there is a strong pairing in place, we should discuss continuing the pair. Otherwise, we should seek new partners.

All communication should flow through both Nathalie Umaña (nathalie@caedpartners.org) and Noah Bookman (noah@caedpartners.org). A comprehensive workbook with all of the pairing related data referenced below can be downloaded here.

Step 1: Review the current list of school pairs on the "SY15 pairings (v7.7.21.14).xlsx" document

  • Have we accurately retained existing pairing relationships that should continue?
  • Have we accurately included all of the schools that need a pair?

Step 2: For schools that need a pair, identify your top three choices

Amongst the set of possible options using this template School Ranking Template by August 8, 2014. That said, if you want to submit preferences before August 8, 2014, we will begin to make matches on August 4, 2015.

Possible options

  • We have filtered out priority schools, focus schools, and schools that missed the 2014 CORE AMO from the lists referenced below.
  • Possible pairs ES/MS/HS: Based upon unpaired reward schools, “other high performing” and “other high progress” (all using the same method as SY13/14, see Appendix A), we have identified a set of possible elementary, middle and high school pairs. In these worksheets, we’ve also included select demographic and performance data from the 2013 API file.
  • Backup options ES/MS/HS: These backup options include schools that met most of the same “other high performing”/”other high progress” criteria. For “other high performing,” we deleted the criterion to meet AYP (see Appendix B). For back up high progress (see appendix B), we substituted the subgroup criteria to match the criteria used with “other high performing schools.” Namely, we looked at schools with a within school gap in the lowest 30% or improvement of the lowest performing subgroup, as opposed to looking at schools with an improvement of 5% in the lowest performing subgroup.

Engaging your colleagues: We encourage districts to communicate amongst yourselves about possible pairings. Here is an up to date contact list of district leads for this part of the work
http://bit.ly/leadscontactlist

To assist with the matching, we have created these two preferences surveys that you may choose to use both with schools who need a pair and with schools that could service as partners:

Step 3: CORE Staff will complete the matching process

  • CORE staff will ensure that both districts are supportive of the match in the case of inter-district pair
  • CORE staff will also ensure that a reasonable level of commonality amongst the schools in terms of the populations served

Appendix A

Criteria for "Other High Performing" and "Other High Progress

Other High-Performing

  • The reward school definition has been relaxed to include the top 40% of schools based on average ELA and Math performance of the all students group (percent proficient and above) in 2012 and 2013 and on 2013 graduation rates (for schools with graduation rate data); and
    • Within-school achievement gap (as defined in focus schools section) in the lowest 30% across all participating schools for 2013; or
    • The lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved from 2011 to 2013 (i.e. change is >0); and
  • Met CA AYP in 2013

Other High-Progress

  • The reward school definition has been relaxed to include the top 20% most improved academic performance from 2011 to 2013 across average ELA and Math in all grades in the “all students” group (percent proficient and above) and
  • Top 50% most improved graduation rate from 2010 to 2012; and
  • The lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved by at least 5% from 2011 to 2013
  • Schools cannot be designated highest-progress if they have a stagnant or worsening achievement gap. By showing significant improved performance for a school’s lowest performing subgroup, our methodology meets USED’s requirement that a High-Progress school must not have significant achievement gaps that are not closing

Appendix B

Criteria for Back Up Possible Pairs

Backup High-Performing

(Only to be utilized if we cannot find matches with the reward, other high-progress and other high performance options).

  • The reward school definition has been relaxed to include the top 40% of schools based on average ELA and Math performance of the all students group (percent proficient and above) in 2012 and 2013 and on 2013 graduation rates (for schools with graduation rate data); and
    • Within-school achievement gap (as defined in focus schools section) in the lowest 30% across all participating schools for 2013; or
    • The lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved from 2011 to 2013 (i.e. change is >0)

Backup High-Progress

(Only to be utilized if we cannot find matches with the reward, other high-progress and other high performance options).

  • The reward school definition has been relaxed to include the top 20% most improved academic performance from 2011 to 2013 across average ELA and Math in all grades in the “all students” group (percent proficient and above) and
  • Top 50% most improved graduation rate from 2010 to 2012; and
    • Within-school achievement gap (as defined in focus schools section) in the lowest 30% across all participating schools for 2013; or
    • The lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved from 2011 to 2013 (i.e. change is >0)

Extra Backup Other High-Progress - Middle

(Only to be utilized if we cannot find matches with the reward, other high-progress/other higher performance and backup high-progress/back up other high progress options).

  • The reward school definition has been relaxed to include the top 20% most improved academic performance from 2011 to 2013 across average ELA and Math in all grades in the “all students” group (percent proficient and above) and
  • Not Priority or Focus or Other Support

Extra Back-Up Other High Progress - High

(Only to be utilized if we cannot find matches with the reward, other high-progress/other higher performance and backup high-progress/back up other high progress options).

  • The reward school definition has been relaxed to include the top 20% most improved academic performance from 2011 to 2013 across average ELA and Math in all grades in the “all students” group (percent proficient and above) and
  • Top 50% most improved graduation rate from 2010 to 2012; and
  • Not Priority or Focus or Other Support

This page has no comments.