Illinois

Illinois Affiliate

Through the support and leadership of the Illinois Business Roundtable and the College of Education at Illinois State University, Just for the Kids-Illinois is driving school improvement across the state. Leadership and funding from the Illinois business community, including Ed Rust, Ed Rust Jr., Chairman and CEO of State Farm Insurance Companies is helping to make this a reality.

For additional information visit:

School Data 4 All, Inc
Student Performance
SIP
WorkKeys®

Contact:
Jennifer Ross
Director of Education Policy and Initiatives, Illinois Business Roundtable

For additional information on becoming a Just for the Kids state affiliate, click here.

2005 Illinois Elementary School Identification Criteria

The table below highlights the grades and subjects that were in this analysis:

Grade Year
2003* 2004* 2005*
3rd Grade Math
Reading		 Math
Reading		 Math
Reading
4th Grade Science Science Science
5th Grade Math
Reading		 Math
Reading		 Math
Reading
* All three years used ISAT state test data.

Performance Rate Used: An average of the percent meeting the standard and the percent exceeding the standard was used.1

The table below details the three areas of identification process issues:

  1. Data Components – the types of information preferred in the analysis;
  2. Model Specifications – the ways that schools are compared to one another, and;
  3. Criteria – the specific goals schools must meet to be considered high-performing.

Data Components NCEA Model Illinois
Longitudinal Data If longitudinal data are available, the analysis only evaluates students who were continuously enrolled on the campus for three or more years.2 Longitudinal data were not available - snapshot data were used instead.
Consistent Performance To ensure that consistently high-performing schools are identified, three years of performance data are used. NCEA model applied.
Criterion Referenced Exams Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRTs) are strongly preferred to Norm-Referenced Tests (NRTs). NCEA model applied.
Measure of Performance When available, an average scale score is used as the measure of performance for each tested grade and subject in the analysis. When average scores are not available, performance rates (i.e. the percent Proficient for each tested grade and subject) is substituted. Average scale scores were not available, so percents of students meeting/exceeding the state standard were substituted.

Model Specifications NCEA Model Illinois
Similar Schools Schools are compared to one another based on a combination of demographic factors that include the schoolwide percentages of low income students, the enrollment of the school, and several ethnicity percentages.3 A school's relative performance is the distance between their performance rate and the average performance rate of schools similar to them. This analysis is always adjusted for the number of students whose performance is being measured. The model used the following demographic factors to compare schools for each year, within each subject and grade: schoolwide percentages of low income, English Language Learners (ELL), African-American, Hispanic, and Asian students, the school enrollment, and a flag for whether the school was/was not considered a selective admission magnet school.
Rank Groups After calculating a campus' relative performance (on a particular tested subject and grade), it is ranked within one of ten low income groups: those with 0-10% low income students on the campus, 10-20% low income students, 20-30% low income students, etc. The rank produced is called an individual performance rank. NCEA model applied.

Criteria NCEA Model Illinois
Individual Performance Rank Each individual performance rank (representing an individual tested grade, subject and year in the analysis) must be at the 50th percentile or above.

After researching the strict criterion that no ranks could ever fall below the 50th percentile, in 2005 NCEA adapted this to allow for the possibility of too few students, missing data, or very infrequent low ranks. Based on the number of grades included, it will be acceptable for anywhere from 0-2 ranks in the first two years of the analysis (i.e. 2003 and 2004 in a 2005 three year analysis) to be below 50 or missing (due to too few students or missing data). Please see the table below to see how many ranks per subject receive this exception at your school.

FYI: The number of ranks included in the first two years of the analysis at your school equals: the number of tested grades in the subject multiplied by 2 years multiplied by the number of prior performance groups (only relevant for middle and high schools, where there are 2 groups).

Number of ranks included in the first two years of the analysis 2-4 5-8 9-12
Number of ranks from the first two years that may be either missing or below 50 0 1 2
NCEA model for snapshot data applied.
Overall Performance Rank The overall performance rank - which is a rank of the weighted average of all residuals (distances from expected performance) - must be among the top of similar schools. The required level - which depends on the number of ranks included in the analysis of the subject - ranges between 70 and 85.

FYI: The number of ranks included in the analysis of a subject at your school equals: the number of tested grades in the subject multiplied by the total number of years in the analysis (3) multiplied by the number of prior performance groups (only relevant for middle and high schools, where there are 2 groups).
Please note that this number of ranks is different than the number of ranks in the table under Individual Performance Rank, as that considers only the ranks from the first two years of the analysis, while this considers ranks across all three years.

Number of ranks included in the analysis of this subject 3-6 7-10 11-14 15-18
Required Overall Performance Rank 85+ 80+ 75+ 70+
NCEA model applied - an overall rank requirement of 85 or above was used.
Participation Rates and AYP Status In years and subjects where Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) ratings are available, the school must meet AYP standards. In years or subjects (i.e. Writing) where AYP data are not available, at least 85% of the enrolled students had to be tested on their state's standardized exam. AYP data were available for 2003, 2004, and 2005 and checked in the Reading and Math analyses. Participation rates were not available.
Number of Students There must be at least 10 continuously enrolled students in each grade, subject, and year in the analysis. Please see the Individual Performance Rank section above for the few exceptions allowed to this rule. NCEA model applied.
Opportunity Gaps In the most recent year included in the analysis, schools may not have any opportunity gaps below -15. The opportunity gaps are a central part of the main Just for the Kids school reports, and are the distance between your schools grade and subject level percent proficient on the exam and the percent proficient of the top comparable schools with similar demographics. Although these gaps are not calculated in exactly the same way as the high-performing analysis, and in most cases do not utilize the same measure of performance (opportunity gaps are based on proficiency rates while, when available, the high-performing analysis is based on average test scores), it is important to ensure that the identified schools seem appropriate under both models. NCEA model applied.

1 ((% at least meets the standard + % exceeds the standard) / 2) This works out to the equivalent of 1 point for every student that just meets the standard, and 2 points for every student able to exceed the standard.  back
2 If a school did not have three years of continuous enrollment due to their grade span configuration, three years of continuous district enrollment was substituted.  back
3 These factors may vary from state to state and based on the available data.   back