1 1 Quick View of Tables

Transcription

1 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend 1 1 Quick View of Tables The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the tables, and a short description of how to identify equity gap(s), and the interpretation of an identified equity gap (please see page 3 in the business rules for the definition of an equity gap). This section is the short version of the methodology, business rules, and data components Overview of Tables There are two essential components of information to identify equity gap(s). 1. How many sections are taught by each teacher category at each school? 2. Which student subgroups are more likely taught by each teacher category? The first component of information is based on teacher information ONLY shown in Table 2 and Table 4. However, these tables cannot inform you whether there is an equity gap. The second component of information is based on student information linked to teacher information shown in Table 1 and Table 3. These tables can inform you whether there is an equity gap. Four (4) types of tables are shown to identify equity gap(s) by the recent three consecutive school years ( , , and school years): Table 1: Percentage of Student Subgroups taught by each Teacher Category and its Severity (School Score I V) at each Educational Service District (ESD) and School District (SD). NOTE 1: The table shows unqualified teacher (NotHQT), inexperienced teacher (INX) and out of field teacher in General Education (GeOTF) only, please see page 4 7 in the business rules for the definitions) NOTE 2: The numerical values in Table 1 are a percentage of student subgroups taught by each teacher category. The column V (Greek letter with red color) in each teacher category, five gradients of red was indexed to highlight the severity of the equity gap (dark red is the most severe equity gap, please see page 6 7 for detail). Information/severity of teacher categories are shown in Greek letters from I through V colored by green, light green, white, pink, and red (please see page 4 for details). For percentage of student subgroup at column V, white is good and dark red indicates close attention is needed (please see page 6 7 for detail). For teacher category, green is good and red indicates close attention needed (please see page 4 for details). Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 1 of 9

2 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend Table 2: School Score of each Teacher Category at each School. NOTE: The School Score indicates severity of teacher category as compare to other schools in statewide. The School Score are shown in Greek letters from I through V colored by green, light green, white, pink, and red. The School Score can indicate Please remember that green is good and red indicates close attention is needed. However, please do not be to concerned with the school score of the teacher category shown in V of the school. The School Score V does not always indicate that all the sections are taught by, for example, out of field teachers (GeOTF) at the school. Please see Table 4 for exact percentage of the teacher category. Table 3: Average Percentage of each Teacher Category by Student Subgroups at each Educational Service District (ESD) and School District (SD). NOTE: This table shows the average percentage of each teacher category by the student subgroup at each Educational Service District (ESD) and School District (SD). The numerical values in the table is the percentage of each teacher category which is averaged by the student subgroups at an ESD and a school district. The numerical values in ALL in the subgroup are an average percentage of each teacher category at the ESD or school district. The numerical values in ELL in the subgroup are an average percentage of each teacher category accessed by students in the ELL program at an ESD or school district. The variation of the average percentage by student subgroups can indicate equity gap(s). Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 2 of 9

3 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend Table 4: Percentage of each Teacher Category at each School. NOTE 1: This table shows the percentage of each teacher category. If you would like to know the severity of the teacher category (how good the percentage means) as compared to other schools statewide, please see Table 2. The School Score in Table 2 can inform you of five different severity levels of each teacher category. NOTE 2: In Table 4, a few schools which offer sections in non core content area and/or sections are taught by exempt teachers are not shown within a school district How To Identify Equity Gap(s) and Interpretation of Equity Gap(s) Case 1: Equity Gap exists Table 12 State Level of Percentage of Student Subgroups by Inexperienced Teacher s School Scores 20 percent of students are in schools with high levels of inexperienced teachers (Category V) A slightly higher percent (23.1 percent) of FRL students are in category V schools. This means that there is a slight equity gap with respect to FRL subgroups at the state level. A higher percent (33.3 percent) of ELL students are in category V schools. This means that there is a severe equity gap with respect to ELL subgroups at the state level. ELL students (13.3 percent extra) are more likely taught by an inexperienced teacher as compared to the statewide ALL students (20.0 percent). Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 3 of 9

4 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend Case 2: Equity Gap does not exist Table 13 School District Level of Percentage of Students Subgroup by Inexperienced Teacher s School Scores 38.9 percent of District X students are in a Category I school with respect to inexperienced teachers percent of District X FRL students are in a Category I school with relatively low percentage of inexperienced teachers ( percent). Students in this district are more likely to have access to experienced teachers, compared to the rest of the state (where only 20 percent of students are at schools with percent inexperienced teachers). District X does not have any students that are in schools with relatively high rates of inexperienced teachers (Category V is 0 percent). It does not mean that there are no inexperienced teachers, but only that there aren t any schools (and thus no students) in the category of having percent inexperienced teachers. Case 3: School District which has a few schools Table 14 School District Level of Percentage of Student Subgroups by Inexperienced Teacher s School Scores All District Y students are in a Category V school with respect to inexperienced teachers. 100 percent of District Y students are in schools with relatively high rates of inexperienced teachers ( percent). There is only one school in District Y or, two or more schools which have the percent of inexperienced teachers between and 100 percent are in District Y. In this case, let s suppose there is only one school District Y and 30 percent of teachers at that school have fewer than 5 years of teaching experience. Thus, the school is classified as Category V, and all students in the school (and district) are in Category V. That means students in this district are more likely to have inexperienced teachers, compared to the state (where only 20 percent of students are at schools with 28 percent or more inexperienced teachers). This does not mean that all teachers are inexperienced; it means that all students in this district are in schools with relatively high rates of inexperienced teachers. There are no students in FRL. Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 4 of 9

5 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend 1 2 Data Legend Abbreviation of Teacher Categories, Student Subgroups, and Race/Ethnicity Category Abbreviation Source Teacher Category NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs Not highly qualified teacher Inexperienced teacher (less than or equal to five years teaching experiences) Out of field teacher in General Education (based on endorsement(s) in core content areas) Out of field teacher in Special Education (based on endorsement(s) in core content areas) Teacher who assigned to teach Special Education sections without Special Education endorsement Student Subgroup Race/Ethnicity ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs All student (including students in subgroup(s) and not in subgroup) Free Reduced Price lunch English Language Learner Special Education Minority (Aggregated number of subsets of race/ethnicity excluding White) White Hispanic/Latino Asian Black/African American American Indian/ Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 5 of 9

6 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend Additional Category Category Classification Note Title I Y N School is Title I building School is NOT Title I building Title I % % Percentage of Title I building at each educational service district or schools district Geo (Geographic Location) School Score Percentage of Student Subgroup Severity of Equity Gap 1 Urban 2 Suburban 3 Town 4 Rural I II III IV V Low % of NotHQT, INX, GeOTF, SpOTF, or SpNotEndrs High % of NotHQT, INX, GeOTF, SpOTF, or SpNotEndrs Almost the same amount of students are taught by teacher categories compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at schools with School Score V Two times or more students are taught by teacher categories, compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at schools with School Score V Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 6 of 9

7 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend School Score School Scores and the Range of Percentage of Teacher Categories NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Note I Lower percent of teacher II categories at a school III IV V Higher percent of teacher categories at a school School Score Percentage of ALL Student at State Level Threshold to compare to the other student subgroups NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs ALL student ALL student ALL student ALL student ALL student I II III IV V Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 7 of 9

8 Severity of Equity Gap Range of Student Subgroups Percentage taught by Inexperienced (INX) at School Score V Severity of Equity Gap Range of Percentage Min Max Note 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend Almost the same portion of students in subgroups are taught by inexperienced teachers (INX) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (20 %). Two times or more of students ( 40%) are taught by inexperienced teachers (INX) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at school score V (20 %). Severity of Equity Gap Range of Student Subgroups Percentage taught by Unqualified teacher (NotHQT) at School Score V Severity of Equity Gap Range of Percentage Min Max Note Almost the same portion of students in subgroups are taught by unqualified teachers (NotHQT) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (10 %) Three times or more of students ( 30%) are taught by unqualified teachers (NotHQT) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (10 %). Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 8 of 9

9 Range of Student Subgroups Percentage taught by Out of Filed teachers in General Education (GeOTF) at School Score V Severity of Equity Gap 1 Quick View of Tables and Data Legend Severity of Equity Gap Range of Percentage Min Max Note Almost the same portion of students in subgroups are taught by out of field teachers in General Education (GeOTF) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (17 %) More than two times of students ( 34%) are taught by out of field teachers in General Education (GeOTF) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (17 %) Equity Gap Data Profile for each ESD Page 9 of 9

10 SD ESD 114 Bremerton Brinnon Cape Flattery Central Kitsap Title I % Table 1.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by School Districts ( School Year) Sub NotHQT INX GeOTF group I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs

11 SD Chimacum Crescent North Kitsap North Mason Port Angeles Title I % Table 1.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by School Districts ( School Year) Sub NotHQT INX GeOTF group I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs

12 SD Port Townsend Queets Clearwater Quilcene Quillayute Valley Sequim Title I % Table 1.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by School Districts ( School Year) Sub NotHQT INX GeOTF group I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs

13 SD South Kitsap Suquamish Tribal Education Departme nt Title I % Table 1.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by School Districts ( School Year) Sub NotHQT INX GeOTF group I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs

14 Table 2.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by Schools ( School Year) District Name School Name TitleI Geo Student Count School Score of each Teacher Category SpNot NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF Endrs Armin Jahr Elementary Y I V I I I Bremerton High School N 1 1,384 V III V IV I Crownhill Elementary School Y V V III IV I Kitsap Lake Elementary Y III V I III I Bremerton Mountain View Middle School N IV IV II II I Naval Avenue Elementary School Y V V I I I Renaissance Alternative High School Y V I I I I View Ridge Elementary School Y I I I I I West Hills S.T.E.M. Academy Y IV V IV V I Brinnon Brinnon Elementary Y 4 81 I I I I I Clallam Bay High & Elementary N IV II III I I Cape Flattery Neah Bay Elementary School Y V III I I V Neah Bay Junior/ Senior High School Y V IV V I I Alternative High School N III I V I I Central Kitsap High School N 1 1,609 III II II IV I Central Kitsap Middle School N V I III I I CK Online Academy N 2 51 I I I I I East Side Alt N 2 80 IV IV II I I Central Kitsap Fairview Middle School Y IV III IV III I Klahowya Secondary N 4 1,024 IV IV II III I New Frontiers Jr High N 1 63 I I V I I Off Campus N III I IV I I Olympic High School N 2 1,313 III III IV IV I Ridgetop Middle School N IV I II IV I Chimacum Creek Primary School Y IV II I I I Chimacum Elementary School N I III III I I Chimacum Chimacum High School N V IV V V I Chimacum Middle School Y V III V I I PI Program N V V V I I Crescent Crescent School Y V V V III I David Wolfle Elementary Y III III II I I Hilder Pearson Elementary N III I II I I Kingston High School N III V II II I Kingston Middle School Y I I V I I Middle School Options N 3 34 I I I I I North Kitsap North Kitsap High School N 2 1,206 I II II V I Pal Program N V IV IV I I Poulsbo Elementary School N I II I III I Poulsbo Middle School N V I I I I Richard Gordon Elementary N I III I I I Suquamish Elementary School Y I V II I I Vinland Elementary N I II I III I Belfair Elementary Y I II II I I Hawkins Middle School Y I V I I I North Mason North Mason Homelink Program N 4 46 III I IV I I North Mason Senior High School N I V II V I PACE Academy (OPTIONS) N 4 84 I V II I I Sand Hill Elementary Y III III I I I Dry Creek Elementary Y V V V I I Franklin Elementary Y III II II III I Hamilton Elementary Y V IV IV V I Port Angeles Jefferson Elementary Y IV IV I V I Lincoln High School N V V IV V I Port Angeles High School N 3 1,234 IV IV II IV I Roosevelt Elementary School Y V IV II I V Stevens Middle School N I I I I I

15 Blue Heron Middle School Y I IV IV III I Port Townsend Grant Street Elementary Y I IV I I I OCEAN N 3 86 III I V I I Port Townsend High School N V II III IV I Queets Clearwater Queets Clearwater Elementary Y 4 24 V I I I I Quilcene Quillayute Valley Sequim South Kitsap Suquamish Tribal Education Department Table 2.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by Schools ( School Year) District Name School Name TitleI Geo Student Count Crossroads Community School N 4 17 I I V I I PEARL N II V V I I Quilcene High And Elementary Y V V IV V I Forks Alternative School N 4 68 I I I I I Forks Elementary School Y I II IV I I Forks Intermediate School N NULL 273 II I II III I Forks Junior Senior High School N III V V V I Insight School of Washington N 3 2,850 I I II IV I Quileute Tribal School N 4 69 V I V I I Greywolf Elementary School Y I I I III I Helen Haller Elementary School Y I II I I I Sequim Community School Y I III IV I I Sequim Middle School Y I IV III III I Sequim Senior High N 3 1,094 I IV III V I Burley Glenwood Elementary Y IV I II I I Cedar Heights Jh Y III IV III III I Discovery N III I V I I East Port Orchard Elementary Y I III II I I Explorer Academy N V II V I I Hidden Creek Elementary School N III II II III I John Sedgwick Junior High N V I V III I Manchester Elementary School Y I V I III I Marcus Whitman Junior High Y V IV III III I Mullenix Ridge Elementary School N V I II V I Olalla Elementary School Y V I II I I Orchard Heights Elementary Y IV IV V I I Sidney Glen Elementary School Y III V I I I South Colby Elementary N III V II I I South Kitsap High School N 2 2,173 IV IV IV IV I Sunnyslope Elementary School N V I II I I Chief Kitsap Academy Y 1 88 School Score of each Teacher Category SpNot NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF Endrs V V I V I

16 Table 3.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by School Districts ( School Year) SD Title I % Subgroup NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR ESD White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR Bremerton 77.8 White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR Brinnon White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR Cape Flattery 66.7 White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR Central Kitsap 9.1 White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs

17 Table 3.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by School Districts ( School Year) SD Title I % Subgroup NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR Chimacum 40.0 White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR Crescent White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR North Kitsap 25.0 White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR North Mason 50.0 White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR Port Angeles 62.5 White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs

18 SD Title I % Subgroup NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs Port Townsend Queets Clearwater Quillayute Valley Table 3.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by School Districts ( School Year) Quilcene Sequim 80.0 ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs

19 SD Title I % Subgroup NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs South Kitsap 50.0 Suquamish Tribal Education Department Table 3.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by School Districts ( School Year) ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs

20 Table 4.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by Schools ( School Year) District Name School Name TitleI Geo Student Count Percentage of each Teacher Category SpNot NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF Endrs Armin Jahr Elementary Y Bremerton High School N 1 1, Crownhill Elementary School Y Kitsap Lake Elementary Y Bremerton Mountain View Middle School N Naval Avenue Elementary School Y Renaissance Alternative High School Y View Ridge Elementary School Y West Hills S.T.E.M. Academy Y Brinnon Brinnon Elementary Y Clallam Bay High & Elementary N Cape Flattery Neah Bay Elementary School Y Neah Bay Junior/ Senior High School Y Alternative High School N Central Kitsap High School N 1 1, Central Kitsap Middle School N CK Online Academy N East Side Alt N Central Kitsap Fairview Middle School Y Klahowya Secondary N 4 1, New Frontiers Jr High N Off Campus N Olympic High School N 2 1, Ridgetop Middle School N Chimacum Creek Primary School Y Chimacum Elementary School N Chimacum Chimacum High School N Chimacum Middle School Y PI Program N Crescent Crescent School Y David Wolfle Elementary Y Hilder Pearson Elementary N Kingston High School N Kingston Middle School Y Middle School Options N North Kitsap North Kitsap High School N 2 1, Pal Program N Poulsbo Elementary School N Poulsbo Middle School N Richard Gordon Elementary N Suquamish Elementary School Y Vinland Elementary N Belfair Elementary Y Hawkins Middle School Y North Mason North Mason Homelink Program N North Mason Senior High School N PACE Academy (OPTIONS) N Sand Hill Elementary Y Dry Creek Elementary Y Franklin Elementary Y Hamilton Elementary Y Port Angeles Jefferson Elementary Y Lincoln High School N Port Angeles High School N 3 1, Roosevelt Elementary School Y Stevens Middle School N

21 Blue Heron Middle School Y Port Townsend Grant Street Elementary Y OCEAN N Port Townsend High School N Queets Clearwater Queets Clearwater Elementary Y Quilcene Quillayute Valley Sequim South Kitsap Suquamish Tribal Education Department Table 4.5 ESD 114 State Equity Plan Data by Schools ( School Year) District Name School Name TitleI Geo Student Count Crossroads Community School N PEARL N Quilcene High And Elementary Y Forks Alternative School N Forks Elementary School Y Forks Intermediate School N NULL Forks Junior Senior High School N Insight School of Washington N 3 2, Quileute Tribal School N Greywolf Elementary School Y Helen Haller Elementary School Y Sequim Community School Y Sequim Middle School Y Sequim Senior High N 3 1, Burley Glenwood Elementary Y Cedar Heights Jh Y Discovery N East Port Orchard Elementary Y Explorer Academy N Hidden Creek Elementary School N John Sedgwick Junior High N Manchester Elementary School Y Marcus Whitman Junior High Y Mullenix Ridge Elementary School N Olalla Elementary School Y Orchard Heights Elementary Y Sidney Glen Elementary School Y South Colby Elementary N South Kitsap High School N 2 2, Sunnyslope Elementary School N Chief Kitsap Academy Y 1 88 Percentage of each Teacher Category SpNot NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF Endrs

22 Methodology, business rules, and data components used in implementation of the Washington State Equity Plan, 2016 Table of Contents I Table of Contents 1 II Summary of Changes 2 III Objective and Overview of Equity Gap Indices 3 IV Data Sources for Equity Gap Indices 8 V Application of Methodology: Business Rule Highlights 9 VI Interpretation of Tables 16 Case 1: Equity Gap exists 16 Case 2: Equity Gap does not exist 16 Case 3: School District with a small number of schools 17 Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

23 II Summary of Changes Based on the comments/feedback from school districts some changes have been made to enhance the identification of an equity gap. Teacher category: (See Table 1 for definitions): Two (2) teacher categories such as Out of Field Teacher in Special Education (SpOTF) and Teacher without Special Education endorsement assigned to teach class in special program (SpNotEndrs) are added. (1) Not Highly Qualified Teacher (NotHQT) (2) Inexperienced Teacher (INX) (3) Out of Field Teacher in General Education (GeOTF) (4) Out of Field Teacher in Special Education (SpOTF) (5) Teacher without Special Education endorsement assigned to teach class in Special Education (SpNotEndrs) The way to calculate each teacher category Calculation of each teacher category is based on the number of sections that each teacher is assigned to teach (See Table 1 for arithmetic formula and Table 2 for examples of each teacher category s calculation). Core Academic Classes are fourteen classes defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (See Table 1 for definitions). Section of a class is a unique occurrence of a class/staff/location (See Table 1 for definitions), which is a smaller unit than a class. Section count is one of the key components for equity gap data analysis. For instance, a core academic class, let s say English Language Arts for 5th grade, is offered in 5 sections as General Education during a school year at a school. These 5 sections are taught by two (2) different teachers. Section 1, 2 and 3 are taught by teacher A who is highly qualified in English Language Arts (grade 5 12) and has an English Language Arts endorsement (grade 5 12), and section 4 and 5 are taught by teacher B who is highly qualified in English Language Arts (grade 5 12), but does not have an English Language Arts endorsement. In this case, the percentage of teacher categories such as Not Highly Qualified Teacher (NotHQT) and Out of Field Teacher in General Education (GeOTF) at the school are different. For the Not Highly Qualified Teacher (NotHQT), these 5 sections are taught by two different teachers who are highly qualified in the core content area. Therefore, the percentage of Not Highly Qualified Teacher (NotHQT) at the school is 0 percent (0 sections taught by NotHQT/ 5 sections offered *100). In terms of the Out of Field teacher in General Education (GeOTF), 3 sections are taught by a teacher who has an English Language Arts endorsement, but the other 2 sections are taught by a teacher who does not has an English Language Arts endorsement. Therefore, the percentage of Out of Field teachers in General Education (GeOTF) at the school is 40 percent (2 sections taught by GeOTF/ 5 sections offered *100). Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

24 III Objective and Overview of Equity Gap Indices To identify equity gap(s) we create a unique table by state, educational service district, school district, and school level. The objective of this document is to provide definitions and describe the indices used in the data analyses, describe methodology and business rules using indices, and to provide some interpretation of tables to identify equity gaps. According to the U.S. Department of Education, an equity gap is the difference between the rate at which students from low income families or students of color are educated by excellent educators and the rate at which other students are educated by excellent educators. As a counter category to excellent educators there are inexperienced, unqualified or Out of Field teachers (See Table 1 for definitions). States must at minimum address inexperienced, unqualified or Out of Field teachers to identify equity gaps by using school or student level data. The information, including indices and methodology described here, is applied to the recent three (3) consecutive school years data ( , , and school years) to identify the equity gap(s). Indices used to identify equity gaps are Teacher and Student categories. The Teacher category includes unqualified, inexperienced, and Out of Field teachers. The Student category includes five student groups used in our state for federal accountability: All Students (ALL), Free and Reduced Price Lunch status (FRL), Special Education Program (SPED), English Language Learner (ELL), and Minority (MNR; aggregated number of Race/Ethnicity subgroups excepting White). Race/Ethnicity is further broken down by subgroup (White, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races). Table 8 shows abbreviation of Teacher and Student categories. The percent of Title I schools (for school level Boolean variable (Y or N) is used to indicate Title I buildings at each school) and geographic location (from 1: Urban area through 4: Rural area; See Table 7) are used to identify trend(s) of equity gap occurrences with respect to these two indices. To identify equity gaps, we compare the percent of each Student category to ALL student subgroups statewide (20%) taught by each teacher category and look at these indices by state, educational service district, school district, and school level. We also compare these categories by geographic location, percentage of Title I schools, average total salary, average base salary, and average supplemental compensation to identify trend(s) of equity gap occurrences. Core Academic Classes are fourteen classes defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (See Table 1 for definitions). Section of a class is a unique occurrence of a class/staff/location (See Table 1 for definitions), which is a smaller unit than a class. Section count is one of the key components for equity gap data analysis. Since a number of sections are positively correlated to school size, each teacher category is weighted by the total number of sections offered or the total number of students at each school. For instance, percent of inexperienced teachers = section taught by inexperienced teachers/ total number of section offered per school, and percent of FRL students = head count of FRL students/ total number of students per school. Table 1 below is a list of the Teacher category indices, with definitions and arithmetic formulas where applicable. Table 2 below is an example of section count and percent by teacher category. Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

25 Table 1: A List of Indices of Teacher Category with Definition and Arithmetic Formula Definition Core Academic Classes*: Fourteen core academic classes defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): Mathematics, Science, English/Language Arts, History, Geography, Civics/Government, Economics, Elementary Curriculum, Foreign (World) Languages, Reading, Music, Visual Arts, Dance, and Theatre. NOTE: There are several non instructional sections and non subject specific sections such attendance, homeroom, and library that are reported under the elementary curriculum content area code. These sections will be excluded for determination of section(s) taught by each teacher category. Section (TSC)**: Section ID is used for identification of a unique occurrence of a class/staff/location. The section ID is intended to uniquely identify each class/period of students that occur, which is a smaller unit than a class. For instance, English/Language Arts is offered in 4 sections during the 1st quarter and in 6 sections during the 3rd quarter, then the total number of sections offered for a school year is 10 sections. The total number of sections offered at each school is the denominator to calculate the percentage of sections taught by each teacher category. Section count is one of the key components for equity gap data analysis. TSC: Total number of sections in General Education and Special Education. Sections in General Education (Ge): Sections in a General Education program are identified by the following three criteria: 1. Teachers fund source (Data source: S 275). 2. Special Education assignment check box for each teacher (Data source: HQT tool). 3. A section that is NOT occupied by 100 % Special Education students (Data source: HQT tool and CEDARS). Arithmetic formula N/A N/A N/A GeTSC: Total number of sections in General Education and Special Education. Sections in Special Education (Sp): Sections in a Special Education program are identified by the following three criteria: 1. Teachers fund source (Data source: S 275). 2. Special Education assignment check box for each teacher (Data source: HQT tool). 3. A section that is occupied by 100 % Special Education students (Data source: HQT tool and CEDARS). Otherwise, the section(s) is classified as a General Education section(s). SpTSC: Total number of sections in Special Education and Special Education. N/A * Reference: OSPI Report Card Glossary ** Reference: OSPI Comprehensive Education Data and Research System Data Manual Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

26 Table 1: A List of Indices of Teacher Category with Definition and Arithmetic Formula (Cont d) Definition Classroom Teacher*: Classroom Teacher data includes individuals serving in a role reported to the apportionment system (S 275) as assigned to a duty root. Duty root is the first two digits of the duty code to identify the duty category. In this case, our focus is classroom teachers who are assigned to teach students from kindergarten to 12th grade (K 12); teachers with a duty root of 31 (Elementary Teacher), 32 (Secondary Teacher) or 33 (Other Teacher). This data does not include duty root 63 (Contractor Teacher) or duty root 52 (Substitute Teacher). Arithmetic formula N/A NOTE: Sections taught by exempt teachers are excluded for determination of each teacher category. Not Highly Qualified Teacher (NotHQT): Not Highly Qualified Teachers are classroom teachers of core academic subjects who do not meet the following three criteria: 1. Hold at least a bachelor s degree. 2. Hold full state teacher certification. 3. Demonstrated knowledge of subject matter and skill in the area assigned to teach. NotHQT % = (NotHQT/TSC**)*100 Percentage of Not Highly Qualified Teacher: Total number of sections taught by Not Highly Qualified Teacher (NotHQT) / Total number of sections offered at a school (TSC**) * 100. Inexperienced Teacher (INX): Inexperienced Teacher data includes classroom teachers who have less than or equal to five (5) years teaching experience and classified. Percentage of section taught by Inexperienced Teachers: Total number of sections taught by Inexperienced Teachers (INX) / Total number of sections offered at a school (TSC**) * 100. INX % = (INX/TSC**) *100 * Reference: OSPI Report Card Glossary ** Reference: OSPI Comprehensive Education Data and Research System Data Manual Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

27 Table 1: A List of Indices of Teacher Category with Definition and Arithmetic Formula (Cont d) Definition Out of Field Teacher in General Education (GeOTF): An Out of Field Teacher in General Education is a teacher assigned to teach core academic classes but who is not properly endorsed in the subject(s) and/or for appropriate student grade levels. The range of student grade level for each endorsement is based WAC Grade designations for endorsements obtained after August 31, 2000 ( ). Determination of Out of Field Teacher (GeOTF) in General Education is also based on their endorsement(s) which are issued on a day by day basis. It is necessary to set up a cut off date of Original Issue Date of endorsement for determination of GeOTF for each school year. The cut off date of endorsement original issue date is based on the date that the last term/section starts including summer school session. The cut off date of endorsement original issue dates are as follows: For school year: June 20, For school year: June 20, For school year: June 20, Endorsement(s) which were issued on or after these cut off dates are not used. Percentage of section taught by Out of Field Teacher: Total number of sections taught by Out of Field Teacher (GeOTF) in General Education/ Total number of sections offered in General Education at a school (GeTSC**) * 100. Out of Field Teacher in Special Education (SpOTF): An Out of Field Teacher in Special Education is a teacher assigned to teach core academic classes but who is not properly endorsed in the subject(s) and/or for appropriate student grade levels. The range of student grade level for each endorsement is based WAC Grade designations for endorsements obtained after August 31, 2000 ( ). Determination of Out of Field Teacher (SpOTF) in Special Education is also based on their endorsement(s) which are issued day by day bases. It is necessary to set up cut off date of Original Issue Date of endorsement for determination of SpOTF for each school year. The cut off date of endorsement original issue date is based on the date that the last term/section starts including summer school session. The cut off date of endorsement original issue dates are as followed: For school year: June 20, For school year: June 20, For school year: June 20, Endorsement(s) which were issued on and after these cut off dates are not used. Percentage of section taught by Out of Field Teacher: Total number of sections taught by Out of Field Teacher (SpOTF) in Special Education/ Total number of sections offered in Special Education at a school (SpTSC**) * 100. Arithmetic formula GeOTF % = (GeOTF/GeTSC**) *100 SpOTF % = (SpOTF/SpTSC**) *100 * Reference: OSPI Report Card Glossary ** Reference: OSPI Comprehensive Education Data and Research System Data Manual Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

28 Table 1: A List of Indices of Teacher Category with Definition and Arithmetic Formula (Cont d) Definition Teacher without SPED endorsement(s) assigned to teach in Special Education (SpNotEndrs): Conventionally, a teacher with a SPED endorsement(s) can teach any content area and any student grade level as long as all students in a class room are in Special Education. Determination of a teacher without a SPED endorsement(s) assigned to teach in Special Education (SpNotEndrs) is a teacher who is not properly endorsed in the Special Education(s). It means that the determination is only based on their endorsement(s) issued on a day by day basis. It is necessary to set up a cut off date of Original Issue date of endorsement for determination of SpNotEndrs for each school year. The cut off date of endorsement original issue date is based on the date that the last term/section starts including summer school session. The cut off date of endorsement original issue dates are as follows: For school year: June 20, For school year: June 20, For school year: June 20, Endorsement(s) which were issued on and after these cut off dates are not used. Percentage of section taught by Out of Field Teacher: Total number of sections taught by Out of Field Teacher (SpOTF) in Special Education/ Total number of sections offered in Special Education at a school (SpTSC) * 100. Arithmetic formula SpNotEndrs % = (SpNotEndrs /SpTSC**) *100 * Reference: OSPI Report Card Glossary ** Reference: OSPI Comprehensive Education Data and Research System Data Manual Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

29 Table 2 Example of head count and percent of CRT, HQT, NotHQT, and GeOTF at School Z Teacher Name Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Section taught by teacher category (Numerator) Total Section offered (Denominator) HQ Content Area (Grade level) SecID** Reading(1) Sec 1 Reading(1) Sec 2 Reading(2) Sec 1 Reading(3) Sec 1 Music(9) Sec 1 Music(9) Sec 2 Math (4) Sec 1 Math (4) Sec 2 Science(4) Sec 1 Science(4) Sec 2 Math(8) Sec 1 History(5) Sec 1 History(5) Sec 2 History(7) Sec 1 Not HQ Content Area (Grade level) SecID** Math(12) Sec 1 Math(12) Sec 2 Math(12) Sec 3 Geography(9) Sec 1 Geography(9) Sec 2 In Field Content Area (Grade level ) SecID** Reading(1) Sec 1 Reading(1) Sec 2 Reading(2) Sec 1 Reading(3) Sec 1 Music(9) Sec 1 Music(9) Sec 2 Science(4) Sec 1 Science(4) Sec 2 Math(8) Sec 1 History(5) Sec 1 History(5) Sec 2 History(7) Sec 1 Out of Field Content Area (Grade level) SecID** Math (4) Sec 1 Math (4) Sec 2 Math(12) Sec 1 Math(12) Sec 2 Math(12) Sec 3 Geography(9) Sec 1 Geography(9) Sec Percentage (HQT/CRT)*100 = (14/19)*100 (NotHQT/CRT)*100 = (5/19)*100 (INF/TCS)*100 = (12/19)*100 (OTF/TCS)*100 = (7/19)*100 **SecID: (Reference: OSPI Comprehensive Education Data and Research System Data Manual) VI Data Sources for Equity Gap Index Teacher Demographic and Certification Information: Data is uploaded from OSPI Report Card. Teachers Highly Qualified/Not highly Qualified Content Area(s): Data is uploaded from OSPI. Teacher Quality database, which is collected by Highly Qualified Teacher Data Collection Tool. Teachers Endorsement Area(s) and Endorsement Issue Date: Data is uploaded from OSPI e Certification System. Teachers and Students Class Schedule: Data is uploaded from OSPI Comprehensive Education Data and Research System. Student Enrollment information: Data is provided from OSPI Student Information. Geographic Location of Schools: Data is uploaded from National Center for Education Statistics. Title I Buildings for each school year: Data is provided from OSPI Title I. Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

30 V Application of Methodology: Business Rule Highlights The methodology applied to the recent three (3) consecutive school years data ( , , and school years) data has five steps. The total number of sections offered at a school (TSC) index, Inexperienced teacher (INX) index, All student (ALL) index, and FRL student (FRL) indices at School District Y (Let s suppose that the School District Y has only one school) are used as an example. Methodology: Step 1 Calculate each school s percent of Inexperienced teachers (INX) (See Table 1). (Number of INX / Total number of sections offered at a school (TSC)) * 100 Step 2 Assign each school s teacher category percent to individual students. Step 3 Sort students in ascending order by the school s teacher category percentage and classify into five groups from I through V based on the school s teacher category percentage. These five classifications are indicators of the volume of each teacher category at a school. These indicators make up the School Score. For instance, students who are counted in School Score I are at schools which have a lower percent of Inexperienced teachers, and students who are counted in School Score V are at schools which have a higher percent of Inexperienced teachers. Table 3 shows the range of school scores by each Teacher category. Table 3 School Score Range by Teacher Categories School Score NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Note I Lower percent of teacher II categories at a school III IV Higher percent of teacher V categories at a school Equal Number of Allocation of Students into School Scores (I V): When students are classified into five different School Scores at the state level, it is important to equally allocate students into these School Scores so that we can compare the percentage of student categories to the percentage of the allocated students at each School Score by state level, educational service district level, school district level, or school level. The percentage of the allocated students at each School Score is the threshold to identify an equity gap. (The indication of Equity Gaps is described following the steps in Section V). Allocation of students into five School Scores is performed at the state level only, so that we can see different percentages of students at each School Score by each ESD and school district. Table 4 shows the percentage of Statewide ALL Student by each teacher category and each School Score to compare to the other student subgroups in State Level, Educational Service District level, School District level, and school level to identify equity gaps. Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

31 School Score Table 4 Percentage of Statewide ALL Student by Teacher Categories Threshold to compare to the other student subgroups NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs ALL student ALL student ALL student ALL student ALL student I II III IV V Equal Number of Allocation of Students into School Scores (I V) (continued): For the unqualified teacher category (NotHQT) shown in Table 4, however, there are too few students taught by unqualified teachers (NotHQT) (i.e percent of students are at schools without any NotHQT) to allocate students equally. Therefore, the percent of the allocated students by each School Score is not 20 percent: School Score I is at 60.0 percent, School Score II at 10.0 percent, School Score III at 10.0 percent, School Score IV at 10.0 percent, and School Score V at 10.0 percent. However, we can still compare the percentage of students subgroups to the percent of all students in state level by each school score. For example, when we compare the percent of students subgroups at School Score V we can first compare each student subgroup s percentage to the ALL student s state level percentage at School Score V which is 10.0 percent. If the percentage of the student subgroup is more than 10.0 percent it means that the student subgroup is more likely taught by a teacher category you look at compared to the state level all students, which indicates that an equity gap exists. The same condition as the unqualified teacher category (NotHQT) occurs to Out of Field teacher in General Education (GeOTF), Out of Field teacher in Special Education (SpOTF), and teacher without special education endorsement(s) assigned to teach in Special Education (SpNotEndrs). Cut Points of School Score: There are about 1,000,000 students who enrolled in K 12 public schools in Washington State. Statewide, 20 percent of students are at schools in each School Score. When allocating students into five sections (School Scores) equally (i.e., 200,000 students), the cut point may land in the middle of the same percentage of Teacher Category. When this happens, all the students at that same percentage of Teacher Category are moved into the lower School Score. Step 4 Compute percentage of each student subgroup at each School Score category. Table 4 shows the percentage and head count of student subgroups in each School Score category. Percentage of All students subgroup at each School Score category V = (200,000/1,000,000)*100 Percentage of FRL subgroup at each School Score category V = (140,000/500,000)*100 Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

32 Table 5 Percentage and Head Count of Student Subgroups in each School Score Category, State level School Score Category Percent of Student Subgroup Head Count of Student Subgroup I II III IV V Total I II III IV V Total All Student 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 200, , , , ,000 1,000,000 FRL 12% 20% 20% 20% 28% 100% 60, , , , , ,000 Table 6 Percentage and Head Count of Student Subgroups in each School Score Category at School District X School Score Category Percent of Student Subgroup I II III IV V Total Head Count of Student Subgroup I II III IV V Total District X All Student District X FRL 12% 20% 20% 24% 24% 100% 6,000 10,000 10,000 12,000 12,000 50,000 13% 13% 13% 27% 33% 100% 4,000 4,000 4,000 8,000 10,000 30,000 Indication of Equity Gaps: Based on the Percentage of Student Subgroup in Table 4 (State level Percentage and Head Count of Student Subgroup) more FRL students (28%) are at Category V schools with higher numbers of inexperienced teachers, compared to the All students subgroup statewide (20%). It means that there is an equity gap statewide. Based on the Student Subgroup percent in Table 5 (School District level Percent and Head Count of Students Subgroup) a greater proportion of District X students (24%) are at schools with higher numbers of inexperienced teachers, compared to students statewide (20%). District FRL students (33%) are even more likely to be at a school with higher numbers of inexperienced teachers. The equity gap is apparent statewide (28%), and is apparent in District X, too (33%). Step 5 Put five gradients of red color on the percent of student subgroups at School Score Category V. The key to identify Equity Gaps is to compare the percent of student subgroups to percent of the statewide All students subgroup which is 20%. Recall that an Equity Gap is the difference between the percent of subgroups who are taught by inexperienced teachers. Table 6 shows Category of Student Subgroups Percentage in School Score Level V with a red gradient to help readers easily recognize equity gaps. Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

33 Range of Student Subgroups Percentage at School Score V Severity of Equity Gaps 1) Students taught by Inexperienced teachers (INX) The key to identify Equity Gaps is to compare percentages of student subgroups taught by inexperienced teachers (INX) to percentage of statewide All students subgroup which is 20 percent. In order to highlight severity of equity gaps among student subgroups taught by inexperienced teachers (INX), the five gradients of red was indexed on percentage of student subgroups at School Score Level V. A summary of the index is provided in Table 7. Severity of Equity Gap Table 7 Range of Student Subgroups Percentage taught by Inexperienced teachers (INX) at Schools Score V Range of Percentage Min Max Note: In addition to the main indices, three categories including Title I, Title I percentage, and Geo (Geographic Location range from 1: Urban through 4: Rural) are in tables. Table 10 shows their value and description of each category. Note Almost the same portion of students in subgroups are taught by inexperienced teachers (INX) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (20 %). Two times or more of students ( 40%) are taught by inexperienced teachers (INX) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at school score V (20 %). Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

34 2) Students taught by Unqualified teachers (NotHQT) The key to identify Equity Gaps is to compare the percentage of student subgroups taught by unqualified teachers (NotHQT) to the percentage of statewide All students subgroup which is 10 percent. In order to highlight the severity of equity gaps among student subgroups taught by unqualified (NotHQT) teachers, the five gradients of red was indexed on percentage of student subgroups at School Score Level V. A summary of the index is provided in Table 8. Table 8 Range of Student Subgroups Percentage taught by Unqualified teachers (NotHQT) at Schools Score V Severity of equity gap Range of Percentage Min Max Note Almost the same portion of students in subgroups are taught by unqualified teachers (NotHQT) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (10 %). Three times or more of students ( 30%) are taught by unqualified teachers (NotHQT) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (10 %). Note: In addition to the main indices, three categories including Title I, Title I percentage, and Geo (Geographic Location range from 1: Urban through 4: Rural) are in tables. Table 10 shows their value and description of each category. Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

35 3) Students taught by Out of Filed teachers in General Education (GeOTF) The key to identify Equity Gaps is to compare the percentage of student subgroups taught by Out of Field teachers in General Education (GeOTF) to the percentage of statewide All students subgroup which is 17 percent. In order to highlight severity of equity gaps among student subgroups taught by Out of Field teachers in General Education (GeOTF), the five gradients of red was indexed on percentage of student subgroups at School Score Level V. A summary of the index is provided in Table 9. Table 9 Range of Student Subgroups Percentage taught by Out of Field teachers in General Education (GeOTF) at Schools Score V Severity of equity gap Range of Percentage Min Max Note Almost the same portion of students in subgroups are taught by out of field teachers in General Education (GeOTF) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (17 %) More than two times of students ( 34%) are taught by out offield teachers in General Education (GeOTF) as compared to the portion of state level s ALL students at School Score V (17 %) Note: In addition to the main indices, three categories including Title I, Title I percentage, and Geo (Geographic Location range from 1: Urban through 4: Rural) are in tables. Table 10 shows their value and description of each category. Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

36 Table 10 Characteristics of State, Educational Service District, School District, and School School Characteristic Value Note Y School is Title I building Title I N School is NOT Title I building Percentage of Title I building at state and each ESD or Title I % % school district 1 Urban Geo* 2 Suburban (Geographic Location) 3 Town 4 Rural Geo*: Geographic Location is used to indicate urbanity level from urban area through rural area based on population and distance from geographic boundary. Table 11 Abbreviation of Teacher and Student categories Category Abbreviation Source Teacher category Student Subgroup Race/Ethnicity NotHQT INX GeOTF SpOTF SpNotEndrs ALL FRL ELL SPED MNR White Hisp Asian Black AmIn PcIs MRcs Not highly qualified teacher Inexperienced teacher (less than or equal to five years teaching experiences) Out of Field teacher in General Education (based on endorsement(s) in core content areas) Out of Field teacher in Special Education (based on endorsement(s) in core content areas) Teacher who assigned to teach Special Education sections without Special Education endorsement All student Free Reduced price Lunch English Language Learner Special Education Minority (aggregated number of subgroup of Race/Ethnicity excluding White) White Hispanic/Latino Asian Black/African American American Indian/ Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

37 VI Interpretation of Tables Case 1: Equity Gap exists Table 12 State Level of Percentage of Student Subgroups by Inexperienced Teacher s School Scores 20 percent of students are in schools with high levels of inexperienced teachers (Category V) A slightly higher percent (23.1 percent) of FRL students are in category V schools. This means that there is a slight equity gap with respect to FRL subgroups at the state level. A higher percent (33.3 percent) of ELL students are in category V schools. This means that there is a severe equity gap with respect to ELL subgroups at the state level. ELL students (13.3 percent extra) are more likely taught by an inexperienced teacher as compared to the statewide ALL students (20.0 percent) Case 2: Equity Gap does not exist Table 13 School District Level of Percentage of Students Subgroup by Inexperienced Teacher s School Scores 38.9 percent of District X students are in a Category I school with respect to inexperienced teachers percent of District X FRL students are in a Category I school with relatively low percentage of inexperienced teachers ( percent). Students in this district are more likely to have access to experienced teachers, compared to the rest of the state (where only 20 percent of students are at schools with percent inexperienced teachers). District X does not have any students that are in schools with relatively high rates of inexperienced teachers (Category V is 0 percent). It does not mean that there are no inexperienced teachers, but only that there aren t any schools (and thus no students) in the category of having percent inexperienced teachers. Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan

38 Case 3: School District which has a few schools Table 14 School District Level of Percentage of Student Subgroups by Inexperienced Teacher s School Scores All District Y students are in a Category V school with respect to inexperienced teachers. 100 percent of District Y students are in schools with relatively high rates of inexperienced teachers ( percent). There is only one school in District Y or, two or more schools which have the percent of inexperienced teachers between and 100 percent are in District Y. In this case, let s suppose there is only one school District Y and 30 percent of teachers at that school have fewer than 5 years of teaching experience. Thus, the school is classified as Category V, and all students in the school (and district) are in Category V. That means students in this district are more likely to have inexperienced teachers, compared to the state (where only 20 percent of students are at schools with 28 percent or more inexperienced teachers). This does not mean that all teachers are inexperienced; it means that all students in this district are in schools with relatively high rates of inexperienced teachers. There are no students in FRL. Methodology, Business Rules, and Data Components State Equity Plan