2018 CCRPI

The Georgia Department of Education (GADOE) released 2018 Career and College Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI) scores. Now that the 2018 data is out, the school district met individually with school board members to review the data and scores. In these meetings, the administration discussed their focus and methodologies for improving future scores.

The GADOE made a number of changes to how it calculates and reports CCPRI in 2018. Additionally, they launched a new web interface and reporting format. With the calculation changes, this makes year-to-year comparisons difficult to impossible. It does continue the trend of changing testing regimes, scoring calculations, and reporting formats every few years. With this type of churn and data manipulation, it keeps the trends over time obscured and real changes in performance opaque.

The new scoring methodology from GADOE puts more focus on the achievement of certain categories of students (ELL, EDS, etc.). What that translates to is that the achievement of some students at a school is more valuable than others from a CCRPI scoring perspective. There are no categories that give weight to the high achiever growth patterns over time.

Based on the conversations I’ve had with senior administrators, DeKalb is focused on the “closing the gap” component part of the CCRPI score calculation. The administration has met with each school principal to develop a plan to improve CCRPI scores. You can reach out to your principal or school council to learn more about the individualized plan for your school regarding CCRPI.

• View FULL 2018 CCRPI Reports Here​​
• DeKalb 2018 CCRPI final scores by school
• DeKalb 2012 – 2017 CCRPI final scores by school

What is CCRPI?
The College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) is Georgia’s statewide accountability system, implemented to comply with Federal legislation and waivers that starts with the 1965 Federal “Early and Secondary Education Act” (ESEA); reauthorized by the 2001 “No Child Left Behind” Act (NCLB), and authorized again by the 2015 “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA). If you have been around long enough you will recall the “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) measurements under “No Child Left Behind” and the transfer protocols under that system. The CCRPI scores replaced the AYP metrics. GADOE continues to tweaked how the scores are calculated.

I continue to be disappointed by the scoring and reporting methods of the state. We have no meaningful ways to track achievement over time. I am also concerned by the segmenting and weighting of different groups of students. This segmentation seems to motivate DeKalb to focus it’s score improvement strategy on some groups to the detriment of others. DeKalb appears to be focused on improving the CCRPI component part for “Closing the gap” as a means to improving its overall score. This leaves a large group of students under-served. This means the district isn’t concerned with all students’ achievement. That can translate into real resource and spending inequities.

CCRPI Component Weights

Content Mastery – Are students achieving at the level necessary to be prepared for the next grade, college, and career?

Content Mastery includes achievement scores in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies based on student performance on state assessments. The achievement scores utilize weights based on achievement level to acknowledge the level of proficiency attained by each student. Achievement scores will be adjusted if the required 95% participation rate is not met.

Progress – How much growth are students demonstrating relative to academically-similar students?

Progress utilizes Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) to measure progress in both English language arts and mathematics. SGPs describe the amount of growth a student has demonstrated relative to academically-similar students. A third progress indicator measures the extent to which English Learners are making progress towards English language proficiency. Progress scores utilize weights based on growth level to acknowledge the level of growth demonstrated by each student.

Closing Gaps – Are all students and all student subgroups making improvements in achievement rates?

Closing Gaps measures the extent to which all students and all student subgroups are meeting annual achievement improvement targets, defined as 3% of the gap between a baseline performance and 100. A system of green, yellow, and red improvement tags will indicate the extent to which improvement targets were met.

Readiness – Are students participating in activities that prepare them for and demonstrate readiness
for the next level, college, or career?

Elementary and middle school readiness indicators include literacy, student attendance, and opportunities for enrichment beyond the traditional academic core. High school readiness indicators include literacy, student attendance, accelerated enrollment, pathway completion, and demonstration of college and career readiness via multiple opportunities.

Graduation Rate (high schools only) – Are students graduating from high school with a regular diploma in four or five years?

Graduation Rate includes both the four- and ve-year adjusted cohort graduation rates. This emphasizes graduating in four years while placing value on continuing to work with and graduate students who need more time.