Module 2A, Section 1: Articulate the Rationale Behind the State’s System of AMD

Evaluating State Accountability Systems Under ESEA

Module 2A: State’s System of Annual Meaningful Differentiation (AMD)

Section 1: Articulate the Rationale Behind the State’s System of AMD

This webpage is part of the Evaluating State Accountability Systems Under ESEA tool, which is designed to help state educational agency (SEA) staff reflect on how the state’s accountability system achieves its intended purposes and build confidence in the state’s accountability system design decisions and implementation activities. Please visit the tool landing page to learn more about this tool and how to navigate these modules.

Module 1: Overall Theory of Action allows you to map the overall theory of action for the state’s accountability system. Each component of the state’s accountability system should then support the overall theory of action. To ensure the components are coherent with the larger vision of the state, each component of the state’s accountability system has its own component rationale, or mini-theory of action, describing how it is intended to function. This module allows you to map the component rationale for the state’s system of AMD.

Consider the following questions regarding the component rationale for the state’s system of AMD (Table 2). You may print this webpage and use it as a template for note taking if working with colleagues. The questions below are intended to help you think about the high-level design associated with the state’s system of AMD and your planned policy, behavioral, and technical/data expectations. Later in this module, you will think about the strength of the rationale and the level of confidence you have in the operationalization of the state’s system of AMD. Your responses to the questions below will be used as a high-level point of comparison for the remainder of this module.

Table 2. Articulate the Rationale behind the State’s System of AMD

Articulate the Rationale Behind the State’s System of AMD
Reflection Questions		Notes
Policy intent: What policy objective are you trying to achieve through the state’s system of AMD? How does this policy intent drive the larger theory of action policy intent supporting intended differentiation, school improvement, and public outreach? Examples may include: Prioritizing the identification of large achievement gaps between subgroups of students Providing access to high-quality educational opportunities for all students Highlighting the highest performing and improving schools
Policy mechanisms or levers: Based on your policy intent, how do you expect the state’s system of AMD to communicate performance? Examples may include: Performance levels (e.g., cut scores) for composite index scores to assign summative ratings Performance levels (e.g., cut scores) for indicator scores to assign indicator-level performance levels Graphic cues in report cards that emphasize differentiation priorities Reporting indicators Qualitative descriptions
Behavioral intent: What behaviors are you trying to incentivize through the state’s system of AMD? What do you expect people to do with this information? This may include behaviors for policy makers, state staff, district leaders, principals, educators, or the public.
Expected results: What data-based findings or trends do you expect to observe for the state’s system of AMD? These expectations provide additional comparisons to evaluate the technical characteristics of the indicators and state’s system of AMD results.¹ Examples may include: Strong and meaningful differentiation across all schools Strong differentiation among the lowest-performing schools Better detection of improvement in the lowest-performing schools (Note: this may be influenced by how indicators interact – see Modules 3A-3E: Indicators for more information)

[Click here to continue on to the Section 2 of Module 2A: State’s System of AMD]

¹ Such as indicator-level results for dashboards systems or school ratings for other systems. [Back]