Module 2B, Section 1. Articulate the Rationale for How Indicators Are Combined

Evaluating State Accountability Systems Under ESEA

Module 2B: Indicator Interaction in the State’s System of Annual Meaningful Differentiation (AMD)

Section 1. Articulate the Rationale for How Indicators Are Combined

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.

In the first two modules of this tool (Module 1: Theory of Action and Module 2A: State’s System of AMD), you mapped the overall theory of action for the state’s accountability system and considered the design, signals, and results of the state’s system of AMD and how it supports the overall theory of action. In addition to the overall theory of action for the state’s accountability system, the way in which indicators are expected to interact within the state’s accountability system has its own component rationale (or “mini theory of action”). The first section of this module focuses on the component rationale for how the indicators interact; however, for each specific indicator type, there is a link to a sub-module (at the end of this module) that includes a component rationale reflection customized for that indicator type.

Consider the following questions regarding the rationale behind how indicators within the state’s system of AMD are intended to interact. You may print this webpage and use it as a template for note-taking if working with colleagues.

Table 2. Articulate the Rationale for How Indicators Are Combined

Articulate the Rationale How Indicators Are Combined
Reflection Questions		Notes
Policy intent: What is the policy objective that you are trying to communicate based on the weighting of indicators or ordering of decision rules? How does this support your overall system theory of action?
Policy mechanisms or levers: How much should each indicator drive the overall identification of schools? Do any of the academic indicators (i.e., academic achievement, other academic, graduation rate, or English language proficiency indicators) intentionally have much greater or less weight than the others? To what degree is the order of decision rules highlighting the intended outcomes of the state’s accountability system?
Behavioral intent: What behaviors are you trying to incentivize based on the policy-defined weights or order of decision rules (e.g., focus conversations on closing educational gaps or student growth)? These may include behaviors for policymakers, state staff, district leaders, principals, educators, and the public.
Expected results: What relationships do you expect to observe between the indicators? These may include intentionally strong or weak relationships between achievement and the other academic indicators, strong alignment between policy and empirical weights, or weak alignment between policy and empirical weights.

[Click here to continue to Section 2 of Module 2B: Indicator Interaction in the State’s System of AMD.]