![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}**[U.S. Department of
Education]{.smallcaps}**

**[National Technical Advisory Council]{.smallcaps}**

September 16, 2008

**[Performance Indexes]{.smallcaps}**

**Background**

Performance indexes have existed as part of state accountability systems
since the start of NCLB. Two of the first five state accountability
plans that were approved by the Department in 2003 included a
performance index.

Currently, twelve states have a performance index as part of their
accountability systems. They vary significantly in how they are created
and how they work in practice.

In November 2005, Secretary Spellings included information on
performance indexes in the announcement of the Growth Model Pilot for
those states that were unable to implement a model to track individual
student growth over time. Although an index does not measure individual
student growth, it gives schools and districts "credit" for improving
the achievement of students who are below Proficient. For example, a
school will receive some credit if it moves students from Below Basic to
Basic even if they are not yet proficient. The letter laid out four
principles that the Department would use to evaluate performance index
proposals.

In September 2007, the Department held a meeting with representatives
from all 12 states with a performance index to discuss performance
indexes in general and to propose additional principles. Following that
discussion, the Department received feedback from several attendees and
decided to revise the proposed principles.

**Background Information**

-   November 21, 2005 letter from Secretary Spellings to Chief State
    School Officers announcing the Growth Model Pilot and laying out
    information related to performance indexes

-   Summary of existing indexes

-   Proposed core principles and data states would need to submit in
    support of their index

**Issue: Proposed principles & supporting data**

The following document provides a brief description of the six proposed
core principles that would govern approval of performance indexes under
NCLB and supporting data for the Department's review of those indexes.

-   Are the principles technically and educationally sound?

    -   Should states be required to base their annual measurable
        objectives (AMOs) on the performance index? What are the
        implications of states using a performance index and basing the
        AMOs on the percentage proficient?

    -   What are the implications of "splitting" academic achievement
        levels for purposes of assigning index values? Are there methods
        states may use to validly and reliably split achievement levels?

    -   At what level should states be required to report performance
        index scores? Under what circumstances are index scores relevant
        at the student level?

-   Are there additional supporting documents and data states should
    submit?

    -   What supporting data are necessary to ensure compliance with the
        core principles?

    -   What types of evidence would be sufficient to satisfy concerns
        about splitting achievement levels too finely and whether a
        state's assessment system can support this activity?