Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education."— Presentation transcript:

1 Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education

2 Current version is the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act Targets 100% proficiency by Requires Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rating based on disaggregated data: Participation in reading and math Percent meeting standard in reading and math Attendance rates Graduation rates Prescriptive Supports and Interventions for Title I schools not meeting AYP.

3 As the requirement for 100% proficiency nears: More and more schools are not making AYP. 600 schools (out of 1286) did not make AYP in About 900 (out of 1253) schools would not have made AYP in Title I schools in “School Improvement” would grow rapidly: 84 (out of about 600) in About 250 in About 500 in These numbers would outstrip available resources.

4 Announced in September Removes requirement for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rating. States can propose their own system of School Accountability Supports and Interventions Targets interventions toward 15% of Title I schools.

5 New designations for Title I schools. Priority Schools: 5% of Title I schools. Those with lowest overall achievement or graduation. Also includes federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) schools. Focus Schools: 10% of Title I schools. Those with large achievement gaps or graduation rate gaps. Reward Schools: Title I schools that are high performing, high progress, or with high graduation rates. States propose a specific method to identify these schools in their waivers. States propose supports and interventions for Priority and Focus schools.

6 Oct 2011 to Jan 2012: Workgroups convened to make recommendations for the waiver. Jan 2012: Waiver submitted to US Dept. of Education. March 2012: Peer review of submissions. July 2012: US Dept. of Ed approval of waiver. Aug 2012: Preliminary Priority, Focus, and Model schools list released. Sept 2012: Final Priority, Focus, and Model school list will be released.

7 Include individual student growth. Several growth models were reviewed. Colorado Growth Model chosen for implementation. Use an overall rating system (including growth) to identify Priority, Focus, and Model Schools. Several possible methodologies were reviewed. Modified Colorado school rating system chosen for implementation.

8 Schools are rated based on 5 factors: Achievement: percent met in reading and math Growth: individual student growth in reading and math Subgroup Growth: growth for historically underserved subgroups Graduation: cohort graduation rates Subgroup Graduation: graduation rates for historically underserved subgroups

9 Schools are given “Levels” in reading and math, based on percent of students meeting standard: Level 5: Top 10% of schools in the state. Level 4: Above average schools. Level 3: Below average, but not in lowest 15% Level 2: Lowest 15%, but not in lowest 5% Level 1: Lowest 5% of schools in the state. Reading and math performance are combined into an Achievement Rating.

10 Schools are given “Levels” in reading and math growth: Level 5: Schools with high growth Level 4: Average to above average growth Level 3: Below average, but not low, growth Level 2: Low growth Level 1: Very low growth Reading and math growth are combined into a Growth Rating.

11 Subgroups are given “Levels” in reading and math growth. Subgroup Growth rating is a combination of reading and math growth for the following four subgroups: Economically Disadvantaged Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities Historically Underserved Races/Ethnicities: a combined subgroup consisting of American Indian/Alaska Native Black Hispanic Pacific Islander

12 Schools/subgroups are given “Levels” for four-year and five-year cohort rates: Level 5: Top 10% of all high schools in the state Level 4: Above average Level 3: Below average, but still meeting graduation rate targets (67% for four-year, 72% for five-year) Level 2: Not meeting graduation rate targets. Level 1: Graduation rates below 60%. The higher of the four- and five-year graduation levels is the school’s Graduation Rating.

13 Subgroups are given the same “Levels” for four- and five-year graduation rates. Subgroup Graduation rating is a combination of the graduation ratings for the following four subgroups: Economically Disadvantaged Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities Historically Underserved Races/Ethnicities: a combined subgroup consisting of American Indian/Alaska Native Black Hispanic Pacific Islander

14 Overall Ratings are a weighted average of scores/ratings in each category: Achievement Growth Subgroup Growth Graduation Subgroup Graduation Schools rated as Level 5 (highest) to Level 1 (lowest).

15 Categories are weighted according to the table below: Category Elementary and Middle Schools High Schools Achievement25%20% Growth50%20% Subgroup Growth25%10% Graduation--35% Subgroup Graduation--15%

16 Cuts for the overall ratings levels are designed so that: 5% of Title I schools are “Level 5” 10% of Title I schools are “Level 2” 5% of Title I schools are “Level 1” Model Schools are Level 5 Title I schools Focus Schools are Level 2 Title I schools that have achievement gaps. Priority Schools are Level 1 Title I schools and all current SIG schools.

17 These schools can be broadly characterized as follows: Priority Schools: very low achievement, growth and/or graduation. Focus Schools: low achievement and/or growth and having achievement gaps. Model Schools: high achievement and growth.

18 Uses the Colorado Growth Model. Includes all students having two consecutive years of standard OAKS assessments, regardless of whether or not they are meeting standard. A student’s growth is compared to the growth of other students in the state having the same prior test scores. Student Growth is expressed as a percentile. Computes Growth Targets – growth percentiles that put a student on track to be at standard in three years.

19 Growth model applies to students in grades 4 to 8, and 11. Uses up to four years of test data for each student. A growth percentile of 60 would mean the student’s growth was as high or higher than 60 percent of students with the same prior scores. Growth of low performing students is compared to that of other low performing students in the state. Growth of high performing students is compared to that of other high performing students in the state.

20 School accountability uses the median growth percentile. Median growth is the “middle” growth percentile. This is the “typical” growth at the school. Schools where the typical student is meeting his/her growth target may receive a boost to their growth rating. Requirements to reach Level 5, Level 4, etc., are lower for schools where typical students are making target growth.

21 Details on the waiver: Details on priority, focus, and model schools: Jon Wiens


Download ppt "Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google