Presentation on theme: "July 30, 2012 9:00 – 10:30 a.m. by Doug Greer. What will accountability such as AYP look like this August and how will this impact our district? What."— Presentation transcript:
What will accountability such as AYP look like this August and how will this impact our district? What are the highlights of ESEA waiver regarding accreditation? How will we communicate to our community about changes in accrediation?
Presentation to MI-EXCEL ISD/ESA Meeting July 19, 2012 Venessa Keesler, Ph.D. Evaluation Research and Accountability Bureau of Assessment and Accountability ESEA FLEXIBILITY, PRIORITY AND FOCUS SCHOOLS: UPDATE
HOW DOES ESEA FLEX HELP MI? Supports career and college ready focus for all students Increased focus on accelerating student achievement and closing gaps Modifies current accountability to reflect cut scores; eliminates requirement of 100% proficient by 2014 and identification of all schools not making AYP. Helps enhance system of supports Targets resources
1.Timeline for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress, 100% by 2013-14 2.Implementation of School Improvement Requirements, Corrective Actions & Restructuring for schools not making AYP at the LEA level 3.Same as above at SEA level 4.Rural LEA $$$ dependent on AYP status 5.School wide Title I eligibility requires 40%+ F/R 6.Support of School Improvement ($ follows NCLB labels i.e. Improvement, Corrective Action & Restructuring) 7.Reward Schools $ Incentives section 1117(c) - unfunded 8.Highly Qualified Teachers Improvement Plans 9.Transfer Certain Funds to Title I-A limited 10.School Improvement Grant Funds to Support Priority Schools 1003(g) (Optional) Use of 21 st Century Community Learning Center Program Funds (MI elected not to waive this but did add “replacement of principal”)
Four Principles 1.College and Career Ready Expectations for all Students (CCSS, new cut scores and SBAC) 2.State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support (Reward, Focus, Priority) 3.Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership (Option A focuses on teacher evaluations in Waiver currently in development with MCEE) 4.Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden
Principal 2 – Accreditation & Accountability 1.Top to Bottom Ranking given to all schools with 30 or more students tested, full academic year (0 – 99 th percentile where 50 th is average) 2.NEW designation for some schools Reward schools (Top 5%, Significant Improvement or Beating the Odds) Focus schools (10% of schools with the largest achievement gab between the top and bottom) Priority schools (Bottom 5%, replaces PLA list) 3.NEW in 2013, AYP Scorecard based on point system replacing the “all or nothing” of NCLB.
9 Understanding the TWO Labels Priority/Focus/Reward (Top to Bottom List) AYP Scorecard (Need > 50%) Green-Yellow-Red Normative—ranks schools against each other Criterion--referenced—are schools achieving a certain PROFICIENCY level? Focuses attention on a smaller subset of schools; targets resources Given to all schools; acts as an “early warning” system; easy indicators The primary mechanism for sanctions and supports Used primarily to identify areas of intervention and differentiate supports Fewer schoolsAll schools
10 Michigan’s Differentiated System of Accountability Green Schools Yellow Schools Red Schools Title I Schools: Required to Set-aside 20% District and 10% Building Title I Funds Bottom 5% Priority Schools Top 5% Reward Schools plus BtO or Improv 10% (or more) Focus Schools (with the greatest achievement Gap) PLUS most schools are also given a percentile ranking ranging from the 1 st percentile to the 99 th percentile (if n > 30 FAY)
ACCOUNTABILITY SCORECARD (2013) Will replace AYP Differentiated targets for each school, based on getting to 85% proficient in 10 years Subgroup targets = same as school Safe harbor based on four year improvement slope.
July 19: ESEA Waiver approved unconditionally July 30: Overview of Waiver at OAISD Tuesday, July 31: “Embargoed” notice to district superintendents of Priority and Focus schools Wednesday, August 1: MDE Webinars Thursday, August 2: Likely public release and embargo lifted
ACCOUNTABILITY TIMELINES August 2012: AYP (original system with new targets to accommodate new cut scores for approximately 3,400 schools) Education Yes! (original system; not modified) Top to Bottom Ranking (2,866 schools) Priority Schools (formerly PLA) (146 schools) Focus Schools (358 schools) Reward Schools (286 schools) August 2013: New AYP Scorecard
What is staying THE SAME in August? What will be NEW in August? AYP (general structure, designations) New targets (reset for new cut scores) District AYP – now K-12 Graduation rate: includes all subgroups (USED requirement) EducationYES! (no changes) Lowest performing schools will be identified Will be named Priority schools (instead of PLA) Will be identified as lowest 5% of the Top to Bottom metric (instead of original methodology) Focus and Reward Schools identified
Tuesday, July 31: “Embargoed” notice to district superintendents of Priority and Focus schools Thursday, August 2: Likely public release ◦ Ed YES! Report Card (letter grade) ◦ AYP Status (pass or fail) ◦ Top to Bottom Ranking ◦ Optional designation (Reward, Focus or Priority)
New Cut Scores … ◦ Therefore, students had “higher” proficiency levels (i.e. 1’s became 2’s, 2’s became 3’s, etc.) ◦ Achievement Status is based on an Index number whose denominator is computed by summing the “higher” proficiency levels. Index numbers decreased however, State legislation did NOT change.
Feds approve NEW AYP targets in light of the ESEA Waiver application
Before we move on to the Top to Bottom Rankings and NEW designations (Reward, Focus or Priority) … What questions do you have about the upcoming release of AYP status and EdYES! Report Cards (letter grades)? NOTE: Our communications team, led by Michelle Ready, has talking points & a sample letter available for you today!
TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING Ranks all schools in the state with at least 30 full academic year students in at least two tested content areas (Reading, Writing, Math, Science and Social Studies weighted equally plus graduation). Each content area is “normed” in three categories: 2 years of Achievement (50 – 67%) 3 – 4 years of Improvement (0 – 25%) Achievement gaps between top and bottom (25 – 33%) Graduation rate (10% if applicable) 2 year Rate (67%) 4 year slope of improvement (33%)
For science, social studies, writing, and grade 11 all tested subjects HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Two-Year Average Standardized Student Scale (Z) Score Four-Year Achievement Trend Slope Two-Year Average Bottom 30% - Top 30% Z-Score Gap School Achievement Z-Score School Performance Achievement Trend Z-Score School Achievement Gap Z-Score School Content Area Index 1/ 2 1/ 4 Content Index Z- score
For graduation rate HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Two-Year Average Graduation Rate Four-Year Graduation Rate Trend Slope School Graduation Rate Z-Score School Graduation Rate Trend Z-Score School Graduation Rate Index 2/ 3 1/ 3 Grad Index Z- score
Calculating an overall ranking for a school with a graduation rate HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED School Graduation Rate Std Index School Mathematics Std Index School Reading Std Index School Science Std Index School Social Studies Std Index School Writing Std Index Overall Standardized School Index 18 % 10 % Overall School Percentile Rank
Performance Level Change (“growth”) Year X Grade Y MEAP Performance Level Year X+1 Grade Y+1 MEAP Performance Level Not Proficient Partially ProficientProficientAdv LowMidHighLowHighLowMidHighMid Not Proficient Low MIISI Mid DMIISI High DDMIISI Partially Proficient Low SDDDMIISI High SD DDMIISI Proficient Low SD DDMIISI Mid SD DDMII High SD DDMI Advanced MidSD DDM
For grade 3-8 reading and mathematics HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Two-Year Average Standardized Student Scale (Z) Score Two-Year Average Performance Level Change Index Two-Year Average Bottom 30% - Top 30% Z-Score Gap School Achievement Z-Score School Performance Level Change Z-Score School Achievement Gap Z-Score School Content Area Index 1/ 2 1/ 4 Content Index Z- score
Calculating an overall ranking for a school without a graduation rate HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED School Mathematics Std Index School Reading Std Index School Science Std Index School Social Studies Std Index School Writing Std Index Overall School Standardized Index 20 % Overall School Percentile Rank
WHAT ARE PRIORITY SCHOOLS? 30 Formerly known as PLA schools (Federal and state accountability now aligned) Bottom 5% replaces the tiered list as the identification strategy for PLA schools (includes both Title I and non-Title I schools) Year 1 planning (Closure, Restart, Turn-around or Transformation), Year 2 – 4 Implementation
WHAT ARE FOCUS SCHOOLS? 31 Schools with the largest achievement gaps. Achievement gap is defined as the difference between the average scale score for the top 30% of students and the bottom 30% of students. This methodology is an improvement over using a solely demographic-based gap methodology because it targets achievement gaps.
WHAT ARE FOCUS SCHOOLS? 32 Identifying Focus Schools is a critical component to Michigan achieving key goals: -to close the achievement gap within schools -to reduce the achievement gap statewide Common Concerns Are schools more likely to be Focus schools if they have ____________ kids (fill in the blank)? Does methodology target high performing schools? Does methodology target high socio-econ classes?
ARE CERTAIN TYPES OF SCHOOLS MORE LIKELY TO BE FOCUS SCHOOLS? Have not detected any significant patterns yet Continuing to analyze the data Because metric compares top 30 percent of kids to bottom 30 percent of kids in the school, it’s unlikely the gap is being driven exclusively by one group or type of kids.
Before we move on to the last section regarding IF you have a Focus school … What questions do you have about the upcoming release of Top to Bottom rankings and NEW designations (Priority, Focus and Reward schools)?
Summer, 2012: MDE development of toolkit based on MI School Imp. Framework and Academy of Pacesetting Districts. August 2: Public release of Focus schools District responds with communications with the support of OAISD talking points. September: Districts will be provided a toolkit and possibly a “DIF” District Improvement Facilitator (if multiple Title I buildings)
Deep data diagnosis led by toolkit and/or DIF by October 1, 2012. Oct. 1 – Jan. 30: Professional dialogue led by toolkit and/or DIF, revised SIP and Cons. App. Quarterly reports to school board required. Unlike Priority label, Focus label may only be one year. (MDE monitors both Top and Bottom 30% for improvement)
Some schools may be exempt from Focus school designation in year 2 IF they are deemed Good-Getting-Great (G-G-G): ◦ Overall achievement is above 75 th percentile ◦ Bottom 30% meets Safe Harbor improvement (or possibly AYP differentiated improvement) G-G-G schools will be exempt for 2 years, then will need to reconvene a similar deep diagnostic study in year 4. Note: See ESEA Approved Waiver pp. 151-152
Tuesday, July 31: “Embargoed” notice to district superintendents of Priority and Focus schools Thursday, August 2: Public release likely of the following: ◦ Ed YES! Report Card (old letter grade) ◦ AYP Status (old pass or fail system) ◦ Top to Bottom Ranking and possibly: Reward schools (Top 5%, Top improvement, BtO) Focus schools (largest achievement gap top vs. bottom) Priority schools (Bottom 5%) Doug Greer 877-702-8600 x4109 DGreer@oaisd.org