Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Advertisements

1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
1 What are the new changes to the School Performance Grading Rules (Revisions made by the the State Board of Education on November 18, 2003)
MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance.
Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
A quick review of z-scores and how to understand them August 26, 2011
STATE TEST DATA SPRING 2012 Report to SSD School Board.
PPT Presentation Template: This PPT includes all slides to present a district-level overview of PVAAS. This was used with a district-wide elementary faculty.
AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013 Thank you to Nancy Katims- Edmonds School District for much of the content of this presentation Ben Gauyan.
Understanding Common Concerns about the Focus School Metric August
1 Requirements for Focus Schools Focus Schools Conference Presenter: Yvonne A. Holloman, Ph.D. September 17-18, 2012.
College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) The NEW Report Card in Georgia.
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Alexander Schwarz Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research and Evaluation Michigan Department of Education.
Kentucky’s School Report Card and Spreadsheets
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011.
Understanding MMR Dr. Margaret Biggerstaff 1. 2 MMR Calculation Process.
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Webinar Michigan Department of Education August 26, 2011.
What is a Z Score?. The State’s Waiver from NCLB All schools will achieve 85% proficiency for all students in all subjects (as measured on a statewide.
Minnesota’s New Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
Understanding Wisconsin’s New School Report Card.
Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. Bureau of Assessment and Accountability Michigan Department of Education Presentation to MASFPS Fall Directors’ Institute October.
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE RANKING IS CALCULATED Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
Michigan’s Accountability Scorecards A Brief Introduction.
Loudon County Schools Student Achievement Data Results
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR) – Initial Designation.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
ASSESSMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY Updates to Student Testing and School Accountability for the school year.
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING.
MI-SAAS: A New Era in School Accountability Overview of New School Accreditation System (MI-SAAS) October 28, 2010.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Index Overview Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 3 of 8.
Michigan Accountability Data Tools February 1, 2013.
MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System Overview of Key Features School Year.
1 Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System pending legislative approval Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. March 16, 2011.
1.Open your school’s CEE Achievement Index Summary – Section 5 2.Open your Action Planning Handbook: “Data Reflection Protocol – State Assessments” (Appendix.
2011 Top to Bottom and Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools List Overview Briefing: MDE August 23, 2011.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
MERA November 26,  Priority School Study  Scorecard Analyses  House Bill 5112 Overview.
Introduction to the New Washington State Achievement Index Jack B. Monpas-Huber, Ph.D. Director of Assessment & Student Information Board of Directors.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
MCC MCA Data Discoveries. What does Minnesota think is important? What do we want kids to do?  Pass important tests “Be Proficient”  Grow.
MDE Accountability Update SLIP Conference, January 2016.
Understanding Your Top from Your Bottom: A Guide to Michigan’s Accountability System September 2013 Mitch Fowler
1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.
Accountability Scorecards Top to Bottom Ranking February 2016.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
Top to Bottom and Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Lists Federally Approved Requirements for Identifying Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools August.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Minnesota’s Proposed Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
MDE Accountability Update MSTC Conference, February 2016.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Assessment & Accountability Session 3: Content and School Scores.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
February 2012 State Board Ruling: School Grade Calculations
CINS Data Presentation
2012 Accountability Determinations
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Prepared for Quincy Schools – November 2013
Prepared for DD Key Contacts – September 2013
Focus Schools and Special Education Centers
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Michigan School Accountability Scorecards
Presentation transcript:

Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING

The statewide top-to-bottom ranking takes into account both student achievement on state tests and graduation rates. Student achievement on state tests is included in the statewide top to bottom ranking in the following three ways: Achievement at the elementary, middle, and high school levels Improvement in achievement over time The largest achievement gap between two subgroups calculated based on the top scoring 30% of students versus the bottom scoring 30% of students TOP TO BOTTOM (TTB) RANKING

In addition to the achievement components, student graduation is included in the statewide top-to-bottom ranking for schools with a graduation rate in the two following ways: Graduation Rate Improvement in graduation rate over time TTB RANKING

Schools with 30 or more students tested over the last two years in at least two state-tested content areas: Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Writing WHO RECEIVES A RANKING?

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

A weighted composite of individual student performance level change is used to calculate improvement in grades 3-8 reading and mathematics Rewards large improvements more heavily, rewards maintenance of proficiency if a student was already proficient WEIGHTED PERFORMANCE LEVEL CHANGE Previous Proficiency Significant Decline DeclineMaintainImprovement Significant Improvement Not Previously Proficient Previously Proficient -2112

For science, social studies, writing, and grade 11 reading and mathematics 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 a four-year slope (e.g., graduation rate) HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Plot the schools graduation rate for the last four years Plot a linear regression line through the points Calculate the slope of the line (gives the schools annual improvement rate)

Calculating a four-year slope (e.g., graduation rate) HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Plot the schools graduation rate for the last four years Plot a linear regression line through the points Calculate the slope of the line (gives the schools annual improvement rate)

Calculating a four-year slope (e.g., graduation rate) HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Plot the schools graduation rate for the last four years Plot a linear regression line through the points Calculate the slope of the line (gives the schools annual improvement rate) Slope = 2.3%

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

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

Calculating an overall ranking for a school without a graduation rate and without a writing score HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED School Mathematics Index School Reading Index School Science Index School Social Studies Index Overall School Standardized Index 25 % Overall School Percentile Rank

RESOURCES TO UNDERSTAND MY RANKING

Complete list of all schools and their ranking Individual school look-up to see your schools results Overview presentation with voice over FAQ Business rules by which the rankings were calculated Complete data file and validation file You can access these resources at: You can also request individual assistance by calling the Evaluation, Research and Accountability unit at , or ing RESOURCES AVAILABLE

Quick Reference for Z- Scores WHAT IS A Z-SCORE?

Z-SCORE CHEAT SHEET Z-scores are a standardized measure that helps you compare individual student (or school) data to state average data. Student z-score = (Student Scale Score) – (Statewide average of scale scores) Standard Deviation of Scale Score School z-score= (School Value) – (Statewide average of that value) Standard deviation of that value

Z-SCORE CHEAT SHEET Z-scores are centered around zero Positive numbers mean the student or school is above the state average Negative numbers mean the student or school is below the state average State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average

Z-SCORE EXAMPLES Your school has a z-score of 1.5. You are better than the state average State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5

Z-SCORE EXAMPLES Your school has a z-score of.2. You are better than the state average, but not by a lot State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5 Z-score of 0.2

Z-SCORE EXAMPLES Your school has a z-score of You are very far below state average State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5 Z-score of 0.2Z-score of -2.0

TTB vs PLA HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM THE PLA LIST?

This list represents a ranking of all schools in the state of Michigan, using our preferred methodology developed in collaboration with many stakeholders. MDE also published, according to state statute, a list of Persistently Lowest Achieving schools. This is the PLA list. The PLA list of schools was generated by a set of federally- approved and required rules that differ from our Top to Bottom ranking. TTB VERSUS PLA

WHY ARE THE LISTS DIFFERENT? Top to BottomPLA Subjects includedMath Reading Writing Science Social Studies Math Reading Graduation rate?YesNo ComponentsAchievement (1/2) Improvement (1/4) Achievement gap (1/4) Proficiency (2/3) Improvement (1/3) Proficiency?Uses standardized measure of student performance (z-score) Uses proficiency levels High achieving schools?Calculation adjustments to avoid ceiling effects No adjustment Tiers?No tiers; all schools included Tiers; Title I, AYP and school level considered