Understanding MMR Dr. Margaret Biggerstaff 1. 2 MMR Calculation Process.

Slides:



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

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.
AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives Office of Educational Accountability Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2012.
June Big Picture Continuous Improvement Aligned Improvement June
1 Accountability System Overview of the Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.
Accountability Updates Testing & Evaluation Department May 21, 2014 Mission High School MISSION CISD DEIC MEETING.
Accountability data overview August Topics  Changes to 2014 accountability reporting  Overview of accountability measures  Progress & Performance.
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011.
1 School Designation Detailed Methodology Reward Identify the “highest-performing schools” and “high-progress schools” based in all-students group over.
New DC OSSE ESEA Accountability. DC OSSE ESEA Accountability Classification Overview I. DC OSSE Accountability System II. Classification of Schools III.
ESEA Flexibility: College & Career Readiness Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 7 of 8.
Minnesota’s New Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
1 Prepared by: Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Review Planning Faribault Public Schools DATA DAY.
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR) – Initial Designation.
NECAP Ramp-Up Programs Math Grade 4  4 /5 Students Improved 2/5 Improved 2 levels 2/5 Improved 1 level 1/5 No Change Reading Grade 4  8/9 Students Improved.
TASSP Spring 2014 Tori Mitchell, ESC 17 Specialist Ty Duncan, ESC 17 Coordinator Overview of 2014 Accountability
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING.
September 2015 Amanda Grinager, Director of Teaching and Learning.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Index Overview Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 3 of 8.
ESEA Flexibility: Gap Reduction Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 5 of 8.
What are the STAAR Performance Standards? Copyright 2013 by Region 7 Education Service Center. All rights reserved.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 2 of 8 1.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
August 18, 2015 Net 3 Texas Accountability for State and Federal System Safeguards.
ELL AMAO and Grad Rate Data ELL Outcome Improvement Group Oregon Department of Education July 21, 2015.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
ESEA Flexibility: Student Growth Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 6 of 8.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
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.
ESEA Flexibility: Achievement Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 4 of 8.
March 2013 Presenter: Nancy Webster Director of Instructional Measurement and Accountability.
Review Planning Faribault Public Schools DATA DAY.
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.
1 Mississippi Statewide Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress Model Improving Mississippi Schools Conference June 11-13, 2003 Mississippi Department.
AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives Office of Educational Accountability Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2012.
703 KAR 5:225 Next-Generation Learners Accountability System Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:cw,ko.
Novice Reduction & Non-Duplicated Gap Group
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.
HISD Becoming #GreatAllOver 1 Accountability Rating System Commissioner’s Final Rules 2014.
Minnesota’s Proposed Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Welcome to the BT Super Conference
Sustaining and building on the excellence of LCPS
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
Marshall Public SchoolS MCA Results
2016 Accountability Reporting
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
IFs and Nested IFs =IF(R3<60,”F”,”P”)
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Every Student Succeeds Act Update
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
NANTUCKET PUBLIC SCHOOLS
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
November 09, 2012 Suzanne M. Wright Joe Prather
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
English Learner Accountability Component
Presentation transcript:

Understanding MMR Dr. Margaret Biggerstaff 1

2 MMR Calculation Process

Initial Domain Calculations 3 Initial Calculation Domain ProficiencyGrowthGap Reduction 1, 2 Graduation Uses Making AYP Index Target Individual Growth Z Score Making 4-, 5-, 6- Year Cohort Target Includes 3 Gr & 10/11Gr & 10/11 Gr. 12 Math & Reading Content Separate Scores Combined Combined Separate Scores Combined Not Applicable Minimum 1 subgroup20 unique students 1 subgroup Subgroups Number 1 to 9Not Applicable1 to 71 to 9 Size 20 StudentsNot Applicable1 Student20 Students Total Subscores 1 to 18None1 to 141 to 9 Format Average NoYes No Weighted YesNoYes Range Potential 0 to 1-3 to +3-6 to +60 to Actual 0 to to to to 1 1 Excludes school’s white students who are not FRP, not EL, and not Special Education 2 Gap represents (State Comparative Subgroup Average Growth Z Score - School Subgroup's Average Growth Z Score) 3 For all domains, only includes students in statewide AYP calculations

SubjectGroup 2010 Gap Reduction Target (Statewide Average Growth Z Score) 2011 Gap Reduction Target (Statewide Average Growth Z Score) MWhite MNot LEP MNot SPE MNot FRP RWhite RNot LEP RNot SPE RNot FRP Used 2011 State Averages

5 MMR Calculation Process 2251 Schools Tested Students 1533 Schools Eligible for MMR 751 MMR Eligible Schools Designated Title I Schools in 2012

CategoryCriteria for Category Classification Reward Highest 15% of Title I schools based on MMR Celebration Top performing schools in the range of 60 to 85 percentile of Title I schools based on MMR with successful state approved applications Continuous Improvement Lowest 25% of Title I schools based on MMR, not already identified as Focus or Priority Focus Lowest 10% of Title I schools based on FR or High schools with persistently low graduation rates based on 6-Year Cohort Priority Lowest 5% of Title I schools based on MMR or SIG Schools Title I School Classifications 6

Understanding Individual Growth Score 7 Expected Scale Score Following Year Current Grade Prior Year Scale Score MathematicsReading or

Understanding Individual Growth Score 8 Expected Scale Score Following Year Current Grade Prior Year Scale Score MathematicsReading ALL or

Understanding Individual Growth Score Mathematics MCA-III or MCA-II Mean Growth Score Partially Meets the StandardsMeets the Standards Current Grade Prior Year Scale Score Target UsedObserved Prior Year Scale Score Target UsedObserved

10

11

Sustain all students at same performance level or higher based on state accountability performance More than just sustaining same achievement level Impacting MMR Gap Reduction 12

Contact Information Margaret Biggerstaff Minnesota Department of Education 1500 Highway 36 West Roseville, MN Minnesota Assessment Conference 13