2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Accountabil ity System Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performanc e Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Overview.
Advertisements

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Hickman Mills C-1 Parent University: AYP, APR, Accreditation….what does it all mean? Presented by: Casey Klapmeyer.
Annual UMES Summer Institute “Making the Adjustment” Student Learning Objectives :
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
January 22, /25/ STAAR: A New Assessment Model STAAR is a clearly articulated assessment program. Assessments are vertically aligned within.
NCLB and MSIP Accountability for End-of-Course Assessments DRAFT – October 2008 Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Becky Odneal.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER RENEWAL Overview of Proposed Renewal March 6, 2015 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
ESEA Flexibility: College & Career Readiness Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 7 of 8.
Overview of the Idaho Five Star Rating System Dr. TJ Bliss Director of Assessment and Accountability
2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.
MSIP 5 THE MISSOURI SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Fall 2012.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
School Progress Index 2012 Results Mary Gable- Assistant State Superintendent Division of Academic Policy Carolyn Wood - Assistant State Superintendent.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
Making Demonstrable Improvement: Request for Feedback (Updated) July 2015 Presented by: Ira Schwartz Assistant Commissioner of Accountability.
2012 MASSP SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 March 27, 2012.
Principal Professional Learning Team August 2012.
End of Course Assessments School Year English Language Arts, Math, Biology, and Government.
What is Title I ?  It is federal funding that is attached to NCLB/ESEA legislation  It is intended to help students who are falling behind.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Index Overview Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 3 of 8.
July,  Congress hasn’t reauthorized Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  U.S. Department.
ESEA Flexibility: Gap Reduction Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 5 of 8.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 2 of 8 1.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
1 Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Fourth Cycle Becky Kemna, Coordinator School Improvement and Accreditation (573)
Collecting data & information Talking with teachers, administrators, service providers Progress Monitoring Consolidated Planning /Use of Data Alternative.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
The elements of the proposed accountability model are subject to change.
ASSESSMENT Parkway Academic Assessment: Federal and State Influences on the Parkway School District Curriculum Council Parkway School District January.
MEAP / MME New Cut Scores Gill Elementary February 2012.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
Raytown C-2 School District 2010 MAP/EOC Results Core Curricular Areas September 27, 2010.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
Fall Regional Curriculum and Instruction Meeting September 2015.
ESEA Flexibility: Student Growth Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 6 of 8.
Welcome to Abbett Elementary! Curriculum Night 2015.
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.
1 1 Next Generation School Assessment and Accountability Thursday, November 17, 2011 Draft - July 13, 2011.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
PED School Grade Reports (with thanks to Valley High School) ACE August 3, 2012 Dr. Russ Romans District Accountability Manager.
ESEA Flexibility: Achievement Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 4 of 8.
Montgomery County Public SchoolsWoodlin Elementary SchoolMontgomery County Public SchoolsWoodlin Elementary SchoolMontgomery County Public SchoolsWoodlin.
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.
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability System What to Expect for the First Release of Data.
Standardized Testing EDUC 307. Standardized test a test in which all the questions, format, instructions, scoring, and reporting of scores are the same.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
APR 2014 Report: Data, Analysis and Action Plan for Full Accreditation.
Globalization. Innovation. Graduation.  Transition to Five Achievement Levels  School Performance Grades (A–F)  EVAAS as a Tool NC READY ACCOUNTABILITY.
End of Course Exams  In February, 2007 the Missouri State Board of Education approved End of Course (EOC) exams.  WHY?
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Breakout Discussion: Every Student Succeeds Act - Scott Norton Council of Chief State School Officers.
Driving Through the California Dashboard
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
2012 Accountability Determinations
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
California's Accountability System
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability System
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Fall Regional Curriculum and Instruction Meeting
Driving Through the California Dashboard
Maryland State Board of Education October 25, 2011
State Assessment Update
Presentation transcript:

2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012

Why we’re here! 2

 Promote Continuous Improvement and Innovation  Establish the State's Expectations  Distinguish Performance of Schools and Districts  Empower All Stakeholders MSIP 5 Policy Goals

2011 Fourth Cycle Results 4 th Cycle Standard Percent Districts meeting standard State Performance Percent Students scoring proficient/advanced 3-5 Math 88%52% (MET) 3-5 Communication Arts 89%50.3% (MET) 6-8 Math 94%55.4% (MET) 6-8 Communication Arts 94%53.3% (MET) Algebra I 79%60.2% (MET) English II 76%74.5% (MET) ACT 86%36% (at or above nat’l avg) (MET)

2011 Fourth Cycle Results 4 th Cycle Standard Percent Districts meeting standard State Performance Advanced Courses 97%MET CTE Courses 97%MET College Placement 93%69.4% (2010) (MET) CTE Placement 96%84.9% (2010) (MET) Attendance Rate 91%94.4% (NOT MET) Graduation Rate 91%87% (MET) Subgroup Performance 48%5% (NOT MET)

1. Academic Achievement – The district administers assessments required by the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) to measure academic achievement and demonstrates improvement in the performance of its students over time. 2. Subgroup Achievement – The district demonstrates required improvement in student performance for its subgroups. 3. College and Career Readiness (K-12 only) – The district provides adequate post-secondary preparation for all students. 3. High School Readiness (K-8 only) – The district provides adequate post-elementary preparation for all students. 4. Attendance Rate – The district ensures all students regularly attend school. 5. Graduation Rate (K-12 only) – The district ensures all students successfully complete high school. MSIP 5 Performance Standards

Regional Meetings – Intended Outcome of Missouri’s Accountability System Identify Lowest 5% and Provide Drastic Intervention and Assistance Ensure EVERY school is “Good Enough” Ensure EVERY school Gets Better Second Priority 8-3 Third Priority Third Priority 18-1 Highest Priority

Regional Meetings – Design Decisions DecisionSpread< 50%50/50> 50% Status Growth DecisionSpread< 50%50/50> 50% Differentiated Standardized DecisionSpread< 50%50/50> 50% Simple/Transparent Complex/Precise DecisionSpread< 50%50/50> 50% Focused Dept Resources Dept Resources for All

Aligned System of Accountability Federal Mathematics/Communication Arts Graduation Rate State Additional EOCs; additional CCR indicators Local Formative Assessments

Academic Achievement  Multiple Measures  Apply Full Academic Year (FAY) for accountability; report all students  Eliminate “grade span” and report at school/LEA configuration StatusProgressGrowth Exceeding1599 Meeting966 Approaching633 Floor000

Academic Achievement - Status  Set Standardized Status Expectation for all districts  Use 3 most recent years to calculate status  Use an Index to calculate and add percent proficient for reporting Achievement LevelPoint Value Below Basic1 Basic3 Proficient4 Advanced5

MAP Performance Index Prof Rate MPI B Basic25%25 Basic25%75 Prof25%100 Adv25% Prof Rate MPI B Basic0%0 Basic50%150 Prof25%100 Adv25% Prof Rate MPI B Basic13%13 Basic12%36 Prof50%200 Adv25%

Academic Achievement - Progress  Promote continuous improvement  Allow for differentiated improvement targets  Use percentage gap reduction

Proposed Status Targets-Communication Arts YearFloorApproachingMeetsExceeds MPI (1,3,4,5) Proposed Targets for Status (Academic Achievement) Draft

Academic Achievement - Progress Baseline MPI2011 School MPIMPI gap = The MPI from the prior year is subtracted from 450 to determine a gap. Prior Year MPI GAP MPI Increase Needed 2011 MPI2012 Progress AMO Exceeds 102.2*5% = Meets 102.2*3% = Approaching 102.2*1% = Multiply the MPI gap by the associated percentage.

Academic Achievement - Progress

Academic Achievement - Growth  Continue with Student Growth Pilot  Establish Growth Targets  Similar process as 2011 APR but use quartiles

Subgroup Achievement  Challenges Associated with NCLB Implementation  “All or nothing” approach  Distribution of subgroups among LEAs Number of subgroups vary LEA to LEA Minimum “n”  Duplicated Count

Subgroup Achievement  Report all subgroups individually  Maintains focus on the performance of each child  Apply accountability to a super subgroup  Allows for inclusion of students otherwise missed due to small “n” size  Eliminates duplicated count  Levels playing field among districts – accountability measured using one subgroup in each district

Subgroup % Of State Population CA 2009 CA 2010 CA 2011 Math 2009 Math 2010 Math 2011 Total 100% Asian/Pacific Is 1.9% Black 16.3% Hispanic 4.3% American In 0.5% White 75.6% Multi-Racial 1.3% FRL 46.6% IEP 12.5% LEP 2.6% Proficiency Rates by Subgroup

Subgroup Achievement  Multiple Measures  Status  Progress  Growth  Goal  Cut Gap in Half by 2020

Academic Achievement CA Mathematics ScienceSocial Studies Additional EOCs Risk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 15 Meets =9 Approach =6 Floor =0 Exceeds = 15 Meets =9 Approach =6 Floor =0 Exceeds = 15 Meets =9 Approach =6 Floor =0 Exceeds = 7.5 Meets =4.5 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 7.5 Meets =4.5 Approach =3 Floor =0 Progress Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 4.5 Meets =3 Approach =1.5 Floor =0 Exceeds = 4.5 Meets =3 Approach =1.5 Floor =0 Growth Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach=3 Floor =0 Points Possible Subgroup Achievement CA Mathematics ScienceSocial Studies Additional EOCs Risk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 5 Meets =3 Approach =2 Floor =0 Exceeds = 5 Meets =3 Approach =2 Floor =0 Exceeds = 5 Meets =3 Approach =2 Floor =0 Exceeds = 2.5 Meets =1.5 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 2.5 Meets =1.5 Approach =1 Floor =0 Progress Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 1.5 Meets =1 Approach =.5 Floor =0 Exceeds = 1.5 Meets =1 Approach =.5 Floor =0 Growth Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Points Possible

CCR*1-3 *4 *5-6Risk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 10 Meets = 6 Approach = 4 Floor = 0 Exceeds = 10 Meets =6 Approach =4 Floor =0 Exceeds = 10 Meets =6 Approach =4 Floor =0 Progress Exceeds = 6 Meets = 4 Approach = 2 Floor = 0 Exceeds = 6 Meets = 4 Approach =2 Floor =0 Exceeds = 6 Meets = 4 Approach =2 Floor =0 Points Possible 10 AttendanceRisk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 10 Meets = 6 Approach =4 Floor = 0 Progress Exceeds = 6 Meets =4 Approach = 2 Floor = 0 Points Possible 10 Graduation4-5 Year RateStateRisk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 20 Meets = 12 Approach = 8 Floor = 0 Exceeds = 10 Meets = 6 Approach = 4 Floor = 0 Progress Exceeds = 12 Meets = 8 Approach = 4 Floor = 0 Exceeds = 6 Meets = 4 Approach = 2 Floor =

Sample Annual Performance Report (K-12) StandardPoints POSSIBLEDistrict ScoreRisk Factors Exemplar Flags Academic Achievement 60 Subgroup Achievement 20 College and Career Readiness 30 Attendance 10 Graduation Rate 30 Total Points Possible 150

Sample Annual Performance Report (K-8) StandardPoints POSSIBLEDistrict ScoreRisk Factors Exemplar Flags Academic Achievement 45 Subgroup Achievement 15 High School Readiness 10 Attendance 10 Total Points Possible 80

Aligned System of Accountability Federal Mathematics/Communication Arts Graduation Rate State Additional EOCs; additional CCR indicators Local Formative Assessments

Academic Achievement CA Mathematics ScienceSocial Studies Additional EOCs Risk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 15 Meets =9 Approach =6 Floor =0 Exceeds = 15 Meets =9 Approach =6 Floor =0 Exceeds = 15 Meets =9 Approach =6 Floor =0 Exceeds = 7.5 Meets =4.5 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 7.5 Meets =4.5 Approach =3 Floor =0 Progress Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 4.5 Meets =3 Approach =1.5 Floor =0 Exceeds = 4.5 Meets =3 Approach =1.5 Floor =0 Growth Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 9 Meets =6 Approach=3 Floor =0 Points Possible Subgroup Achievement CA Mathematics ScienceSocial Studies Additional EOCs Risk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 5 Meets =3 Approach =2 Floor =0 Exceeds = 5 Meets =3 Approach =2 Floor =0 Exceeds = 5 Meets =3 Approach =2 Floor =0 Exceeds = 2.5 Meets =1.5 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 2.5 Meets =1.5 Approach =1 Floor =0 Progress Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 1.5 Meets =1 Approach =.5 Floor =0 Exceeds = 1.5 Meets =1 Approach =.5 Floor =0 Growth Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Exceeds = 3 Meets =2 Approach =1 Floor =0 Points Possible

CCR*1-3 *4 *5-6Risk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 10 Meets = 6 Approach = 4 Floor = 0 Exceeds = 10 Meets =6 Approach =4 Floor =0 Exceeds = 10 Meets =6 Approach =4 Floor =0 Progress Exceeds = 6 Meets = 4 Approach = 2 Floor = 0 Exceeds = 6 Meets = 4 Approach =2 Floor =0 Exceeds = 6 Meets = 4 Approach =2 Floor =0 Points Possible 10 AttendanceRisk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 10 Meets = 6 Approach =4 Floor = 0 Progress Exceeds = 6 Meets =4 Approach = 2 Floor = 0 Points Possible 10 Graduation4-5 Year RateStateRisk FactorsExemplars Status Exceeds = 20 Meets = 12 Approach = 8 Floor = 0 Exceeds = 10 Meets = 6 Approach = 4 Floor = 0 Progress Exceeds = 12 Meets = 8 Approach = 4 Floor = 0 Exceeds = 6 Meets = 4 Approach = 2 Floor =

K-12 sample Core Score Points POSSIBLE Additional State Indicators Points POSSIBLE Total Points POSSIBLE Academic Achievement Subgroup Achievement College and Career Readiness _30 Attendance Rate _10 Graduation Rate Total

K-8 sample Core Score Points POSSIBLE Additional State Indicators Points POSSIBLE Total Points POSSIBLE Academic Achievement Subgroup Achievement High School Readiness _10 Attendance Rate _10 Total 40 80

Reinstatement of Performance Events and Writing Prompts  Beginning fall 2012 administration  Grade 3 – Communication Arts: writing prompt  Grade 4 – Mathematics: performance event  Grade 5 – Science: performance event  Grade 7 – Communication Arts: writing prompt  Grade 8 – Mathematics AND Science: performance event  Algebra I – Performance event  English II – Writing prompt  Biology – Performance event

Class of 2016  Required Additional End-of-Course Assessments  English I  American History  Administered online  No cost to LEAs/districts  Sample tests and achievement level descriptors may be found at

Goal 1: All Missouri students will graduate college and career ready. STRATEGY 2: Promote quality teaching, leading, and learning by supporting a continuous improvement process and disseminating effective instructional practices.  ACTION 1: Establish and apply appropriate measures of accountability to guide timely intervention strategies and improvement efforts based on best practices.  ACTION 2: Identify, disseminate and support research-based models to guide school and district improvement.  ACTION 3: Identify, disseminate and promote best practices.  ACTION 4: Provide access to user-friendly data tools to make informed decisions.

THANK YOU!!! 35