Combining Multiple Measures What are the indicators/ components? What are the priority outcomes? What are the performance expectations? How can we evaluate.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK (SPF) Clark County School District.
Advertisements

Mywish K. Maredia Michigan State University
OVERVIEW OF H.B HB 555  Revises benchmarks for Indicators Met and Performance Index to 90% for A  Raises performance proficiency benchmark to.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
State Accountability Overview 2014 Strozeski – best guess.
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance.
Kentucky’s School Report Card and Spreadsheets
Rhode Island Accountability Process Revisions for School Years 2015 and 2016 A Presentation to the Accountability 3.0 Statewide Webinar March 27, 2015.
Nevada Transitioning from measuring status and reporting AYP, to measuring growth and reporting on School Performance.
Using the WV Growth Model to Measure Student Achievement Nate Hixson Assistant Director, Office of Research.
The best and most sought-after school district where every student is future ready: ready for college, ready for the global workplace, ready for personal.
Index Accountability 2014 Created by Accountability and Compliance staff of Region 17 Education Service Center.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Carolyn M. Wood - Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability, Assessment, and Data Systems October 31,
1 Prepared by: Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress.
Incentivizing College- and Career-Readiness: Building Indicators into State Reporting and Accountability Systems Wes Bruce, Indiana Dept. of Education.
Reporting college and career readiness results to the public DQC Public Reporting Task Force | January 9, 2014.
Driving Better Outcomes: Aligning State Investments With Completion Needs Typology & Principles to Inform Outcomes-Based Funding Models Presented by: Martha.
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.
Dr. Michael Flicek Education Consultant October 8, 2013 Wyoming School Performance Rating Model Report to: Wyoming State Board of Education.
Portfolio Management Lecture: 26 Course Code: MBF702.
School Performance Index School Performance Index (SPI): A Comprehensive Measurement System for All Schools Student Achievement (e.g. PSSA) Student Progress.
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR) – Initial Designation.
Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force October 14, 2010 NH DOE 1Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 2010.
Composite Index Scores (CIS) Understanding Accountability for Strategic Goal Setting August 24, 2015 Andrew Milligan | RIDE Office of Transformation.
The Many Meanings of “Multiple Measures” Susan Brookhart Volume 2009, Volume 67:3 ASCD, November 2009, pp
Policy Considerations for Indiana’s A-F School Accountability Model October 15, 2014.
What’s going on in Richmond? Items of Interest to VESIS March 21, 2012 Bethann H. Canada Director of Educational Information Management Virginia Department.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Index Overview Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 3 of 8.
NEXT-GENERATION ACCOUNTABILITY Designing a Differentiated Accountability System for Michigan Presentation to the Michigan Educational Research Association.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
Workgroup 1: College and Career Readiness Outcomes State Outcomes Subgroup COSA Winter Conference 2012.
NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting September 21, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010.
Welcome to the AHS PCF! September 12, :00 a.m. Room 92 TOPIC: New State Report Card.
NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting August 10, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010.
Annual Measurable Objectives (trajectory targets).
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.
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.
Designing Next Generation Accountability Systems: Big Picture Tony Evers, Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Marianne Perie and Chris Domaleski,
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.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
703 KAR 5:225 Next-Generation Learners Accountability System Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:cw,ko.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability System What to Expect for the First Release of Data.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Arizona LEARNS: Overview of the Achievement Profiles.
ESEA Flexibility Designation Overview Index Targets and Proficiency-based Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs)
Minnesota’s Proposed Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
Goal: Institute an accountability model that… improves student achievement increases graduation rates closes achievement gaps Globally Competitive Students.
School Accountability and Grades Division of Teaching and Learning January 20, 2016.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Assessment & Accountability Session 3: Content and School Scores.
Legislative Requirement 2013
Conversation about State Report Card November 28, 2016
A Brief History Data-Based School & District Improvement
Washington’s ESSA Consolidated Plan Implementation 101
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Implementing the Specialized Service Professional State Model Evaluation System for Measures of Student Outcomes.
ESSA Update “Graduation Rate & Career and College Readiness”
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability System
Understanding and Using Standardized Tests
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
AYP and Report Card.
Assessment Literacy: Test Purpose and Use
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
Presentation transcript:

Combining Multiple Measures What are the indicators/ components? What are the priority outcomes? What are the performance expectations? How can we evaluate effectiveness? 1

Components Indicators are specific measures in the system such as performance on assessments or graduation rate. Components refer to broader (non-mutually exclusive) categories and can include: – Achievement (Status) – Growth – Equity – Readiness – Inclusion 2

What to Report Classifications – How many levels? How will you define these levels? ‘Monikers’ rarely have intuitive meaning. Consider starting with policy descriptors for each classification – Scores Report outcomes at indicator, component, or overall level? 3

How to combine? There are many approaches to combining within and across components. The ‘how’ is much easier than the ‘why’ – What should outcomes look like and how does this fit into the overall theory of action? Strike balance between simple – flexible Methods for combining multiple parts into a whole that yields a single outcome include: – Conjunctive – Disjunctive – Compensatory – Profile 4

Conjunctive A conjunctive rule means that ALL parts have to meet a standard in order to achieve a target outcome. Conjunctive rules are used when each part is distinct and necessary for the outcome. Example: – Currently, NCLB is a conjunctive model in that each subgroup must meet target performance in each area for a school to make AYP. 5

Disjunctive A disjunctive rule means that ANY part can meet an established standard in order to achieve an overall target outcome. A disjunctive rule should be used when each component represents a similar or equally valued part of the whole. In other words, there are multiple ways to show quality and any one way is as good as another. Example: – If school meets the target in status OR growth the overall standard is achieved. 6

Combine Conjunctive/ Disjunctive Blend elements of each into overall decision For example: – To be classified as meeting standards… 1. schools should meet EITHER growth or proficiency standards (disjunctive) 2. these standards have to be met for the whole school AND all subgroups (conjunctive) 7

Compensatory A compensatory approach means that each component contributes to the outcome, but being higher on one component can offset or ‘compensate’ for being lower on another. Example: – Take the average of each component and base the outcome on the resulting value. – Produce an index, which can be weighted to reflect priorities (e.g. 70% growth, 30% status) – Can set a ‘floor’ or conditions to prevent unintended outcomes (e.g. average must equal X unless Y is less than…”) 8

Profile Yet another way to combine indicators/ components is to create profile descriptions. A profile refers to a pattern of performance determined to meet the target or not. This approach is particularly useful when combinations of points are ‘conditional’. For example, a combination of 1,1,2 = 1; while a combination of 1,2,1 = 2. In an index, these combinations might yield the same points, which may be undesirable, because HOW the points are earned matters. 9

Equity and Excellence Who are the students for whom equity concerns are greatest? – Demographic factors Multiple subgroups ‘Super-subgroup’ – Performance factors Normative (e.g. all students in lowest 25%) Criterion (e.g. all students below proficient) – What outcomes should be prioritized Attainment of status Growth rate Principles: – Schools that are already successful – those that have no or very small achievement gaps – should not be disadvantaged. – Schools that have the largest achievement gaps should have the most incentive to improve. Differentiated expectations. – Schools should not be rewarded for closing the achievement gap when it is accomplished by lowering the score of the higher performing group. 10

11 Growth and School Type Low Growth High Growth Low Status High Status Low/LowLow/High High/High Status/Growth Combinations High/Low A thoughtful approach should consider how standards interact with status.

Build-In Incentives Consider ways to incentivize actions to support lowest performing students For example, what will be the motivation to work with students who don’t graduate in four years? Consider ‘incentive’ points 12 Possible OutcomesPoints - A Additional OutcomesPoints - B Time to OutcomePoints - C 1 Student earns CCR diploma with honors125 Student earns (or is likely to earn) college credit via AP/IB/dual enrollment 10 per course 4th yearNA Student earns CCR diploma100 Student earns non-CCR (e.g. ‘general’) diploma75 5th year (sum of A and B) multiplied by.75 Student earns GED50 Student earns industry certification 10 per certificate Student earns other certificate50 Student persists, does not meet graduation requirements years (sum of A and B) multiplied by.50 Student drops out0 1 Late graduates are not averaged into the index score for the current cohort. However, bonus points are added to the current cohort score after averaging.

Performance Expectations Is it important to establish criteria (whether reported or not) within each component, or should criteria be based only on overall results? Are there external indicators that should factor into decisions? Are there expectations for the distribution of results? How should expectations differ for schools/ subgroups? 13

Normative Normative growth provides an indication of what is attainable Examine patterns of performance for schools and subgroups to set initial expectations for what is possible and what is reasonable – For example: What is rate of growth for high achieving students compared to low achieving students? 14

Criterion For students that grow at specified rates, what is the probability of attaining or maintaining target status? For example: – What percent of non-proficient students meeting a specified growth target reach proficiency in 1 year, 2 years etc. 15

Both are important and complimentary Ideally, the are used iteratively – Examine patterns of performance for schools and subgroups to set initial expectations for what is possible and what is reasonable – For students that grow at specified rates, what is the probability of attaining or maintaining target status? 16 Growth Expectations Example depiction of norm and criterion referenced growth based on SGP. Betebenner, D. W.

To what degree are outcomes stable for schools/ groups of various types and size? (reliability) To what extent are the results associated with variables not related to effectiveness? (e.g. percent ED) What evidence bolsters the claim that classifications are credible? (e.g. related to other valued quantitative and qualitative indicators not modeled) Are the results useful for improvement? Are negative consequences mitigated? Research is ongoing and should shape both initial design and ongoing refinements 17 Evidence the System is Working