1. MASSP Spring Conference Keep the Destination in Mind Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education – MSIP 5 Update 1 March 25, 2013

2. Why We’re Here 2 Preparing Every Child for Success in School and in Life

3. How We Got Here  MSIP is the state’s school accountability system used to review and accredit public school districts in Missouri.  MSIP began in 1990 and is entering its 5th version. 3

4. How It Happens  Annual Performance Reports (APRs): generated each year to determine appropriate supports for each public school, district and charter school.  Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP): All districts must maintain and implement. 4

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

6. Transition 4 th CycleMSIP 5 CyclicalAnnual Number of Mets/Not MetsPercent of Points Earned 5 years of data3 years of data Grade Span ELA and MathSubject Area ELA, Math, SS, Science District/LEA Level APRDistrict/LEA and School Level APR Targets based on state normTargets based on Top 10 by 20 goal Status + ProgressStatus + Progress OR Growth (where app) ACTACT or SAT or COMPASS or ASVAB Enrollment in Advanced CoursesSuccessful Completion of Advanced Courses K-8 GPA standardK-8 High School Readiness Standard Aggregate AttendanceAttendance of Individual Child Cohort Graduation RateUp to 7-year Adjusted Cohort Rate Focus on Continuous Improvement

7. 1. Academic Achievement 2. Subgroup Achievement 3. College and Career Readiness (K-12 only) or 3. High School Readiness (K-8 only) 4. Attendance Rate 5. Graduation Rate (K-12 only) Performance Standards 7

8. Academic Achievement  ELA, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies  Multiple Measures  Status  Progress Or  Growth  Goal  Be in the top 10 performing states by 2020 8

9. Academic Achievement K-12 9 Academic Achievement ELAMathematicsScienceSocial StudiesTotal Status2020 Target= 16 On Track =12 Approach =9 Floor =0 2020 Target = 16 On Track =12 Approach =9 Floor =0 2020 Target = 16 On Track =12 Approach =9 Floor =0 2020 Target = 8 On Track = 6 Approach =5 Floor =0 ProgressExceeds = 12 On Target =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 12 On Target =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 12 On Target =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 6 On Target =3 Approach =1.5 Floor =0 Growth Exceeds = 12 On Target =6 Floor =0 Exceeds = 12 On Target =6 Floor =0 Points Possible 16 8 56

10. Academic Achievement K-8 10 Academic Achievement ELAMathematicsScience Social Studies Total Status2020 Target = 16 On Track =12 Approach =9 Floor =0 2020 Target = 16 On Track =12 Approach =9 Floor =0 2020 Target = 16 On Track =12 Approach =9 Floor =0 ProgressExceeds = 12 On Target =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 12 On Target =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 12 On Target =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Growth Exceeds = 12 On Target =6 Approach =3 Floor =0 Exceeds = 12 On Target =6 Approach=3 Floor =0 Points Possible 16 48

11. 11 EX Status ProgGrowPoints Earned A 1612 16 B 12616 C 12316 D 12016 E 61216 F 66 G 63 H 60 I 31216 J 36 K 33 L 30 M 01216 N 06 O 03 P 00 EX Status ProgGrowPoints Earned Q 12 16 R 12 616 S 12 316 T 12 016 U 126 16 V 126616 W 126316 X 126016 Y 123 16 Z 123616 AA 123315 BB 123015 CC 120 16 DD 120616 EE 120315 FF 1200 EX Status ProgGrowPoints Earned GG 912 16 HH 912616 II 912316 JJ 912016 KK 961216 LL 96615 M 963 NN 96015 O 931216 PP 93615 Q 93312 RR 93012 SS 901216 TT 90615 UU 90312 VV 9009 EX Status ProgGrowPoints EarnedW 012 XX 0126 YY 0123 ZZ 0120 a 06 B 0666 c 0636 d 0606 e 03 f 0366 g 0333 h 0303 i 00 j 0066 k 0033 l 0000

12. Subject Areas ELAMathematicsScienceSocial Studies GLA 3-8 MAP-A 3-8, 11 English I English II GLA 3-8 MAP-A 3-8, 10 Algebra I Algebra II Geometry GLA 5 and 8 MAP-A 5,8,11 Biology Government American History 12  Additional EOCs TBD  Grade 11 End-of-high-school operational in 2014-2015 (potential CCR measure)

13. Status Targets  2020 Target – represents a level of performance approximately equivalent to the projected 2020 performance of the top 10 states on the corresponding NAEP exam OR, in subjects for which state-by-state NAEP data are unavailable, an equally rigorous target.  On Track —represents a level of performance about equal to 75% proficient by year 2020. Current performance is compared to this target, then a linear trajectory is created that requires equal annual progress increments to reach the 2020 target.  Approaching—represents a level of performance about equal to 100% Basic if each  Floor—represents a level of performance less than 100% Basic 13

14. Progress Targets  Promote continuous improvement  Are customized for each LEA and school  Use Rolling Average  Multiple Years of Data  Less Volatility 14

15. Growth Targets  Missouri Growth Model  Uses three years of outcome data  Outcome year is defined as a valid score pair  Pairs include 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011 - 2012  A valid MAP score pair is a score from grades 4 through 8 with a score from the prior year and grade level  Growth data applies to grade level assessments 15

16. Growth Points Earned Growth Measures Growth Points Earned Growth Measure Description Exceeding 12 a statistically significant score>50 On Track6 not statistically significant growth estimates Floor0 a statistically significant score <50 16

17. 2. Subgroup Achievement— The district demonstrates required improvement in student performance for its subgroups. 1. English Language Arts 2. Mathematics 3. Science 4. Social Studies MSIP 5 Performance Standards 2 17

18. Proficiency Rates by Subgroup Subgroup % Of State Population CA 2009 CA 2010 CA 2011 Math 2009 Math 2010 Math 2011 Total 100% 51.253.654.647.652.754.2 Asian/Pacific Is 1.9% 61.765.665.064.870.572.0 Black 16.3% 29.732.032.721.223.029.0 Hispanic 4.3% 37.740.641.634.435.841.4 American In 0.5% 51.1 51.241.844.048.6 White 75.6% 56.659.060.152.853.658.3 Multi-Racial 1.3% 60.353.753.558.965.153.1 FRL 46.6% 36.339.440.531.833.338.9 IEP 12.5% 23.626.227.022.725.829.2 LEP 2.6% 24.725.223.228.428.631.4 18

19. Subgroup Achievement  Multiple Measures  Status  Progress OR  Growth  Goal  Cut Gap in Half by 2020 19

20. Algebra I EOC / GLA Policy  Choose one test  Algebra I in middle school + Algebra II in high school  Algebra I and Geometry in middle school + Algebra II in high school  Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II in middle school + plan from district 20

21. EOC Retest Policy  LEAs are required to ensure students participate in the required end-of-course tests prior to graduation  LEAs may not assess a student who previously scored proficient or advanced on the SAME end- of-course (EOC) assessment multiple times.  LEAs may submit an appeal for a student who previously scored basic or below basic and is retaking the test for A+ eligibility 21

22. College and Career Readiness *1-6 22 Academic Achievement CCR *1-3CCR *4CCR *5-6Total Status2020 Target = 10 On Track = 7.5 Approaching = 6 Floor = 0 2020 Target = 10 On Track = 7.5 Approaching = 6 Floor = 0 2020 Target = 10 On Track = 7.5 Approaching = 6 Floor = 0 ProgressExceeding = 7.5 On Track = 4 Approaching = 2 Floor = 0 Exceeding = 7.5 On Track = 4 Approaching = 2 Floor = 0 Exceeding = 7.5 On Track = 4 Approaching = 2 Floor = 0 Points Possible 10 30

23. Standard 3 CCR *1- 6 23  Graduate File  Unduplicated Count  Highest Score where applicable  No Full Academic Year (FAY)

24. Standard 3 CCR *1- 6 Updates  Standard 3 *1-3  2020 Trajectory  Increased Participation  Standard 3 *4  2020 Trajectory  TSA data not yet included  Standard 3*5  National Student Clearinghouse 24

25. HSR  June Enrollment and Attendance- 8 th Grade Exiters  Unduplicated Count  A qualifying score of Proficient or Advanced  No Full Academic Year (FAY) 25

26. Attendance  90% of the students in attendance 90% of the time  Proportional Attendance Rate  Hours of attendance + Hours of absence  School calendar hours  Use of Stopout Code 26

27. Graduation Rate  Five-Year Adjusted Cohort Rate for accountability  A Six- and Seven- Year adjusted cohort rate will be used for accountability as the data become available  Four-Year Adjusted Cohort for reporting 27 4 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate 5 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate 6 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate 7 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate 2011 2012 2013 2014

28. Changes to March 2012 Draft APR  Terminology and Reports  Status and Progress Titles  LEAs and School Titles  LEP to ELL  Performance Indicators (Remove risk factor language)  Weighted Proportional Attendance Rate  6-Year & 7-Year Graduation Rate  Revised Cut Scores CCR Indicators 28

29. Guidance Document  Appendix  Matrix of Approximately Equivalent CCR *1-3 Assessment Scores  Missouri institutions complying with the Coordinating Board for Higher Education’s Dual Credit Policy and Principles of Good Practice for Dual Credit Courses  Approved Technical Skills Attainment (TSA) Assessments 29

30. Accreditation Levels  Accredited with Distinction >90% of points + other criteria as determined  Accredited >70% of points  Provisional >50% to 69.9% of points  Unaccredited < 50% of points 30

31. Transition into MSIP 5 Assessment Data APR releaseClassification 2011-20124 th Cycle MSIP - 2012 APR (summer 2012) Board Classification for all remaining 4 th Cycle districts 2011-2012MSIP 5 - 2012 APR (fall 2012) Draft MSIP 5 2012-2013MSIP 5 - 2013 APR (summer 2013) Year 1 MSIP 5Year 1 APR 2013-2014MSIP 5 - 2014 APR (summer 2014) Year 2 MSIP 5Year 2 APR 2014-2015MSIP 5 - 2015 APR (summer 2015) Year 3 MSIP 5 Board Classification for all districts based on MSIP 5 Year 3 APR 31

32. Other Things to Consider  Test Participation  EOC  MAP-A  Data Corrections  Historical and current data clean up through 6/30/2013  Historical Supporting APR data frozen 7/1/2013  Look Ahead  Plan for transition to new assessments  Pay attention to all three years of data when projecting  Focus on each student’s learning 32

33. Resource Standards  Elementary  High School  Class Size and Assigned Enrollments  Guidance and Counseling Staff  Certification and Licensure  Principals/Building Administrators 33

34. Process Standards 34  Teacher/Leader Standards (2)  Instruction Standards (11)  Governance Standards (11) 34

35.  High expectations for each child  More comprehensive reports  Multiple ways to meet measures  Greater flexibility in how the individual child demonstrates achievement MSIP 5 Benefits 35

36. 36 Office of Quality Schools Jocelyn Strand, Coordinatorjocelyn.strand@dese.mo.gov Melissa Hensley, Directormelissa.hensley@dese.mo.gov Cathi Rust, Supervisorcatherine.rust@dese.mo.gov Office of Data Systems Management Jason Young, CoordinatorJason.young@dese.mo.gov Janet Duncan, Assistant DirectorJanet.duncan@dese.mo.gov 36

37. Characteristics of Proficiency-based Learning (PBL)  Students advance upon demonstrated mastery.  Learning objectives are explicit, measurable, transferable and empower students.  Assessment is meaningful and a positive learning experience for students.  Students receive timely, differentiated support.  Emphasis on application and creation of knowledge, and the development of important skills and dispositions. Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013 37

38. Conceptual Framework  Beliefs  All students can learn.  Students learn at different rates.  Traditional structures hold time constant.  Learning becomes the variable.  Goal: Free the learning process from time constraints. Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013 38

39. PBL Task Force Recommendations 1. Revise the Graduation Handbook 2. Modify MOSIS to support PBL implementation 3. Establish minimum standards by which PBL Credit can be earned (ensure rigor and transferability of credit) 4. Increase the availability of EOCs, and possibly TSAs 5. Develop a standard statewide transcript 39 Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013

40. PBL Task Force Recommendations 6. Develop an assessment system for primary and intermediate grades/ages that supports PBL 7. Develop an assessment reporting system that supports PBL 8. Develop an accountability plan for PBL and Credit 9. Advocate for legislative action which supports funding for PBL in a manner similar to Virtual Education 10. Advocate for statutory change which provides economically efficient advantages to fund college credit 40 Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013

41. Further Study  Changes needed in the accreditation system.  Implications for support of the delayed learner.  Best transcription practices:  Incomplete mastery,  Weighted Grades.  Funding for non-time-based learning structures, including ADA-based payments made upon course completion. Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013 41

42. Common Core State Standards Define the knowledge and skills students need for college and career Developed voluntarily and cooperatively by states; more than 40 states have adopted Provide clear, consistent standards in English language arts/literacy and mathematics Source: www.corestandards.org Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

43. A Balanced Assessment System Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness All students leave high school college and career ready Teachers and schools have information and tools they need to improve teaching and learning Interim assessments Flexible, open, used for actionable feedback Summative assessments Benchmarked to college and career readiness Teacher resources for formative assessment practices to improve instruction Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

44. Educator Preparation  New Teacher – Principal Survey  MEGA Surveys 44

45. Frames of Reference  The Right People Profile  Content Knowledge General Education - Entry Content and Pedagogy– Exit  Field & Clinical Performance Standards Based Performance 43

46. Questions??? 46

47. THANK YOU!!! 47