Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
South Dakota Accountability System – Year 2 School Performance Index Guyla Ness September 10, 2013.
Advertisements

2013 RCAS Summative Assessment Report Preliminary Dakota State Test of Educational Progress (D-STEP) Information August 6,2013.
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.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives Office of Educational Accountability Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2012.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
Simpson County Schools Accountability Results, Fall of 2013 Franklin-Simpson High School 97 th Percentile* DISTINGUISHED *percentile rank based on 2012.
PSP Summer Institute| July 29 – August 2, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon.
School Report Cards 2004– The Bottom Line More schools are making Adequate Yearly Progress. Fewer students show serious academic problems (Level.
+ Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 1 Hal Sanderson, Ph.D. Research and Assessment August 21,
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
Alaska’s New Accountability System for Schools 1.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.
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.”
School Performance Measure Calculations SY Office of Achievement and Accountability.
Understanding the Pennsylvania School Performance Profile Introduction.
Understanding Wisconsin’s New School Report Card.
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.
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.
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY OVERVIEW Back To School| August 19-22, 2013 Dean Munn Education Specialist Region 15 ESC.
Measuring Charter Quality Eric Paisner, NAPCS Anna Nicotera, NAPCS Lyria Boast, Public Impact.
Making Demonstrable Improvement: Request for Feedback (Updated) July 2015 Presented by: Ira Schwartz Assistant Commissioner of Accountability.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
End of Course Assessments School Year English Language Arts, Math, Biology, and Government.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Index Overview Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 3 of 8.
ESEA Flexibility: Gap Reduction Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 5 of 8.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 2 of 8 1.
Understanding the SPP September 26, > Purpose The PA School Performance Profile is designed to:  Provide a building.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
The elements of the proposed accountability model are subject to change.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
Iowa School Report Card (Attendance Center Rankings) December 3, 2015.
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.
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
ESEA Flexibility: Achievement Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 4 of 8.
TENNESSEE SUCCEEDS.. In the spring of 2007, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released an education report card for all states. Tennessee received an “F” in.
Montgomery County Public SchoolsWoodlin Elementary SchoolMontgomery County Public SchoolsWoodlin Elementary SchoolMontgomery County Public SchoolsWoodlin.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
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.
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.
Measuring Turnaround Success October 29 th, 2015 Jeanette P. Cornier, Ph.D.
Minnesota’s Proposed Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
March 2013 Training Session The content of this PowerPoint is contingent upon approval of the Alabama PLAN 2020 ESEA Flexibility Request by the USDOE.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Legislative Requirement 2013 House File 215. Category Cut Scores Based on a Normal Distribution across Measures.
Assessment & Accountability Session 3: Content and School Scores.
2017 Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Legislative Requirement 2013
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015: Highlights and
Beresford School District Report Card Data 16-17
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Bennett County School District
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability System
2013 RCAS Summative Assessment Report
School Performance Measure Calculations SY
Starting Community Conversations
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
Neptune Township School District ESEA/Title I Presentation
Presentation transcript:

Public School Accountability System

Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Sets goals that are ambitious and achievable Sets goals that are ambitious and achievable Promotes continuous improvement Promotes continuous improvement Foundations

School Performance Index System centers around 100-point School Performance Index System centers around 100-point School Performance Index Five key indicators to measure performance Five key indicators to measure performance –Each indicator has different point value

School Performance Index Two indexes: Two indexes: –1) Elementary and middle schools –2) High schools

School Performance Index PHASE IN: Fall 2012 – Initial run based on data Fall 2012 – Initial run based on data – Incorporate Completer Rate – Incorporate Completer Rate – Same as previous year – Same as previous year – Additional indicators: – Additional indicators: –Academic Growth –Effective Teachers & Principals –School Climate

School Performance Index Elementary/Middle School Indicator 1 25 points Indicator 2 25 points Indicator 3 20 points Indicator 4 20 points Indicator 5 10 points Total Score 100 points Student Achieve- ment Academic Growth AttendanceEffective Teachers & Principals School Climate Note: Different point distribution in school years and

School Performance Index High School Indicator 1 25 points Indicator 2 25 points Indicator 3 20 points Indicator 4 20 points Indicator 5 10 points Total Score 100 points Student Achieve- ment High School Completion College & Career Ready Effective Teachers & Principals School Climate Note: Different point distribution in school years and

Indicator #1: Student Achievement Based on performance on statewide assessment, grades 3-8 and 11 Based on performance on statewide assessment, grades 3-8 and 11 Percent proficient/advanced in reading and math Percent proficient/advanced in reading and math Same measure for elementary/middle school and high school Same measure for elementary/middle school and high school

Indicator #1: Student Achievement Gap Group: Aggregate count of students in subgroups that have experienced achievement gaps in last three years Gap Group: Aggregate count of students in subgroups that have experienced achievement gaps in last three years Non-Gap Group: Aggregate count of students in remaining subgroups Non-Gap Group: Aggregate count of students in remaining subgroups Why use Gap Group? Why use Gap Group? –Yields unduplicated count –Holds more schools accountable

Indicator #1: Student Achievement Student Achievement Score – Total: 25 points Student Achievement Score – Total: 25 points Step: Overall Index Points Possible Number of Students % of Students Weighted Points (% Students X Points) % Proficient/ Advanced Score (Weighted Points X % P/A) Math GAP %3.2758%1.90 Non-GAP20074%9.2383%7.66 Reading GAP %3.2762%2.03 Non-GAP20074%9.2388%8.12 TOTAL Step 7 TOTAL POINTS for Student Achievement indicator

Indicator #2: Academic Growth for Elementary/Middle School Use of growth model begins in Where student started, where ended up; what is acceptable growth? Work group identifying potential models

Indicator #2: High School Completion for High School Based on combination of: Completer rate – –Completer = % of students in most recently completed school year who have attained a diploma or GED Four-year cohort graduation rate – –Graduate = meets requirements of four-year cohort grad rate required by federal government

Indicator #2: High School Completion High School Completion Score – Total: 25 points High School Completion Score – Total: 25 points Step 123 FactorsWeight as %Weighted PointsRate as %Score % of students who have “Completed” 50.0% %11.75 Four-year cohort “Graduation Rate” 50.0% %11.38 Total possible points 100% Step 4 Total points for High School Completion Indicator

Indicator #3: Attendance for Elementary/Middle School Attendance Score – Total: 20 points Attendance Score – Total: 20 points Calculation: Calculation: Attendance rate – 90% MULTIPLIED BY Total points for the indicator – 20 EQUALS Points for the indicator – 18

Indicator #3: College & Career Ready for High School College & career ready measures: College & career ready measures: –% of students whose ACT math sub-score was 20 or above –% of students whose ACT English sub-score was 18 or above –Calculation to include specific career readiness measure by

Indicator #3: College & Career Ready for High School College & Career Ready Score – Total: 20 points College & Career Ready Score – Total: 20 points Step:12345 FactorsWeight as % Weighted Points Rate as %Score % ACT Score 20 or Greater for Math50.0% %6.7 % ACT Score 18 or Greater for English50.0%10.069%6.9 Total possible points100.0% Step 6 TOTAL POINTS for College & Career Readiness

Indicator #4: Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Begins in for both elementary/middle and high school Begins in for both elementary/middle and high school Aggregate number of teachers/principals in each of three categories: Aggregate number of teachers/principals in each of three categories: –Exceeds Expectations –Meets Expectations –Below Expectations Work groups developed principal standards and model evaluation systems for both Work groups developed principal standards and model evaluation systems for both

Indicator #5: School Climate Begins in for both elementary/middle and high school Begins in for both elementary/middle and high school Work group: Work group: –Defines “climate” –Recommends survey approach

Total SPI Score Sum of scores for Indicators #1-5 Sum of scores for Indicators #1-5 Indicator 1 25 points Indicator 2 25 points Indicator 3 20 points Indicator 4 20 points Indicator 5 10 points Total Score 100 points Student Achievement points Academic Growth OR High School Completion 23.1 points Attendance OR College & Career Ready 13.6 points Effective Teachers & Principals 15 points School Climate 8 points TOTAL Points: 79.41

Recognition & Support Classification of schools Classification of schools –Based on SPI scores and ranking:  Exemplary Schools (top 5%)  Status Schools (top 10%, minus Exemplary)  Progressing Schools  Priority Schools –Bottom 5% for SPI scores –Title I & Title I eligible high schools with graduation rate of less than 60% for two years –Certain SIG schools

Recognition & Support Classification of Focus Schools Classification of Focus Schools –Separate calculation – not based on SPI score –Based on Gap Group performance on certain key indicators of SPI –Applies only to Title I schools –Must be amount equal to 10% of Title I schools

Goals and Targets Goals and targets tied specifically to Indicator #1: Student Achievement Goals and targets tied specifically to Indicator #1: Student Achievement Overarching goal: Reduce by half the percentage of students (all subgroups) who score below Proficient on state assessment within six years Overarching goal: Reduce by half the percentage of students (all subgroups) who score below Proficient on state assessment within six years –Annual targets to increase proficiency over six years Goals and targets set separately for math and reading Goals and targets set separately for math and reading Data from school year baseline for setting goals and targets Data from school year baseline for setting goals and targets

Goals and Targets Student Group Column 1 % Basic & Below Basic Column 2 Amount to reduce in 6 years Column 3 Six-year Goal for % Prof & Adv Column 4 Annual Increase Column 5 Base Year – Column 6 Year 1 Target Column 7 Year 2 Target Column 8 Year 3 Target Column 9 Year 4 Target Column 10 Year 5 Target Column 11 Year 6 Target All Students 17%8.5%91.5%1.42%83.0%84.42%85.84%87.26%88.68%90.10%91.52% White9%4.5%95.5%0.75%91.0%91.75%92.50%93.25%94.0%94.75%95.5% Gap Group 29%14.5%85.5%2.42%71.0%73.4%75.8%78.3%80.7%83.1%85.5% Non-Gap Group 6%3%97%0.50%94.0%94.5%95.0%95.5%96.0%96.5%97.0%

Reporting School Performance Index data reported annually through Report Card School Performance Index data reported annually through Report Card SPI data available to districts through SD STARS system SPI data available to districts through SD STARS system Using data to make decisions Using data to make decisions