Assessment and Accountability Update Longbranch Elementary School September 27,

Next Generation Learners Score Breakdown Program Review School Report Card Next Generation Science and Social Studies Standards Additional Data Explore Data (former 5 th graders) Star Reading and Math Data with Explore Correlation School Improvement Plan Committees 2

3

Creation of an Overall Score 4 ACHIEVEMENT 30% 76.6 (81) GAP 30% 39.8 (41) GROWTH 40% 58.4 (66) OVERALL SCORE 53.8 (63.0) Needs Improvement Not in the top 30% of the state

Needs Improvement (Below 70 th Percentile) Proficient (At or Above 70 th Percentile) Distinguished (Above 90 th Percentile) Progressing meet Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) goal (1.0 gain in Overall Score below Proficient or.5 gain Proficient and above); graduation rate goal (AFGR); and participation rate (95%) High-Progress top 10% of improvement; and meet AMO; graduation rate goal (AFGR); and participation rate (95%) 5 NEW 2013

Priority (No new Priority Schools added in ) Focus Lowest 10% in Overall Gap group or meets third standard deviation model for a single gap group High Performing School Top 90% of schools; and meets AMO, graduation rate goal rate* and participation rate goal Schools of Distinction Top 95% of schools; and meets AMO, graduation rate goal and participation rate goal; and has graduation rate above 60% for 2 years 6

Percentiles for Elementary, Middle and High Overall Score were set and locked in The locked percentile serves as the overall score target for 2013 reporting. 70 th 90 th 95 th Elementary Overall Score Middle Overall Score High School Overall Score * District Overall Score *At high school, the removal of constructed response in EOC testing means new percentiles will need to be calculated. 7

 Add Trend Data for Profiles  Update Graduation Data to show both Cohort and AFGR  Add Trend Data for NAPD Tables  Add Non-Duplicated Gap Group to list of individual group scores  Add Level Based (elementary, middle and high) data for disaggregated pages  Add Norm-Referenced Test (NRT) disaggregated data  Add Advanced Placement data if available  Clarify language and footnotes 8

Tentative Release Date: October 2013 Provided through Open House on KDE website Based on Program Review scores that schools and districts entered in the ASSIST system Scores generated using the Program Review scoring guides/rubrics 9

10 Program Review (PR) Scoring Guide

Program Review Calculations Each of the 3 Program Review areas (Arts & Humanities, Writing, and Practical Living) is comprised of 4 standards (Curriculum/Instruction, Formative/Summative Assessment, Professional Development, and Administrative Support). Step 1: Average the characteristic scores for a score for each standard. Scores range from 0-3 for each standard 0 – No Implementation, 1– Needs Improvement, 2 –Proficient, and 3 Distinguished Step 2: Add the 4 standard scores to get a single number for each Program Review area. Scores range 0-12 for each Program Review area The cut score 8 is Proficient and 10.8 is Distinguished Step 3: Add the three Program Review area scores for a total Program Review score. Scores range between 0-36 Step 4: Divide the total number by 24 (proficient (8) x 3 areas = 24). This number yields the percent of the 23 points earned (number of points possible in Unbridled Learning accountability model for PR when Learners and PR are combined). 11

Program Review AVERAGE CHARACTER- ISTIC SCORES PROGRAM REVIEW TOTAL CATEGORY ARTS & HUMANITIES Curriculum/ Instruction 2 Formative/ Summative Assessment 2 Professional Development 2 Administrative Support 2 ARTS & HUMANITIES TOTAL 4 Needs Improvement PRACTICAL LIVING/CAREER STUDIES Curriculum/Instruction 2.0 Formative/Summative Assessment 2.0 Professional Development 2 Administrative Support 2 PRACTICAL LIVING TOTAL 8 Proficient WRITING Curriculum/Instruction 1.4 Formative/Summative Assessment 1.4 Professional Development 1.8 Administrative Support 1.4 WRITING TOTAL 6 Needs Improvement TOTAL POINTS18 PERCENTAGE OF POINTS (divide by 24)75% ACCOUNTABILITY POINTS (out of 23 points possible)

Accountability Formula for Combining Next Generation Learners and Program Reviews ComponentOverall Weighted Percent Weighted Score Next Gen Learners Overall Score 58.3X77%= Program Reviews100.0X23%=23.0 Combined Overall Score* * Combined Overall Score used to calculate new 70 th and 90 th percentile cut for summer 2014 targets 13

 Senate Bill 1 (2009) required new standards that:  Focus on the “critical knowledge, skills and capacities needed for success in the global economy.”  “Consider international benchmarks” and “consider standards that have been adopted by national content advisory groups and professional education consortia.”  Are aligned across all levels – elementary, middle, high and postsecondary. 14

DevelopAdoptImplementAssess Summer 2011 – Framework released September 2011 – Kentucky accepted as a lead state May 2012 – First public draft January 2013 – Second Public Draft April 2013 – Final release of standards April 2013 – First Review by KBE of 704 KAR 3:303, Kentucky Core Academic Standards. June 2013 – The KBE adopted Kentucky Core Academic Standards for Science September 2013 – Launch Science Networks or School Year – Assess KCAS for Science 15

Kentucky Core Academic Standards Next Generation Social Studies Standards-Timeline Social Studies Standards being created in summer 2013 Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) First Read – October 2013 KBE Second Read – December 2013 Implemented in Use to assess social studies in 2015 or

Star Reading and Math Scores 17

Explore Growth 18

School Improvement Plan 19 Developed through Data Teams process. Vertical SBDM committees Multi-year plan Revised yearly based on data and needs Can be accessed on the SBDM section of our school website

Committees Literacy (1) Numeracy Science and Social Studies PBIS (closed) Practical Living and Career Studies Arts and Humanities 20

Summary Decrease but not noticeable in Achievement and Gap Significant decrease in growth, largest percentage of total score Increase in most Norm Referenced categories Proficient Program Review Good increase in mathematics Even performances in reading STAY THE COURSE Writing in content areas (Do the Dew, SEE-I, LDC) Standards Mastery/Formative Assessment 21