Every Student Matters Understanding the Indexes, the Tests, and Targeted Goal for STAAR 2016.

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

Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
1 Accountability System Overview of the Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.
Accountability preview Major Mindshift Out with the Old – In with the New TEPSA - May 2013 (Part 2) Ervin Knezek John Fessenden
Accountability Updates Testing & Evaluation Department May 21, 2014 Mission High School MISSION CISD DEIC MEETING.
Review of Performance Index Framework and Accountability Ratings RICHARDSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT To serve and prepare all students for their global.
January 22, /25/ STAAR: A New Assessment Model STAAR is a clearly articulated assessment program. Assessments are vertically aligned within.
State Accountability Overview 2014 Strozeski – best guess.
Action Items For Accountability 2015 URGENT and INTENSE.
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance.
Accountability Update Ty Duncan Coordinator of Accountability and Compliance, ESC
Burton Secondary EOC/STAAR Data INDEX 1 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT STARR SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE All Students=3-8 grades spring administration.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
Kim Gilson Senior Consultant Data and Accountability Region 10 ESC
2014 Accountability System 2014 Accountability System Jana Schreiner Senior Consultant Accountability State Assessment
STAAR State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness 3 rd Grade Parent Information Night.
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.
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
Index Accountability 2014 Created by Accountability and Compliance staff of Region 17 Education Service Center.
February GRADES Reading: Grades 3 – 8 Math: Grades 3 – 8 Writing: Grades 4 & 7 Science: Grades 5 & 8 Social Studies: Grade 8 2 HIGH SCHOOL.
Diverse Populations in Small Rural Schools Presented by: Amy Trujillo-Conway Amy Trujillo-Conway Madalena Barboa-Archuleta.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Instructional Leaders Advisory Tuesday, April 8, 2014 Region 4 ESC Accountability Update Richard Blair Sr. Education Specialist Federal/State Accountability.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-7:00.
Lansing Central School District District Assessment Results Presentation January 24, 2011 Dr. Stephen L. Grimm, Superintendent District Leadership Team.
TASSP Spring 2014 Tori Mitchell, ESC 17 Specialist Ty Duncan, ESC 17 Coordinator Overview of 2014 Accountability
1. 1. All students read “on level” by end of 3 rd grade 2. 85% or more of all students will score at or above proficient in Spring % or more.
2013 Accountability System Design Assessment & Accountability, Plano ISD.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
Timmerman Public Hearing February 4, :00-4:00.
1 Accountability System Overview of the PROPOSED Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.
Accountability: Current Issues Friday, April Region 4 ESC Accountability Update Richard Blair Sr. Education Specialist Federal/State Accountability.
HISD Becoming #GreatAllOver 1 Accountability Rating System Commissioner’s Final Rules 2014.
What are the STAAR Performance Standards? Copyright 2013 by Region 7 Education Service Center. All rights reserved.
Accountability to Responsibility in a STAAR World! Shauna Lane, ESC Specialist Ty Duncan, ESC 17 Coordinator
OLMOS ELEMENTARY. WHOOOO WE ARE SCHOOL FACTS: ENROLLMENT: 657 RATING: IMPROVEMENT REQUIRED GRADES: PK-5 SPECIAL PROGRAMS: PK, BILINGUAL/DUAL, ALE CAMPUS.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-4:00.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
LOMA PARK ACCOUNTABILITY PARENT PRESENTATION September 24, 2015.
Lansing Central School District District Assessment Results Presentation May 14, 2012 Dr. Stephen L. Grimm, Superintendent District Leadership Team 1.
James A. Farley School Report Card Presentation May 19, 2008 High Achieving School.
Northwest ISD Target Improvement Plan Seven Hills Elementary
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.
Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR) Lockhart Independent School District December
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
Charles R. Drew Academy Aldine Independent School District 1910 W. Little York Rd. Houston, Texas “Academic Achievement and Growth, End of Story”
March 2013 Presenter: Nancy Webster Director of Instructional Measurement and Accountability.
Student Data Review Title VII Indian Education Parent Meeting March 4, 2013.
Accountability 2013 Interpreting Your 2013 Accountability Report It’s Like Learning To Read All Over Again Ervin Knezek John Fessenden.
Kingsville ISD Annual Report Public Hearing.
HISD Becoming #GreatAllOver 1 Accountability Rating System Commissioner’s Final Rules 2014.
FES State of the Schools. Reading – 85% of FES students will meet or exceed state standards on the MCA-II in reading. We will improve scores on DIBELS.
Improvement 101 – Back to the Basics
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Data Review and Discussion David Holland
2016 READY ACCOUNTABILITY DISTRICT RESULTS
System for Effectiveness and Achievement in Learning
2017 Beginning of Year DATA REFLECTION
Texas Academic Performance Report TAPR)
Accountability Update
STAAR State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness
Student Success Initiative 2013
Texas State Accountability
Annual Report Public Hearing
A-F Accountability and Special Education
State and Federal Accountability Overview
2014 State Accountability Ratings
MIMIC ACCOUNTABILITY USING BENCHMARK DATA ! ?.
Presentation transcript:

Every Student Matters Understanding the Indexes, the Tests, and Targeted Goal for STAAR 2016

What score do the students need to Pass? Passing is Not Enough

Indexes – 4 Target Scores Needed to Earn Rating  Index 1: Student Achievement  Target Score: 60  Index 2: Student Progress  Target Score: 28  5 th Percentile  Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps  Target Score: 27  5 th Percentile  Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness  Target Score: 13

What score do the students need to Pass?  Every test has 3 different passing standards!  Low  Medium  High  All 3 passing standards are different for every test!  Roughly 50%  Roughly 70%  Roughly 80%  AND Final Passing Standards are determined AFTER the students take the tests

The Passing Levels of Each Index Index 1 Lowest Passing Level Index 4 Middle Passing Level Index 3 Highest Passing Level Index 2 measures GROWTH. It is how you pass between each Index.

The Indexes as Medals  1 st Place = Index 3: Level III Advanced  2 nd Place = Index 4: 2 Tests at Level II Final  3 rd Place = Index 1: 2016 Progression Standard  Most Improved Player = Index 2: Grow by 3 questions over last year’s test!

LOW = Index 1: 2016 Progression Standard  60% of ALL students have to pass at these passing rates  There are no other factors GradeMathReadingWritingScienceSocial Studies Algebra I 637%58%XXXX 741%56%57%XXX 846%58%X59%54%41%

MEDIUM = Index 4: Level II - Final  13% of ALL students have to pass 2 or more tests at these passing rates  6 th grade 2 out of 2  7 th grade 2 out of 3  8 th grade 2 out of 4  AND 13% of EACH ETHNICITY have to pass 2 or more tests GradeMathReadingWritingScienceSocial Studies Algebra I 660%77%XXXX 761%76%69%XXX 864%77%X76%73%63%

HIGH = Index 3: Level III – Advanced  Calculation:  % passing at the lowest  + % passing at the highest  ≥ 54 % of Economically Disadvantaged (ALL) & African American  Now take 54%/2 levels = 27 Target score  Note: Subjects with 1 Grade Level are weighted at 3 times as Subjects with 3 Grade Levels, meaning Science, Social Studies, & Writing counts 3 times as much as Math and Reading GradeMathReadingWritingScienceSocial Studies Algebra I 681%88%XXXX 780%86%83%XXX 886%87%X 83%78%

GROWTH = Index 2: Met or Exceeded?  Only measures growth for MATH and READING  Calculation:  % Met  + % Exceeded  ≥ 56 % of ALL students, Ethnicity, Special Education, and Limited English Speakers  Now take 56%/2 levels = 28 Target score  WRITING was recently taken out of calculations for this year

GROWTH = Index 2 - Levels for STAAR Progress Measure 1. Met Progress  A student has maintained their score 2. Exceeded Progress  A student has grown significantly 3. Did not meet progress  Did not get a Met or Exceeded  Score in the Chance Range  Any scores less than 25%  Just guessing and getting correct

GROWTH: Index 2 – STAAR Progress Measured as Numbers  These are rough calculations. Every test has a different set of numbers.  Chance Range  Raw = 1 to 13 questions  Percent = score is less than 25%  Met  Raw = Grow by 3 questions  Percent = Add 6-10% percentage points  Exceeded  Raw = Grow by 10 questions  Percent = Add 16-20% percentage points

Indexes

What Distribution of Numbers Hit the Target Scores? The Perfect Scores

Indian Spring Middle School: Campus Distribution  560 Students  Ethnicity  365 Hispanic  160 African American  45 Special Education  170 Limited English Proficient

LOW = Index 1: Student Achievement

MEDIUM = Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness

HIGH= Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps

GROWTH = Index 2: Student Achievement Note: This would be weighted if Writing were included, but it is not, so the distribution is equal

Scenarios With and Without Interventions

Without Interventions: Taking Raw 2015 Scores and Applying Current Standards

Student InterventionsTeacher Interventions  Balancing Classes  Push-in Tutoring  Pull-out Tutoring  After-School Tutoring  Zero Hour Enrichment  Special Education Inclusion Teachers  TEKS aligned Field Trips  Block Schedule for Reading classes  iPad Integration  After School Enrichment  Service Learning Projects for 6th Graders  Students review their own data & set learning goals  Focus Instruction for non-English speaking students  Weekly Data Analysis Meetings  Weekly Instructional Leadership Meetings  Which lead to Instructional Adjustments  Embedded Professional Development  Co-teaching with a Specialist  Coaching from the Specialist  Learning Walks  Summer Professional Development

With Interventions – 2 Months from Testing: Using most current data compiled from District Based Assessments, Checkpoints, Mock STAAR Data

STAAR 2016 Targeted Goals for Indian Spring Middle School: From analyzing the growth of current data

Apply Interventions More Time and Continued Interventions

Questions?