Welcome to the BT Super Conference

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

South Dakota Accountability System – Year 2 School Performance Index Guyla Ness September 10, 2013.
College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) The NEW Report Card in Georgia.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
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
Changes To Florida’s School Grades Calculations Adopted By The State Board Of Education On February 28, 2012 Prepared by Research, Evaluation & Accountability.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
Accountability Update Ty Duncan Coordinator of Accountability and Compliance, ESC
Courtney Mills. ESEA (Formerly AYP)  Federal Accountability  August  0 – 100, A – F  One per school (includes a breakdown by grade band)  Two Components:
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
2014 Accountability System 2014 Accountability System Jana Schreiner Senior Consultant Accountability State Assessment
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
Accountability State and Federal Ratings August 11, 2009 Board Presentation 1.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Kelly Baehren Waller ISD Administrative Workshop July 28, 2015.
2013 Accountability Ratings for NISD September 9, 2013.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-7:00.
TASSP Spring 2014 Tori Mitchell, ESC 17 Specialist Ty Duncan, ESC 17 Coordinator Overview of 2014 Accountability
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
2013 Accountability System Design Assessment & Accountability, Plano ISD.
1 Accountability System Overview of the PROPOSED Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.
ESEA Flexibility: Gap Reduction Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 5 of 8.
What are the STAAR Performance Standards? Copyright 2013 by Region 7 Education Service Center. All rights reserved.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
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
Accountability Scorecards Okemos Board of Education September 2013.
1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.
Kingsville ISD Annual Report Public Hearing.
Accountability Scorecards Top to Bottom Ranking February 2016.
HISD Becoming #GreatAllOver 1 Accountability Rating System Commissioner’s Final Rules 2014.
Accountability and School Grades FY 16 Charter Schools Principal’s Meeting March 17, 2016 Everglades Preparatory Academy.
School Accountability and Grades Division of Teaching and Learning January 20, 2016.
November 2009 Copyright © 2009 Mississippi Department of Education 1 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Research and Statistics Mississippi.
Accountability and School Grades FY 17 Charter Schools Principal’s Meeting August 24, 2016 Pew Center.
2017 Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
February 2012 State Board Ruling: School Grade Calculations
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability Overview Measures and Results
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Accountability Overview 2016
2016 READY ACCOUNTABILITY DISTRICT RESULTS
and Beyond School Grades DRAFT Specifications For Each Component February 2016 Principals Meeting February 2016 Gisela Feild Assessment, Research.
New Accountability System: District and Site Report Cards
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Overview of School Grades and Adequate Yearly Progress,
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
Danvers Public Schools: Our Story
Campus Comparison Groups and Distinction Designations
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
High Stakes Assessments
and Beyond School Grades DRAFT Specifications For Each Component Revised with Principal feedback from Meetings February 2016 Principals Meeting.
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Texas State Accountability
A-F Accountability and Special Education
Irvington Public Schools
Analysis and Reporting, Accountability Services
Starting Community Conversations
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
Every Student Succeeds Act
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
Neptune Township School District ESEA/Title I Presentation
Neptune Township School District ESEA/Title I Presentation
Accountability Presentation
MIMIC ACCOUNTABILITY USING BENCHMARK DATA ! ?.
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
English Learner Accountability Component
CA Dashboard 2018 Overview Presentation to the Governing Board
Presentation transcript:

Welcome to the BT Super Conference October 2, 2017

Objectives Understand the 2017 A-F framework Identify ways to move forward at your site

Essential Questions • What are your successes with AzMERIT? • How are school labels structured for 2017? • What are your successes with AzMERIT? • How will you lead improvements for 2017 -2018?

A-F Accountability

K-8 System Proficiency Growth ELL Acceleration/Readiness Category Component Weight Points/Percent Proficiency ELA, Math, and Science Proficiency (0, .6, 1.0, 1.3) 3 Years of FAY 30% Growth SGP/SGT on ELA, Math 25% SGP 25% SGT 50% ELL ELL Proficiency on AZELLA 5% 10% ELL Growth on AZELLA Acceleration/Readiness *Grades 5, 6, 7, 8 HS EOC combined, *Grade 3 ELA MP, *Chronic Absenteeism *Inclusion of students with high incident and low incident disabilities in general education *Improved growth of subgroups K-8 System We did try disaggregating by grade HS EOC. It didn’t make a large difference in numbers, but that is an option. No cap on growth needed. Cap on proficiency. 45 schools earned greater than 40 points. – 3% None of the models at this time include the Special Education enrolment at 80% of state bonus points. 1248 schools (80%) would earn the points.

High School System Category Component Weight Points/Percent Proficiency ELA, Math, and Science Proficiency (0, .6, 1.0, 1.3) 30% Growth SGP/SGT on ELA, Math 10% SGP 10% SGT 20% ELL ELL Proficiency on AZELLA 5% 10% ELL Growth on AZELLA College and Career Ready Student level scoring On a variety of self reported Data Graduation Rate 4-year 5 Improvement 10% 5-year 4 6-year 2.5 7-year .05 High School System Cap on proficiency. 8 schools – 3%. No cap on growth needed.

A-F Proficiency

G3 ELA + G3 Math + G4 ELA + G4 Math +G5 ELA + G5 Math + G4 Science or What Counts in Proficiency (for schools that tested >= 95% of their FAY students) AzMERIT ELA and Math and MSAA ELA and Math AIMS Science and AIMS A Science G3 ELA + G3 Math + G4 ELA + G4 Math +G5 ELA + G5 Math + G4 Science or G6 ELA + G6 Math + G7 ELA + G7 Math +G8 ELA + G8 Math + G8 Science + EOC or G9 ELA EOC + G9 Algebra EOC + G10 ELA EOC + G Geometry EOC +G11 ELA EOC + Algebra ll EOC + Biology AIMS

3 Years Full Academic Year (FAY) Proficiency K-8 Only Of the available 30% 15 % for 3 years 10 % for 2 years 5 % for 1 year Or all one year FAY. The one that is better.

How Many Points? 0 credit for minimally proficient (MP) 0.6 for partially proficient (PP) 1.0 for proficient (P) 1.3 for highly proficient (HP)

(PP X 0.6 + P X 1.0 + HP X 1.3) X 0.30 = Elementary School points

Where We Lose Points Elementary School

A-F Growth SGP

Two Parts of Growth (No ELL) K-8 High School

SGP is a measure of how much a student improves his or her state test performance from one year to the next compared to students across the state with a similar score history.

SGP Growth Student Growth Percentage Prior Year HP 0.50 1.00 Prior Year P 0.70 1.20 Prior Year PP 0.90 1.80 Prior Year MP 1.0 2.0   0-33 34-66 67-99 Current Year Low Growth Current Year Average Growth Current Year High Growth

SGP ELA Growth Student Growth Percentage Prior Year HP 4 X 0 6 X 0.50 6 X 1.00 Prior Year P 9 X 0 15 X 0.70 22 X 1.20 Prior Year PP 3 X 0 5 X 0.90 12 X 1.80 Prior Year MP 6 X 1.0 9 X 2.0   0-33 34-66 67-99 Current Year Low Growth Current Year Average Growth Current Year High Growth

Minimally Proficient Students 2.00 No Points 1.00 Points

Partially Proficient Students 1.80 No Points 0.90 Points

Proficient Students 1.70 No Points 0.70 Points

Highly Proficient Students 1.00 No Points 0.50 Points

A-F Growth SGT

SGT Growth 0.50 1.00 0.70 1.20 0.90 1.80 1.0 2.0 Prior Year HP Student Growth to Target Prior Year HP 0.50 1.00 Prior Year P 0.70 1.20 Prior Year PP 0.90 1.80 Prior Year MP 1.0 2.0   <10 percentile points of target + /-10 percentile points of target >10 percentile points of target Current Year Below Target Current Year at or Near Target Current Year Above Target

Pink Post-It Notes - Minimally Proficient Yellow Post-It Notes - Partially Proficient Orange Post-It Notes - Proficient Purple Post-It Notes - Highly Proficient Cut scores on board & AZMerit scale score on post-it

A-F ELL

ELL Proficiency and Growth (5% each part - if n count is greater than or equal to 20 FAY ELL students) Proficiency on AZELLA Based on school’s percentage of students proficient compared to the state’s average ELL proficiency 0-5 points awarded Based on Standard Deviation

State Average

State Average 5 Points

State Average 3 Points

State Average 2 Points

State Average 1 Point

A-F Acceleration CCRI

Points Per Indicator

Subgroup Improvement (Up to 6 points; each subgroup is worth 2 points) The following subgroups are evaluated by test subject (ELA, Math): White Hispanic Indian Asian African American Pacific Islander Two or More Races English Learner Special Education Economically Disadvantaged

A-F High School Graduation Rate

Graduation Rate -- 2 Parts The graduation rate indicator is worth 20% of a 9-12 school’s letter grade. Schools must have a minimum of 20 students in the 4-year cohort to be eligible for points. Graduation rate points include two measures each worth10%: a 4-, 5-, 6-, and 7-year calculation and an improvement calculation

4-, 5-, 6-, and 7-year Rate Points= ((Cohort 2016 4-year graduation rate x .05) + (Cohort 2015 5-year graduation rate x .04) + (Cohort 2014 6-year graduation rate x .025)+ (Cohort 2013 7-year graduation rate x.005))

Improvement Calculation A school’s current year 4-year graduation rate is greater than or equal to 90%= 10 points The difference between a school’s current year 4-year graduation rate and prior year 4-year graduation rate is greater than 2 points = 10 points The difference between a school’s current year 4-year graduation rate and prior year 4-year graduation rate is greater than or equal to -2 points and less than or equal to 2 points = 5 points The difference between a school’s current year 4-year graduation rate and prior year 4-year graduation rate is less than -2 points = 0 points

A-F Bonus Points

Bonus Points K-12 Schools with greater than or equal to 80% of the current year state average of FAY students enrolled in special education will earn 2 bonus points.

Cut Scores

Closure From today’s discussion of the newly adopted A – F Accountability framework, what is one question you have for moving forward? Be prepared to share.