1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
August 8, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon Housson, Director Overview of.
Advertisements

School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance.
PSP Summer Institute| July 29 – August 2, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
State Accountability Overview 1 Performance Index Framework: For 2013 and beyond, an accountability framework of four Performance Indexes includes a broad.
Assessment Review and Design for Student Learning Outcomes.
2014 SOAR Update AAEA Fall Conference presented by Ivy Pfeffer, Assistant Commissioner Arkansas Department of Education October 29, 2014.
School Performance Measure Calculations SY Office of Achievement and Accountability.
Understanding the Pennsylvania School Performance Profile Introduction.
The Case of the Mysterious, Moving Calculations … Counting High School Graduates and Dropouts Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
PA School Performance Profile January 13, 2013 Superintendent Advisory Council 1.
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE RANKING IS CALCULATED Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY OVERVIEW Back To School| August 19-22, 2013 Dean Munn Education Specialist Region 15 ESC.
Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
Essential Skills Transition Planning Derek Brown Manager, Assessment of Essential Skills Oregon Department of Education.
Commissioner’s Performance-Based Accountability Task Force: A Proposal for a Multi-level System Deb Wiswell & Scott Marion January 29, 2010.
School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
We are a Title I school What does this mean?. We are Title I because… Our school has a high number of students who are eligible for Free and Reduced Price.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
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.
How do Your State’s Policies Hold up? Evaluating State Policies for Alternative Accountability and Student (re)Engagement 1.
BROMWELL COMMUNITY MEETING November 17, SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK (SPF)
Maximizing RANDA Reports for Directors and Principals Erin Brophy-Lindo Educator Effectiveness Director HR 2015.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Academic Year – Dawson Springs Independent.
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated Professional Practices, Measures of Student Learning/ Outcomes- Calculating Scores & Translating SLOs/SOOs.
July 11, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Michael Murphy State and Federal Accountability.
Legislative Requirement 2013
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Welcome to the NMTEACH Summative Report Webinar 2015
Accountability Overview Measures and Results
Driving Through the California Dashboard
School Performance Measure Calculations SY
THE SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOOR (SPF) COST CALCULATOR
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
BCPS One LMS: Setting up the Grade Book
Overview This presentation provides information on how districts compile evaluation ratings for principals, assistant principals (APs), and vice principals.
Accountability for Alternative Schools: Michigan Overview
2016 Accountability Reporting
Accountability Update
Implementing the Specialized Service Professional State Model Evaluation System for Measures of Student Outcomes.
School & District Performance Frameworks
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
Cohort Graduation Rate
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
School Performance Measure Calculations SY
State Accountability Results September 18, 2018
Using Local Flexibility in School Accreditation and SB-163 Updates
Birmingham City Schools Report Card Indicators
State and Federal Accountability Overview
Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) Webinar
Starting Community Conversations
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
Driving Through the California Dashboard
Cohort Graduation Rate
Understanding Your School and District Performance Frameworks
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
Impact of EL Students and TELPAS Performance on State Accountability
Kansas Leads the World in the Success of Each Student.
Spring 2019 MCAS Grade 10 Annotated Parent/Guardian Reports
Presentation transcript:

1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT This is the official plan type the state assigned to the AEC based on the state required and optional data. School of reference Data set combines EMH levels due to N size weighting for ACH and GRO indicators. 1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT Total points earned and total points eligible on the AEC School Performance Framework. If the AEC is on the Accountability Clock, a notice of the year will be printed here. This bar chart displays the percentage of points earned overall. The associated scoring rubric for the overall plan type is below. Four performance indicators to which the AEC are held accountable, along with points earned, points eligible, percent of points earned, and ratings. Description of weighting structures by indicators is here. N weighting was first implemented on the 2016 AEC SPFs.

1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT NOTE: State-required Achievement measures include relevant alternate assessment results. Required state measures will always be displayed, even if the school does not have the N size to be eligible for them. The count column represents the number of students for which the school is accountable (the measure’s denominator). 1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT Total performance on the Academic Achievement indicator, including points earned, points eligible, and rating, is displayed in this row. This indicator uses N size weighting. Optional measures will only be displayed if they are submitted through the Actual Measures and Data Pipeline Collection and approved for accountability use by CDE. Each results table is followed by a metric description table, and then by a norm/cut points table. Together, these two supplemental tables represent a scoring and interpretation guide for each indicator. To ensure adequate N size, all state reported data in this indicator is aggregated across multiple years of data.

1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT State Calculated Growth is a measure specific to the AEC SPF introduced on the 2018 AEC SPF. This measure takes the Median Growth Percentile for a given content area across all grades and all tests (CMAS, CO PSAT, SAT) for the AEC for the last three years across all available data. To read more about this change, read this fact sheet. 1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT Total performance on the Academic Growth indicator, including points earned, points eligible, and rating, is displayed in this row. This indicator uses N size weighting. Each results table is followed by a metric description table, and then by a norm/cut points table. Together, these two supplemental tables represent a scoring and interpretation guide for each indicator.

1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT Total performance on the Student Engagement indicator, including points earned, points eligible, and rating, is displayed in this row. This indicator apportions equal weight to each measure. Student Re- engagement Each results table is followed by a metric description table, and then by a norm/cut points table. Together, these two supplemental tables represent a scoring and interpretation guide for each indicator. Student Re-engagement Rate Student Re-engagement Rate

1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT Completion rate includes high school graduates and any other student who completed high school through any additional pathway (ex: GED). Completion rate is the default state required measure for AECs, but AECs can request graduation rates as an optional measure. NOTE: CO SAT results include relevant alternate assessment results. 1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT Total performance on the Student Engagement indicator, including points earned, points eligible, and rating, is displayed in this row. This indicator apportions equal weight to each measure. Starting with the 2018 AEC SPF, changes were made to the best of determination calculation for completion and graduation rate. To determine the best of cohort, the most recent three years of each cohort (4, 5, 6, and 7 year) data is first aggregated, and then compared. To read more about this change, refer to this fact sheet. Each results table is followed by a metric description table, and then by a norm/cut points table. Together, these two supplemental tables represent a scoring and interpretation guide for each indicator. To ensure adequate N size, all state reported data in this indicator is aggregated across multiple years of data. Questions? Please direct questions about the AEC SPF calculations to B Sanders, AEC and Accountability Senior Consultant: Sanders_b@cde.state.co.us