1 AZ Learns Legacy Profiles vs. A-F Profiles Assessment-Dr. Heather Cruz.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NYC Teacher Data Initiative: An introduction for Teachers ESO Focus on Professional Development December 2008.
Advertisements

Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance.
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING.
Central High School Mission Statement Preparing every student for success in college, career and life.
High School School Performance Framework (SPF)
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK (SPF) Clark County School District.
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
North Santiam School District State Report Cards
Rules and Legislation Regarding A-F Report Cards June 2013 Jennifer Stegman, Program Manager CTB.
Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
Simpson County Schools Accountability Results, Fall of 2013 Franklin-Simpson High School 97 th Percentile* DISTINGUISHED *percentile rank based on 2012.
REVIEW OF 2014 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACHIEVEMENT DATA, GOAL SETTING, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 2014/2015 SAUGUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION.
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.
Index Accountability 2014 Created by Accountability and Compliance staff of Region 17 Education Service Center.
AZ Learns and A-F Letter Grades Arizona Department of Education Presentation to the NCAASE Committee ASU Washington Center, Washington D.C. March 7, 2012.
Gilbert Public Schools District Report Card 2012/2013 Presented by Brandie Harris and Barb VeNard.
Arizona LEARNS: Overview of the Achievement Profiles.
Two Accountability Systems This Year NCLB AZ Learns Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Yes / No Excelling, Highly- Performing, Performing, Underperforming.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
Sunnyside Unified School District Federal and State Accountability Results.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-7:00.
Timmerman Public Hearing February 4, :00-4:00.
School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
What are the STAAR Performance Standards? Copyright 2013 by Region 7 Education Service Center. All rights reserved.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
2014 A - F Letter Grades - AIMS The State of Arizona utilizes AIMS to measure student growth. In measuring student growth, the State of Arizona then identifies.
By Brian Patrick Federal Programs Director Whiteriver Unified School District #20 WHITERIVER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 I.ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW.
Annual Measurable Objectives (trajectory targets).
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
Iowa School Report Card (Attendance Center Rankings) December 3, 2015.
Accountability SY Divisions of Assessment, Accountability and School Improvement.
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.
Teacher SLTs General Format for Teacher SLTs with a District-wide Common Assessment The percent of students scoring proficient 1 in my 8 th.
Charles R. Drew Academy Aldine Independent School District 1910 W. Little York Rd. Houston, Texas “Academic Achievement and Growth, End of Story”
PED School Grade Reports (with thanks to Valley High School) ACE August 3, 2012 Dr. Russ Romans District Accountability Manager.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
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.
AZLEARNS Evaluations AZ LEARNS Evaluations.
Department of Accountability: “Anyone can measure the rain; we build arks.” Assessment Update: Preliminary Results Department of Accountability.
Measuring Turnaround Success October 29 th, 2015 Jeanette P. Cornier, Ph.D.
Arizona LEARNS: Overview of the Achievement Profiles.
June 5, 2014 Accountability Update. Accountability Updates 110% for At-Risk, Criterion #4 Accountability Manual Updates.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
Academic Year – Dawson Springs Independent.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Assessment & Accountability Session 3: Content and School Scores.
CINS Data Presentation
STRATEGIC OPERATING GOALS
Teacher SLTs
PBMA 2016 Learning Gains.
Two Accountability Systems This Year
ACE August 3, 2012 Dr. Russ Romans District Accountability Manager
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
Danvers Public Schools: Our Story
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
FUSD AIMS/SAT10 Results Spring 2012.
Teacher SLTs
NANTUCKET PUBLIC SCHOOLS
An Overview of the Achievement Profile Data
Dixon Elementary # Dixonscholars
Teacher SLTs
Impact of EL Students and TELPAS Performance on State Accountability
Presentation transcript:

1 AZ Learns Legacy Profiles vs. A-F Profiles Assessment-Dr. Heather Cruz

2 Presentation Coverage A-F Model Legacy Model Comparing the two Models PreliminaryPublic Release A-F AZLearnsAugust 1Expected in October 2011 Legacy AZLearnsSeptember 7Expected in October 2011

3

4 Composite Score aka Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) CategoryElementary Schools High Schools and District Notes Percent Passing AIMS All scores for all subjects will be used to calculate this score (Writing will be excluded in 2011). Only Full Academic Year students are used in this calculation. Bonus - Made ELL Target 0 or 3 An entity will receive 0 or 3. Bonus - Made Graduation Rate Target 0 or 3 An entity will receive 0 or 3. Bonus - Made Dropout Rate Target 0 or 3 An entity will receive 0 or 3. Total If a school or district were to exceed 100, it would use just 100 points

5 Growth Score Longitudinal Regression Analysis Maximum of four years of data 10 th Grade (9 th GRADE NCE SAT 10, 8 th, 7 th and 6 th Percentile Rank for AIMS) 5 th Grade (4 th, 3 rd Percentile Rank for AIMS and 2 nd GRADE NCE SAT 10) Student will be included as long as they have a previous year score **Only Full Academic Year students are used in this calculation CategoryPoints A. Median growth percentile of all students0 to 100 B. Median Growth percentile of bottom 25%0 to 100 Average of A and B0 to 100

6 A-F AZLearns Total Calculations Composite Score Growth Score

7 AZLearns Legacy Profiles Category Elementary Percents High School Percents Notes Status/Growth Points67%85% Percent Passing/Improvement in Percent Passing (Read/Writ/Math) Who’s Out: Non-FAY students, ELLS <4 Years in program MAP30%0% Individual Student Growth (Read/Math) - Grades 4-8 Who’s In: All students in grades 4-8 with a score from the previous year ELL3%5% ELL Reclassification Rate for Fiscal Year 2010 n: All students in program for 150 calendar days Out: All students who leave program for special reason (parent withdrawal, SPED) Graduation Dropout Rates0%0%10% Grad/Dropout Rates 5 Year cohort Graduation Rate Total100% Z-score Percent Exceeding on AIMS (Read/Writing/Math )

8 Looking at the Difference AZ Learns A-F AZ Learns Legacy

9 Comparing 9 AZ Learns Legacy Additional 3-9 Points AZ Learns A-F ELL 3% How do these two sections compare to one another A-F will have ELL, Graduation and Dropout rates as 3-9 points in addition to the 100 to account for half of AZ Learns Legacy for Elementary has 3% of the overall score. Legacy for high schools has 15% allotted for ELL, Dropout and Graduation rates.

10 Comparing AZ Learns A-F AZ Learns Legacy How do these two sections compare to one another MAP in the two Profiles ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. MAP in A-F is the “Composite” score. Whereas, the MAP in the AZLearns Legacy is their individual growth components. The Legacy model uses a value added model that uses just two scores ( current years score and previous years score). The A-F model is a longitudinal regression analysis based on 1 year of data.