+ Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 1 Hal Sanderson, Ph.D. Research and Assessment August 21, 2013 2013.

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

College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) The NEW Report Card in Georgia.
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
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.
Accountability preview Major Mindshift Out with the Old – In with the New TEPSA - May 2013 (Part 2) Ervin Knezek John Fessenden
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
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
1 Utah Performance Assessment System for Students U-PASS Accountability Plan Judy W. Park Assessment & Accountability Director Utah State Office of Education.
N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND Testing Requirements of NCLB test annually in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 test at least once in reading and mathematics.
Overview of the Idaho Five Star Rating System Dr. TJ Bliss Director of Assessment and Accountability
2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
1 School Grades & AMO Overview Paul Houchens Director Student Assessment & Research.
ESEA ACCOUNTABILITY JAMESVILLE-DEWITT
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.
TASSP Spring 2014 Tori Mitchell, ESC 17 Specialist Ty Duncan, ESC 17 Coordinator Overview of 2014 Accountability
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12 July 2012 PRESENTATION as of 7/9/12.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
End of Course Assessments School Year English Language Arts, Math, Biology, and Government.
1 School Grades Paul Houchens Director Student Assessment & Research.
School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
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.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
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.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
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.
Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.
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.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability System What to Expect for the First Release of Data.
C R E S S T / CU University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Gallatin County High School Accountability & Assessment Data.
Assessment & Accountability Session 3: Content and School Scores.
February 2012 State Board Ruling: School Grade Calculations
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
2016 READY ACCOUNTABILITY DISTRICT RESULTS
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
New Statewide Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
ESSA Update “Graduation Rate & Career and College Readiness”
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
A-F Accountability and Special Education
2009 California Standards Test (CST) Results
Starting Community Conversations
Madison Elementary / Middle School and the New Accountability System
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Presentation transcript:

+ Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 1 Hal Sanderson, Ph.D. Research and Assessment August 21,

+ UCAS performance data is embargoed. September 3 rd is the public release. 2

+ Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) Incorporates both student achievement and growth toward improvement in a composite score for each school (range 0 to 600). This is largely based on the Core CRTs. UCAS provides summary data for the entire school, as well as disaggregated results by ethnicity, and for economically disadvantaged, English language learners, and students with disabilities. UCAS achievement and growth results are for students who are in school for a full academic year (160 days in membership). 3

+ Key Features of UCAS Each school can earn up to 300 points in Achievement and 300 points in Growth. Achievement (Percent of students proficient on CRTs in Math, Language Arts, Science and DWA). This is similar to previous accountability reports. Growth (Year-to-year scale score gain compared to like scoring “academic” peers across the state). This is a very different approach to calculating growth/progress. Subgroup(s). Identifies below proficient students as a single subgroup. Defined as all students who scored below proficiency (level 1 or 2) on the previous year’s CRT 4

+ Key Features of UCAS continued Participation. A school must meet the 95% participation rate for the whole school and non- proficient subgroup of 40 students or more in each content area High School (Graduation Rate = College Readiness) AMO Information for schools is reported. 5

+ ELEMENTARY/MIDDLE SCHOOL UCAS REPORT 6 Total Points School Info. Achievemen t Points Growth Points Report Info

+ HIGH SCHOOL UCAS REPORT 7 Total Points School Info. Achievement Points Growth Points Report Info Grad Rate Points

+ Comparison to AYP/U-PASS Achievement UCASAYPU-PASS Achievement For Students who are Full Academic Year (160 days) Percent of Students Proficient CRTs Included: Language Arts Yes MathematicsYes ScienceYesNoYes DWAYesNoYes Participation (n => 40) Yes 8 Achievement – is calculated by dividing the number of students scoring proficient or above (Levels 3 and 4) in each content area using the CRT/DWA/UAA tests by the number of students who were enrolled at the same school for the full academic year and took each test.

+ Comparison to AYP/U-PASS Growth UCASAYPU-PASS Growth/Progres s For Students who are Full Academic Year (160 days) CRT scale score gain compared to like scoring peers Safe Harbor (gain in percent of student proficient) Progress Score (gain in U-PASS proficiency) The Growth or Progress Question? Student: How does my scale score gain compare to students who had my same prior year(s) score? What is my percentile rank? School: Is a greater percent of students proficient than the previous year? Student: Has my proficiency level increased from the prior year (e.g., Level 1b to Level 2b)? 9 UCAS Student Growth Percentile (SGP) – For students taking the CRTs, growth is determined by comparing the performance of a student with all other students in the state with the same past performance (1-3 years of CRT scores). Next, determine how performance in the current year compares with that of the student’s peer group to produce a growth percentile. Range from 0 to 100.

UCAS Assessments 10 CRT LANGUAGE ARTS – Elementary Grades 3 – 6; Secondary Grades CRT MATH - Elementary Grades 3 – 6; Math 7 CRT, Math 8 CRT, Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2 CRT SCIENCE – Elementary Grades 4 – 6; Secondary 7 th Integrated Science, 8 th Integrated Science, Earth Systems Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics Direct Writing Assessment – Grades 5 and 8

+ Point Structure for Elementary and Middle Schools Overall School 600 Total Points Growth 300 total points All Students 200 total points Below Proficient Students 100 total points Achievement 300 total points Percent at or above proficient 300 points 11 Schools without a 12 th grade includes students in grades 3-8

Overall School 600 total points Growth 300 total points All students 200 total points Below Proficient Students 100 total points Achievement 300 total points Percent at or above proficient 150 total points Readiness Graduation rate 150 Total points Point Structure for High Schools Schools with a 12 th grade includes students in grades

+ Subgroups 13 Identifies below proficient students as a single subgroup Below Proficient Subgroup = All students who scored below proficiency (level 1 or 2) on the previous year’s CRT Below Proficient Subgroup is determined independently for each content area (ELA, Math, Science) Ensures all students who are below standard, regardless of group, are the focus for improvement Below proficient subgroup is double weighted in the growth calculation to increase focus on those most at risk Complete disaggregated data for all 10 subgroups will be included in UCAS report including gap analysis

+ Participation Requirement 14 A school must meet the 95% participation rate for the whole school and non-proficient subgroups of 40 students or more in each content area Participation is calculated for the whole school and the non-proficient subgroup Schools not meeting the participation requirement will receive a UCAS total score of 0

+ Sample Elementary Achievement Calculation 15 Note: Schools without DWA, content areas are weighted equally (1/3 each) SubjectPercent Proficient Points Possible (Weighted) Achievement Points Earned ELA80%x % of 300 =69 Math70%x % of 300 =60 Science60%x % of 300 =51 DWA80%x % of 300 =34 Total300=214

+ High Schools College & Career Readiness College and Career Readiness accounts for 150 of the 300 points for high schools in the achievement component. The readiness component is the federal graduation rate calculation as approved by USED. All graduation reporting includes this rate. For purposes of calculating UCAS, the graduation rate is calculated by multiplying the graduation rate by 150 (e.g..70 x 150 = 105). 16

+ Sample High School Achievement Calculation 17 Subject Percent Proficient Points Possible Achievemen t Points Earned ELA80%x50 33% of 150 =40 Math70%x50 33% of 150 =35 Science60%x50 33% of 150 =30 Readiness/ Grad Rate (4 year federal) 80%x % of 150 =120 Total300=225

+ Additional Details Student Growth Percentile 18 SGP

Student Growth Percentile Student growth is determined by comparing the performance of a student with all other students in the state with the same past scale score performance (1-3 years of CRTs). How does your gain compare to that of your like scoring peers? What is my percentile rank based on gain? The Student Growth Percentile is also known as the “Colorado Growth Model”. It is used for accountability in the following states: Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia, New York, Hawaii, Idaho, Georgia, Wyoming and Utah. 19

+ Normative 20 How does it work? Think of a group of students, where each student has two test scores – one for 2009 and one for We could show the distribution of these scores at the same time as pictured.

+ Normative 21 We could ‘slice’ through the picture to show the 2010 distribution for just one 2009 score. This is called a conditional distribution. The red shaded curve shows the conditional distribution in 2010 for all students who scored 166 in 2009.

+ Normative 22 Assume we are interested in just one score, 170, in We could ask, what percentage of students who scored 166 in 2009 scored at or below a 170 in 2010? In this case, that turns out to be 75%. In other words, a score of 170 is at the 75 th percentile. SGP = 75

Why use SGP? Determines growth based on multiple years of data for each student Honors variable amounts of growth (including small changes) Does not replicate proficiency Recognizes growth for students who are achieving at low and high rates Growth percentiles are calculated for every student, but can be aggregated to the classroom, subgroup, school, district, and state 23

+ Additional Details Calculating Growth 24

New UCAS Growth Calculation More finite point calculation vs. old table (2012) below. 25 ALL STUDENT Growth TABLE Median Growth Score Points Median Growth Score Points 70 or higher or Lower50 Median SGP Achieved All Students (Maximum 200 points) and above200 OLD Growth TABLE

New UCAS Below Proficient Student Growth Calculation More finite point calculation vs. old table (2012) below. 26 BELOW PROFICIENT STUDENT Growth TABLE Median SGP Achieved Below Proficient Students (Maximum 100 points) and above 100 OLD Growth TABLE Median Growth Score Points Median Growth Score Points 70 or higher or Lower25

MGPPoints ELAAll Students Group56150 Below Proficient Group3550 MathAll Students Group45100 Below Proficient Group5575 ScienceAll Students Group50150 Below Proficient Group4050 Group ELA Points Math Points Science Points Point Total (mean) All Students Below Proficient Students Growth Calculation Example calculation Total Growth Points School Total Growth Points = 191 ( 27 )

+ NEW Calculations Annual Measureable Objectives 28

Annual Measureable Objectives Federal Requirement to establish and report AMOs Utah’s Minimum Compliance Plan AMOs are not used in any UCAS calculation AMO trajectory will reduce in half the percent of non- proficient over six years AMOs will be established separately for each subgroup at each school UCAS reporting will list the AMO and performance of each school subgroup AMO reporting page will be a drill down page in the UCAS report AMOs will be used in identifying and exiting Focus schools 29

+ Establishing AMOs AMOs will be based on the percent of students achieving proficiency on the state’s Criterion- Referenced Tests (CRTs) separately in English language arts and mathematics. ELA: CRT results in grades 3-8 and 10 are used to determine the percent of students proficient Mathematics: results are based on CRTs in grades 3-6 and in the course appropriate CRT thereafter which includes math 7, algebra, or geometry for grades 7 and 8. High schools will be determined by calculating the percent of 10 th grade students who scored proficient on the Algebra I CRT in 10 th grade year or a prior year Results from the Utah Alternative Assessment (UAA) are included for students with significant cognitive disabilities approved to participate in this assessment 30

+ AMO Sample Calculation for a School Subgroup with ELA Proficient = 82% 100% – 82% = 18% ½ of 18 is 9 9 / 6 years = 1.5 per year Year one = 83.5 Year two = 85.0 Year three = 86.5 Year four = 88.0 Year five = 89.5 Year six = 91.0 (half way to 100 percent) 31 AMO Sample Calculation

+ Sample AMO Trajectories for a School AllAsianAfrican Amer. Amer. Indian HispanicPacific Islander ED LEP SWD Goal: