Statement of Intent for Growth Metrics Presented to the PARCC Governing Board June 26, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PARCC Sustainability: What will it take for PARCC to succeed? April 3, 2012.
Advertisements

Campus Improvement Plans
1 Transition to FCAT 2.0, End-of-Course Assessments, and School Accountability and Beyond Dr. Karen Schafer October, 2010 Secondary Curriculum.
Texas State Accountability 2013 and Beyond Current T.E.A. Framework as of March 22, 2013 Austin Independent School District Bill Caritj, Chief Performance.
Implementing Virginia’s Growth Measure: A Practical Perspective Deborah L. Jonas, Ph.D. Executive Director, Research and Strategic Planning Virginia Department.
Overview of the Idaho Five Star Rating System Dr. TJ Bliss Director of Assessment and Accountability
Using the WV Growth Model to Measure Student Achievement Nate Hixson Assistant Director, Office of Research.
Extended School Year Decision Determination Process February 3,
2014 SOAR Update AAEA Fall Conference presented by Ivy Pfeffer, Assistant Commissioner Arkansas Department of Education October 29, 2014.
Other Measures of Student Academic Progress What should we know about how to include other measures of student academic progress? 0 August 2012.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Student Growth Goals: How Principals can Support Teachers in the Process Jenny Ray PGES Consultant KDE/NKCES.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
Critical Information SAGE Critical Information 1 Judy Park, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Utah State Office of Education.
Introduction to the Georgia Student Growth Model Student Growth Percentiles 1.
Including a detailed description of the Colorado Growth Model 1.
March 28, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
October 12, College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students 2. State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support.
MCAS and PARCC Testing Franklin Public Schools School Committee January 29,
What is the SQRP?  The School Quality Rating Policy (SQRP) is the Board of Education’s policy for evaluating school performance.  It establishes the.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together.
Commissioner’s Performance-Based Accountability Task Force: A Proposal for a Multi-level System Deb Wiswell & Scott Marion January 29, 2010.
© 2014, Florida Department of Education. All Rights Reserved Annual District Assessment Coordinator Meeting VAM Update.
Policy Considerations for Indiana’s A-F School Accountability Model October 15, 2014.
Quantitative Measures: Measuring Student Learning September 2011.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
Virginia Department of Education May 8, English Language Proficiency Targets: Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) 2.
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations Presentation for LEP SCASS/CCSSO May 7, 2008.
Will Growth Models Improve School Accountability and NCLB/AYP? Results From New Research Survey and Analysis of Current AYP Growth Proposals Kimberly O'Malley.
1 Student Assessment Update Research, Evaluation & Accountability Angela Marino Coordinator Research, Evaluation & Accountability.
Growth. Growth Understand the Growth Model Understand how the model can be used to improve student achievement and equity. Objectives.
1 The New York State Education Department New York State’s Student Data Collection and Reporting System.
Council of Superintendents September Kansas State Department of Education College and Career Ready means an individual has the academic.
Kansas: a State of Transition Brad Neuenswander Deputy Commissioner, KSDE Fall 2013.
Student Growth Percentiles Basics Fall Outcomes Share information on the role of Category 1 assessments in evaluations Outline steps for districts.
Understanding the Rhode Island Growth Model An Introductory Guide for Educators May 2012.
Writing Policy for SBDM Councils. Goals of this Session provide an overview of Senate Bill 1 requirements related to writing provide guidance in reviewing.
Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Virginia Department of Education Approved April 2011.
1 PARCC Data Privacy & Security Policy December 2013.
School Accreditation School Improvement Planning.
ANNOOR ISLAMIC SCHOOL AdvancEd Survey PURPOSE AND DIRECTION.
Understanding AMAOs Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives for Title III Districts School Year Results.
By: Jill Mullins. RtI is… the practice of providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and using learning rate over time and.
1 Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape Melissa Fincher Associate Superintendent for Assessment and Accountability Georgia Department for Education GACIS.
Tuesday, November 27, 2015 Board of Education Meeting District MAP.
June 2009 Regulation on pesticide statistics Pierre NADIN ESTAT E1- Farms, agro-environment and rural development
Value Added Model Value Added Model. New Standard for Teacher EvaluationsNew Standard for Teacher Evaluations Performance of Students. At least 50% of.
KHS PARCC/SCIENCE RESULTS Using the results to improve achievement Families can use the results to engage their child in conversations about.
ESSA = OPPORTUNITY!  After nearly 14 years of asking for less federal intrusion into the teaching and learning process, it is.
 Mark D. Reckase.  Student achievement is a result of the interaction of the student and the educational environment including each teacher.  Teachers.
Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation Giovanni Rum, Chao Xing GEO Secretariat GEO Work Programme Symposium Geneva, 2-4 May 2016.
APPR Updates Office of Teacher/Principal Quality and Professional Development.
TEACHNJ Proposed Regulations. TEACHNJ Regulations Proposal  Two Terms that are very important to know: SGO – Student Growth Objective (Created in District)
USING MAP DATA TO SET GOALS AND ENGAGE STUDENTS AND FAMILIES 7/14/16.
A Growth Measure for ALL Students.
Accountability Overview Measures and Results
Driving Through the California Dashboard
What is Value Added?.
Student Growth Measurements and Accountability
Academic Growth Model Indicator Update
State Board of Education Progress Update
AWG Spoke Committee- English Learner Subgroup
TEACHNJ Act Tenure Law & Value Added Teacher Evaluation
Driving Through the California Dashboard
Guide to the Single Plan for Student Achievement
PARCC Results: Year TWO LINCOLN SCHOOL GARWOOD NJ OCTOBER 18, 2016
Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together
Virginia Board of Education’s
Presentation transcript:

Statement of Intent for Growth Metrics Presented to the PARCC Governing Board June 26, 2013

Discuss and approve the PARCC Statement of Intent for Growth Metrics Objective 2

A decision is needed this spring to: 1.Ensure PARCC has sufficient time to build the technology infrastructure needed to support growth calculations on the summative assessment; and 2.Allow states time to plan for their own reporting and use of growth data in during the transition to PARCC. Why Now? 3

1.PARCC produce two types of common measures of annual progress (student growth): absolute and normative measures. 2.Individual PARCC states either use their own growth model or decide how to use PARCC’s measure of annual progress for accountability and evaluation purposes. 3.PARCC report consortium level results (aggregated across all PARCC states) by subject/course, student subgroups, and grade, but that states may opt out of state-by-state reporting. 4.PARCC sustain an active data governance process with representation across PARCC states to allow for shared, ongoing decision-making on data ownership and management issues. The Ad-Hoc Committee on Growth Metrics (ACGM) Recommends that: 4

The ACGM recommends that PARCC draw a distinction between: – Measures of annual progress (student growth), which describe individual students’ or groups of students’ progress in terms of their academic achievement from one year to the next. – Growth modeling, which refers to the methods used to make claims about educator/institutional effectiveness through statistical modeling of student achievement data obtained at multiple points in time. Definitions of Growth 5

The ACGM recommends that PARCC produce two types of common measures of annual progress (student growth): – Absolute Measure: The purpose of the first common measure of annual progress is to describe a student’s academic progress in terms of how much he/she has learned from one year to the next in relation to a construct that spans multiple grades. This is an “absolute” measure of annual progress. This measure would be dependent on PARCC developing a vertical scale (e.g., mean gain score). – Normative Measure: The purpose of the second common measure of annual progress is to describe a student’s academic progress from one year to the next in relation to his/her academic peers. This is a “normative” measure of annual progress (e.g., Student Growth Percentile). The ACGM recommends that the methodology for these measures (i.e., how the measures will be calculated) be selected with significant input from all PARCC states and the PARCC TAC. Absolute and Normative Measures 6

The ACGM recommends that individual PARCC states either use their own growth model or decide how to use PARCC’s measure of annual progress for accountability and evaluation purposes. For example, a state may: 1.Use the PARCC measure of annual progress by aggregating student results to the teacher, school, or district; or 2.Utilize PARCC scale score data and apply its own statistical model to generate teacher, school, or districts results. No Common Method of Growth Modeling 7

The ACGM recommends that: – PARCC publicly reports consortium level results (aggregated across all PARCC states). Data from all states would be included in the consortium level results. – State level results also be available in public reports, although individual states would have the right to be excluded from these reports. – Individual student, school, and district level measures be reported by individual states at their own discretion. Reporting Levels 8

The ACGM recognizes that ultimately selecting, producing, and reporting common measures of annual progress according to this Statement of Intent will require continuing study of technical and operational feasibility, including timing, data management, and protection of student identifiable information. PARCC states (and not PARCC) will own their data. However, the ACGM recommends that PARCC sustain an active data governance process with representation across PARCC states to allow for shared, ongoing decision-making on data ownership and management issues. Ongoing Data Management and Security 9 Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.

Proposed next steps for PARCC span five main areas: 1.Determine the methodology for the PARCC measure of annual progress (i.e., how the measure will be calculated) 2.Establish a data governance process to allow for shared, ongoing decision-making on data ownership and management issues 3.Determine additional reporting specifications and business rules 4.Provide communications support 5.Support state implementation Proposed Next Steps 10 Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.

Are there any questions? Question and Answer 11 Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.

The Governing Board votes to approve these recommendations 12 Draft Motion for Approval Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.

1.PARCC produce two types of common measures of annual progress (student growth): absolute and normative measures. 2.Individual PARCC states either use their own growth model or decide how to use PARCC’s measure of annual progress for accountability and evaluation purposes. 3.PARCC report consortium level results (aggregated across all PARCC states) by subject/course, student subgroups, and grade, but that states may opt out of state-by-state reporting. 4.PARCC sustain an active data governance process with representation across PARCC states to allow for shared, ongoing decision-making on data ownership and management issues. The Ad-Hoc Committee on Growth Metrics (ACGM) Recommends that: 13 Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.