Minnesota’s New Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING.
Advertisements

Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
June Big Picture Continuous Improvement Aligned Improvement June
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
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance.
Accountability data overview August Topics  Changes to 2014 accountability reporting  Overview of accountability measures  Progress & Performance.
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.
Accountability Programs MICHIGAN SCHOOL TESTING CONFERENCE FEBRUARY 19, 2014.
Rhode Island Accountability Process Revisions for School Years 2015 and 2016 A Presentation to the Accountability 3.0 Statewide Webinar March 27, 2015.
Subtitle Title I Federal School Accountability Office of School Improvement and Turnaround Indiana Department of Education March 2012.
1 School Designation Detailed Methodology Reward Identify the “highest-performing schools” and “high-progress schools” based in all-students group over.
New DC OSSE ESEA Accountability. DC OSSE ESEA Accountability Classification Overview I. DC OSSE Accountability System II. Classification of Schools III.
Understanding MMR Dr. Margaret Biggerstaff 1. 2 MMR Calculation Process.
Carolyn M. Wood - Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability, Assessment, and Data Systems October 31,
Understanding Wisconsin’s New School Report Card.
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.
Review Planning Faribault Public Schools DATA DAY.
KCCT Kentucky’s Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Overview of 2008 Regional KPR.
School Performance Index School Performance Index (SPI): A Comprehensive Measurement System for All Schools Student Achievement (e.g. PSSA) Student Progress.
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR) – Initial Designation.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
2013 Accountability System Design Assessment & Accountability, Plano ISD.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
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.
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING.
Composite Index Scores (CIS) Understanding Accountability for Strategic Goal Setting August 24, 2015 Andrew Milligan | RIDE Office of Transformation.
2015 Texas Accountability System Overview and Updates August 13, 2015.
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.
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
MERA November 26,  Priority School Study  Scorecard Analyses  House Bill 5112 Overview.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
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.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
MCC MCA Data Discoveries. What does Minnesota think is important? What do we want kids to do?  Pass important tests “Be Proficient”  Grow.
PED School Grade Reports (with thanks to Valley High School) ACE August 3, 2012 Dr. Russ Romans District Accountability Manager.
Review Planning Faribault Public Schools DATA DAY.
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.
703 KAR 5:225 Next-Generation Learners Accountability System Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:cw,ko.
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.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Measuring Turnaround Success October 29 th, 2015 Jeanette P. Cornier, Ph.D.
Minnesota’s Proposed Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
MDE Accountability Update MSTC Conference, February 2016.
March 2013 Training Session The content of this PowerPoint is contingent upon approval of the Alabama PLAN 2020 ESEA Flexibility Request by the USDOE.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
Accountability Overview Presented by Jennifer Stafford Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:pp: 12/11/2015.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Washington’s ESSA Consolidated Plan Implementation 101
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
2019 Accountability Updates
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Michigan School Accountability Scorecards
Presentation transcript:

Minnesota’s New Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”

ALL schools will be given an annual Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR) MMR consists of four measurements: –Proficiency –Student Growth –Achievement Gap Closure –Graduation Rate education.state.mn.us 2 Multiple Measurements

Each domain is worth 25 points. The MMR is generated by dividing the total number of points earned by the total number of points possible. For most elementary and middle schools, 75 points possible. For most high schools 100 points possible. The MMR is a percentage for all schools. Total MMR

Total Focus Rating In addition to an MMR, every school gets a Focus Rating The Focus Rating measures proficiency and growth of minority students and students receiving special services (EL, Special Ed, Free and Reduced Price Lunch) Focus Rating combines Achievement Gap reduction and Focused Proficiency Each Domain is worth 25 points, for 50 possible points

education.state.mn.us 5 Multiple Measurement System – Results Page Multiple Measurement System – Results - Initial 4/30/2012 AYP Year NCLB ID District Number District Type School Number School Type District Name School Name Title SIG SchoolMMRFR MMR Designation INITIAL High School EXAMPLEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTTWINS SENIOR HIGHNN % % INITIAL Middle School EXAMPLEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTVIKINGS MIDDLE SCHOOLNN % % INITIAL Elementary School EXAMPLEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT TIMBERWOLVES ELEMENTARYYN 9.54 % % Priority INITIAL Elementary School EXAMPLEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTWILD ELEMENTARYNN % % Final Multiple Measurement Rating Focus Rating. “How are we doing on the Achievement Gap?” Was the school given a designation?

Summary Results - MMR AYP Year School Type District NameSchool Name 2010ElementaryExampleville School District Timberwolves Elementary 2011ElementaryExampleville School District Timberwolves Elementary InitialElementaryExampleville School District Timberwolves Elementary Multiple Measurement Rating MMR Eligible MMR Total Points MMR Poss. Points MMR Y % Y % Y % Did your school have sufficient data to be measured? Which year is being measured, initial is a combination of 2010 and 2011 How many total points did the school earn? How many points could the school have earned?

Summary Results – Focus Rate AYP Year School Type District NameSchool Name 2010ElementaryExampleville School District Timberwolves Elementary 2011ElementaryExampleville School District Timberwolves Elementary InitialElementaryExampleville School District Timberwolves Elementary FR Eligible FR Total Points FR Poss. Points FR Y % Y % Y % Focus Rate Did your school have sufficient data to be measured? How many total points did the school earn? How many points could the school have earned?

Proficiency domain uses AYP index model. Schools earn points based on a weighted percentage of subgroups making AYP. Weighting is based on the size of subgroups. Unlike in AYP calculation, in MMR Proficiency, groups can’t make AYP through Safe Harbor. Proficiency

Summary Results – Proficiency Domain AYP Year School Name 2010Timberwolves Elementary 2011Timberwolves Elementary Initial Timberwolves Elementary Prof. Max Cell Count Prof. WPC Making AYP Prof. PercentileProf. Points Proficiency Domain How many students were included in the measurement? What was the weighted percentage of subgroups that hit their AYP target? What is the school's percentile rank among other schools in the same grade range? How many MMR points did we earn in this domain? (Percentile Rank x 25)

Growth measures ability of schools to get students to exceed predicted growth. Growth predictions based on students’ last assessment result. Predictions generated by looking at two cohorts of students, where they scored one year and where they scored the next year. Student growth score based on being above or below prediction. School growth score is average of student growth scores. Growth

Summary Results – Growth Domain Growth Domain AYP Year School Name 2010Timberwolves Elementary 2011Timberwolves Elementary Initial Timberwolves Elementary Unique Growth Student Count Growth Zscore Average Growth PercentileGrowth Points What is the school's percentile rank among other schools in the same grade range? How many students were included in the measurement? What was the average growth score in the school? How many MMR points did we earn in this domain? (Percentile Rank x 25)

Measures the ability of schools to get higher levels of growth from lower-performing subgroups than statewide average growth for higher-performing subgroups. Growth of individual subgroups of students of color compared to growth of white students, Els compared to non-Els, FRPs compared to non-FRPs, SPED compared to non-SPED. Subtract schools’ growth scores for lower- performing groups from statewide averages of higher-performing groups. Negative score indicates success. Achievement Gap Reduction

Summary Results – Achievement Gap Domain AYP Year School Name 2010Timberwolves Elementary 2011Timberwolves Elementary Initial Timberwolves Elementary Gap Unique Student Count Gap AGR ScoreGap PercentileGap Points Achievement Gap Domain What is the school's percentile rank among other schools in the same grade range? How many students were included in the measurement? How many MMR points did we earn in this domain? (Percentile Rank x 25) What was our Achievement Gap reduction score? (Negative score is good.)

Uses same methodology as Proficiency domain. Looks at the percentage of subgroups that made AYP in graduation rate. Current AYP grad rate targets are 85%. Targets are changing next year. Groups can only get credit for meeting the target, not through year-to-year improvements. Graduation Rate

Summary Results – Graduation Rate Domain AYP Year School Name 2010Twins Senior High 2011Twins Senior High Initial Twins Senior High Grad Max Cell Count Grad WPC Making AYP Grad PercentileGrad Points Graduation Rate Domain AYP Year School Name 2010Timberwolves Elementary 2011Timberwolves Elementary Initial Timberwolves Elementary Grad Max Cell Count Grad WPC Making AYP Grad PercentileGrad Points What is the school's percentile rank among other schools in the same grade range? How many students were included in the measurement? How many MMR points did we earn in this domain? (Percentile Rank x 25) What was the weighted percentage of subgroups that hit their AYP target?

Focused Proficiency Like Proficiency Domain, Focused Proficiency uses AYP index model. Schools earn points based on a weighted percentage of subgroups making AYP – but excludes the All Students subgroup and the White subgroup. Weighting is based on the size of subgroups.

Focused Proficiency Domain AYP Year School Name 2010Timberwolves Elementary 2011Timberwolves Elementary Initial Timberwolves Elementary Focus Max Cell Count Focus WPC Making AYP Focus PercentileFocus Points Focused Proficiency Domain What is the school's percentile rank among other schools in the same grade range? How many students were included in the measurement? How many MMR points did we earn in this domain? (Percentile Rank x 25) What was the weighted percentage of subgroups measured for AGR that hit their AYP target?

education.state.mn.us 18 MMR Designations Multiple Measurement System – Results - Initial 4/30/2012 AYP Year NCLB ID District Number District Type School Number School Type District Name School Name Title SIG SchoolMMRFR MMR Designation INITIAL High School EXAMPLEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTTWINS SENIOR HIGHNN % % INITIAL Middle School EXAMPLEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTVIKINGS MIDDLE SCHOOLNN % % INITIAL Elementary School EXAMPLEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT TIMBERWOLVES ELEMENTARYYN 9.54 % % Priority INITIAL Elementary School EXAMPLEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTWILD ELEMENTARYNN % % Was the school given a designation?

MMR used to assign Title I schools to two categories: 127 Reward Schools (15 percent of Title I Schools) 42 Priority Schools (5 percent of Title I schools) FR used to assign schools to one category: 85 Focus Schools (10 percent of Title I Schools) education.state.mn.us 19 Recognition, Accountability and Support

Annual reporting of more data than ever before Continued reporting of AYP Two additional categories of Title I schools based on MMR starting in August: –Celebration Schools (“Next 10 percent”) –Continuous Improvement Schools (Bottom 25 percent) education.state.mn.us 20 What about the “other 70 percent”?

Title I Schools Rank Ordered 5 Groups Identified 1- Reward Schools Top 15 % Identified 2- Priority Schools Bottom 5% Identified 3- Focus Schools Middle 10% with Extreme Achievement Gaps 4- Continuous Improvement Bottom 25% Identified 5- Celebration Schools Next 25% Below Reward May Apply 10% of Applicants Selected

Exit Criteria Priority Schools: Two consecutive years out of the bottom 25 percent on the MMR (‘13 & ‘14). Focus Schools: Two consecutive years out of the bottom 25 percent on the FR (‘13 & ‘14). SIG Schools: Opportunity to exit at end of grant (‘13) if out of bottom 25 percent on MMR that year. Several current SIG schools above cuts. Priority or Focus: Immediate exit if a Reward School after any year starting in ‘13.

Current 25 th Percentiles and Reward Schools Elementary Schools: MMR 33.81%; FR 42.55%; Lowest Reward MMR 73.30% Middle Schools: MMR 18.68%; FR 42.96%; Lowest Reward MMR 79.05% High Schools: MMR 22.05%; FR 31.99%; Lowest Reward MMR 76.15% Numbers will be different every year. This is just an example.

MMR 25 th %ileFR 25 %ileReward School Cut Elementary33.81%42.55%73.30% Middle/Jr. High18.68%42.96%79.05% High School22.05%31.99%76.15% Current Exit Points

MMR and Designation Release Timeline MDE must run the MMR and designate the first round of Priority, Focus and Reward schools before the end of the school year. The first MMR and designations will be based off of data from 2010 and There will be no Celebration or Continuous Improvement Schools this year. Data from current year testing will be used in MMR released late this summer.

More Information and Help Visit BCT/NCLBWaiver/index.html for FAQ, Glossary, Summaries, etc. BCT/NCLBWaiver/index.html with