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

Slides:



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

Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
A quick review of z-scores and how to understand them August 26, 2011
College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) The NEW Report Card in Georgia.
Alexander Schwarz Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research and Evaluation Michigan Department of Education.
+ Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 1 Hal Sanderson, Ph.D. Research and Assessment August 21,
Kentucky’s School Report Card and Spreadsheets
Understanding Performance Based Bonus Data, Calculations and Metrics October 2014.
Accountability Programs MICHIGAN SCHOOL TESTING CONFERENCE FEBRUARY 19, 2014.
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011.
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Webinar Michigan Department of Education August 26, 2011.
What is a Z Score?. The State’s Waiver from NCLB All schools will achieve 85% proficiency for all students in all subjects (as measured on a statewide.
Minnesota’s New Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
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.
Understanding Wisconsin’s New School Report Card.
1. The Process Rubrics (40 or 90) should be open soon. 2. The Data Profile and SI Plan are expected to open in December. 3. The complete CNA will.
September 25, :30 a.m.- 3:30 p.m.. “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.” -Tony Robbins.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. Bureau of Assessment and Accountability Michigan Department of Education Presentation to MASFPS Fall Directors’ Institute October.
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
July 30, :00 – 10:30 a.m. by Doug Greer.  What will accountability such as AYP look like this August and how will this impact our district?  What.
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE RANKING IS CALCULATED Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking
Top-to-Bottom Ranking & Priority/Focus/Reward Designations Understanding the.
Michigan’s Accountability Scorecards A Brief Introduction.
Information on Focus Schools Released/Retained Fall 2015.
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR) – Initial Designation.
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.
ASSESSMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY Updates to Student Testing and School Accountability for the school year.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
MI-SAAS: A New Era in School Accountability Overview of New School Accreditation System (MI-SAAS) October 28, 2010.
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – Technical Assistance Michigan Department of Education September 8, 2011.
Michigan Accountability Data Tools February 1, 2013.
MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System Overview of Key Features School Year.
1 Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System pending legislative approval Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. March 16, 2011.
1.Open your school’s CEE Achievement Index Summary – Section 5 2.Open your Action Planning Handbook: “Data Reflection Protocol – State Assessments” (Appendix.
MEAP / MME New Cut Scores Gill Elementary February 2012.
2011 Top to Bottom and Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools List Overview Briefing: MDE August 23, 2011.
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.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
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.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
MDE Accountability Update SLIP Conference, January 2016.
Understanding Your Top from Your Bottom: A Guide to Michigan’s Accountability System September 2013 Mitch Fowler
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.
Accountability Scorecards Top to Bottom Ranking February 2016.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
Top to Bottom and Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Lists Federally Approved Requirements for Identifying Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools August.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Minnesota’s Proposed Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
MDE Accountability Update MSTC Conference, February 2016.
Anderson School Accreditation We commit to continuous growth and improvement by  Creating a culture for learning by working together  Providing.
Update on District and School Accountability Systems 2014 AdvancED Michigan Fall Conference November 7, 2014.
Assessment & Accountability Session 3: Content and School Scores.
1 Testing Various Models in Support of Improving API Scores.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
Accountability Overview Measures and Results
Prepared for Quincy Schools – November 2013
Prepared for DD Key Contacts – September 2013
Focus Schools and Special Education Centers
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Michigan School Accountability Scorecards
Presentation transcript:

Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING

 The statewide top-to-bottom ranking takes into account both student achievement on state tests and graduation rates. Student achievement on state tests is included in the statewide top to bottom ranking in the following three ways:  Achievement at the elementary, middle, and high school levels  Improvement in achievement over time  The largest achievement gap between two subgroups calculated based on the top scoring 30% of students versus the bottom scoring 30% of students TOP TO BOTTOM (TTB) RANKING

 In addition to the achievement components, student graduation is included in the statewide top-to-bottom ranking for schools with a graduation rate in the two following ways:  Graduation Rate  Improvement in graduation rate over time TTB RANKING

Schools with 30 or more full academic year (FAY) students tested over the last two years in at least two state-tested content areas:  Mathematics  Reading  Science  Social Studies  Writing WHO RECEIVES A RANKING?

Geographic Distribution of Top to Bottom Rankings

Quick Reference for Z- Scores WHAT IS A Z-SCORE?

WHY DO WE USE Z SCORES?  Z-scores are a standardized measure that helps you compare individual student (or school) data to the state average data (average scores across populations).  Z-scores allow us to “level the playing field” across grade levels and subjects  Each Z-score corresponds to a value in a normal distribution. A Z-Score will describe how much a value deviates from the mean.

Z-SCORE “CHEAT SHEET” Student z-score = (Student Scale Score) – (Statewide average of scale scores) Standard Deviation of Scale Score School z-score= (School Value) – (Statewide average of that value) Standard deviation of that value Z Score Summary PowerPoint and Business Rules-

Z-SCORE “CHEAT SHEET”  Z-scores are centered around zero  Positive numbers mean the student or school is above the state average  Negative numbers mean the student or school is below the state average State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average

Z-SCORE EXAMPLES  Your school has a z-score of 1.5. You are better than the state average State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5

Z-SCORE EXAMPLES  Your school has a z-score of.2. You are better than the state average, but not by a lot State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5 Z-score of 0.2

Z-SCORE EXAMPLES  Your school has a z-score of You are very far below state average State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5 Z-score of 0.2Z-score of -2.0

 For grade 3-8 reading and mathematics HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Two-Year Average Standardized Student Scale (Z) Score Two-Year Average Performance Level Change Index Two-Year Average Bottom 30% - Top 30% Z-Score Gap School Achievement Z-Score School Performance Level Change Z-Score School Achievement Gap Z-Score School Content Area Index 1/ 2 1/ 4 Content Index Z- score

 A weighted composite of individual student performance level change is used to calculate improvement in grades 3-8 reading and mathematics  Rewards large improvements more heavily, rewards maintenance of proficiency if a student was already proficient WEIGHTED PERFORMANCE LEVEL CHANGE Previous Proficiency Significant Decline DeclineMaintainImprovement Significant Improvement Not Previously Proficient Previously Proficient -2112

 For science, social studies, writing, and grade 11 all tested subjects HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Two-Year Average Standardized Student Scale (Z) Score Four-Year Achievement Trend Slope Two-Year Average Bottom 30% - Top 30% Z-Score Gap School Achievement Z-Score School Performance Achievement Trend Z-Score School Achievement Gap Z-Score School Content Area Index 1/ 2 1/ 4 Content Index Z- score

 For graduation rate HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Two-Year Average Graduation Rate Four-Year Graduation Rate Trend Slope School Graduation Rate Z-Score School Graduation Rate Trend Z-Score School Graduation Rate Index 2/ 3 1/ 3 Grad Index Z- score

 Calculating a four-year slope (e.g., graduation rate) HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Plot the school’s graduation rate for the last four years Plot a linear regression line through the points Calculate the slope of the line (gives the school’s annual improvement rate)

 Calculating a four-year slope (e.g., graduation rate) HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Plot the school’s graduation rate for the last four years Plot a linear regression line through the points Calculate the slope of the line (gives the school’s annual improvement rate)

 Calculating a four-year slope (e.g., graduation rate) HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED Plot the school’s graduation rate for the last four years Plot a linear regression line through the points Calculate the slope of the line (gives the school’s annual improvement rate) Slope = 2.3%

 Calculating an overall ranking for a school with a graduation rate HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED School Graduation Rate Std Index School Mathematics Std Index School Reading Std Index School Science Std Index School Social Studies Std Index School Writing Std Index Overall Standardized School Index 18 % 10 % Overall School Percentile Rank

 Calculating an overall ranking for a school without a graduation rate HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED School Mathematics Std Index School Reading Std Index School Science Std Index School Social Studies Std Index School Writing Std Index Overall School Standardized Index 20 % Overall School Percentile Rank

 Calculating an overall ranking for a school without a graduation rate and without a writing score HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING CALCULATED School Mathematics Index School Reading Index School Science Index School Social Studies Index Overall School Standardized Index 25 % Overall School Percentile Rank

WHICH YEARS OF DATA ARE IN THE RANKING?

 Michigan tests in the fall.  These fall tests reflect the learning of students in the previous school year. FOR ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS Fall 2011 Testing Fall 2010 Testing Fall 2009 Testing Fall 2008 Testing SY SY SY

 Michigan tests in the spring  The spring test (MME and MI-Access) measures what students have learned from grades 9, 10 and grade 11 prior to the MME testing. FOR HIGH SCHOOLS

 For elementary/middle schools:  Performance on the MEAP and MI-Access tests in fall 2010 (which represents learning from school year ) and before  For high schools:  Performance on the MME and MI-Access tests in spring 2011 (which represents learning from school year prior to testing) and before. WHAT DO THE 2011 RANKINGS REFLECT?

 For elementary/middle schools:  Fall 2010 MEAP & MI-Access  For high schools  Spring 2011 MME & MI- Access WHEN IS PERFORMANCE IN MEASURED?

 For elementary/middle schools:  Fall 2011 MEAP, MI-Access & MEAP-Access  For high schools  Spring 2012 MME & MI-Access WHEN IS PERFORMANCE IN MEASURED?

TTB vs PLA HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM THE PLA LIST?

 This list represents a ranking of all schools in the state of Michigan, using our preferred methodology developed in collaboration with many stakeholders.  MDE also published, according to state statute, a list of Persistently Lowest Achieving schools. This is the PLA list.  The PLA list of schools was generated by a set of federally- approved and required rules that differ from our Top to Bottom ranking. TTB VERSUS PLA

WHY ARE THE LISTS DIFFERENT? Top to BottomPLA Subjects includedMath Reading Writing Science Social Studies Math Reading Graduation rate?YesNo ComponentsAchievement (1/2) Improvement (1/4) Achievement gap (1/4) Proficiency (2/3) Improvement (1/3) Proficiency?Uses standardized measure of student performance (z- score) Uses proficiency levels High achieving schools?Calculation adjustments to avoid “ceiling effects” No adjustment Tiers?No tiers; all schools included Tiers; Title I, AYP and school level considered

RESOURCES TO UNDERSTAND MY RANKING

 Complete list of all schools and their ranking  Individual school look-up to see your school’s results  Overview presentation with voice over  FAQ  Business rules by which the rankings were calculated  Complete data file and validation file You can access these resources at: Click on “Michigan Schools Top to Bottom Ranking” You can also request individual assistance by calling the Evaluation, Research and Accountability unit at , or ing RESOURCES AVAILABLE