August Accountability Gateway Training

August Who we are Greg Marcus  MDE  (651) John Lindner  Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan  (952)

August Outline of the Presentation Timeline Consequences  Consequences of delayed publication AYP  Participation  Proficiency  Attendance  Graduation Report Card  Academic Stars Appeals Data Validation

August Handouts Agenda PP Presentation Timeline Graphic Definition of Terms Consequence Tree Sample Report Appeal and Waiver Forms Business Rules Error Descriptors Suspicious Conditions Report USDE Letter Login Help

August Timeline January: Test Ordering March: Standard setting begins April-May: Test Window June Accountability Gateway sign up begins June-July: Standard setting continues and other psychometric events take place July: Commissioner approves scale scores August: Quality Control Procedures August: Data validation trainings August 22 nd : Data Suppression Appeal Due August 15- September 15: Data validation and publication of preliminary results September 1 st : Preliminary Report Card published September 15 th : Appeals and Waivers Due November 15: Publication of final data

August Timeline Delay Traditionally results are published towards the end of August Due to the following factors timelines have been pushed back.  New tests (MCA-II)  New Standards  New Processes (TEAE reading substituting for the MCA-II reading)

August 20067

8 The Goal of NCLB? “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments”

August How NCLB Achieves its Goal Through AYP Standards: Same for all students Identifying what students should know and be able to do Encourage higher order thinking & problem solving Assessments: For all students

August Consequences

August Identification Identification = not making AYP in a given area  Identified in math  Identified in reading  Identified in the Other category (Attendance and/or Graduation)

August

August Bucky’s Elementary mathreadingattendance

August Consequences at the School Level Stage 0: Warning List Stage 1.1: School Choice Notify the parents in the district Create a school improvement plan Provide school choice

August Consequences at the School Level Stage 2.1: Supplemental services Notify the parents in the district Update school improvement plan Provide school choice Provide supplemental services

August Consequences at the School Level Stage 3.1: Corrective Action Notify the parents in the district Update school improvement plan Provide school choice Provide supplemental services District takes some corrective action

August Consequences at the School Level Stage 4.1: Planning for Restructuring Notify the parents in the district Update school improvement plan Provide school choice Provide supplemental services School and district plan for some restructuring that will improve school performance

August Consequences at the School Level Stage 5.1: Restructuring Notify the parents in the district Update school improvement plan Provide school choice Provide supplemental services Executing Restructuring the school

August Consequences for Districts

August Consequences at the District Level Stage 0: Warning List Stage 1.1: Needs Improvement  Write a District Improvement Plan Stage 2.1:  Update District Improvement Plan (Set-aside of $2500 from Administrative funds)  Corrective Action

August Consequences at the District Level Stage 3.1:  Update District Improvement Plan (Set-aside of $2500 from Administrative funds) Stage 4.1:  Update District Improvement Plan (same as above) Stage 5.1:  Update District Improvement Plan (same as above)

August Consequences of delayed Publication June 20 th memo from USDE  Consequences continue through: The entire year for School Choice The first semester for SES  Schools and districts should act on preliminary data. It is very important to get data validated as soon as possible.  Parents must be notified of the identification and their options before school starts.

August General AYP Info

August AYP Summary Academic Performance  Reading and Mathematics Participation 95%  All students tested  40 minimum group 9 groups reading 9 groups math Proficiency  October 1 students  20 minimum group  40 for LEP and special education 9 groups reading 9 groups math Attendance  Elementary, Middle Schools, State Approved Alternative Programs, and school districts  90% average rate  Growth from previous year  All students in the school  40 minimum group All group only AND/OR Graduation  High Schools awarding diplomas and school districts  80% average rate  Growth from previous year  Students grades 9-12  40 minimum group All group only

August AYP Groups All Student Racial/Ethnic Categories LEP (This includes the expanded LEP sometimes called LEP +2) Special Ed (This includes the expanded Special Ed sometimes called Special Ed +2) Free and Reduced Price Lunch

August Grades Included Elementary and Middle School  Math and Reading 3-8 High School  Reading 10  Math 11

August AYP Participation

August Data Report Participation # of Students Tested  This column indicates 386 students took an MCA or an Alternate Assessment in math and had a valid score # of Answer Docs Returned  This column indicates 395 students were enrolled on test day  Includes all documents EXCEPT those marked NE or ME. Please refer to the sample Current Verification and Correction Summary

August Data Report - Participation % of Students Participating  This column shows a participation rate of This rate is calculated by dividing the number of students participating by the number of tests returned and multiplying the result by 100. AYP Marker  This shows if the group made the required 95% participation rate. A – Above the target B – Below the Target Z- Cell size limitation X – No data

August AYP Proficiency Targets Calculation Safe harbor

August

August

August Math Targets (pre-validation) GradeTarget (Index Rate)

August Reading Targets (pre-validation) GradeTarget (Index Rate)

August Proficiency The goal is for all students (100%) to be proficient in reading and mathematics by A score of x50 on the MCA-II indicates proficiency. Proficiency for schools and districts will be determined by an “AYP Index Rate” in each subject.

August Proficiency The index rate is used to provide a single rating that combines scores from students at or above x50 and scores from students who “Partially Meets the Standards.”  1 point is awarded for students who score at or above x50.  1/2 index point is awarded for students who score between x40 and x49 or in the “Partially Meets the Standards” level.  0 points are given for students whose score “Does Not Meet the Standards”.

August Data Report Proficiency 2006 Index Rate  The report for the sample school shows the 2006 index rate is  The index rate is calculated by dividing the number of total index points (276) by the number of October 1 documents (362). (276/362)*100 = 75.41

August

August Data Report Proficiency Index Target  This column shows the AYP target of for the all group that has been adjusted using a confidence interval.  This target is a blend of the target for each grade level based on the number of students at the grade level.  The confidence interval has the most impact on small groups.

August Data Report Proficiency Compare the 2006 Index Rate and the Index Target:  The 2006 index rate of is equal to or greater than the index target of the school has met AYP for proficiency. AYP status is A - for above the target

August Data Report Proficiency Sample District Proficiency – Group A – All Students Math Column Titles Total Index Points in math #of Oct 1 Ans. Docs. Returned 2006 Index Rate Index Target in math AYP Marker in math Value Shown in Sample Report A Description of Calculation Total number of index points earned by students 1 point – Level M or E.5 point – Level P 0 point – Level D Total number of students tested and also enrolled on October 1 Total Index Points earned - divided by the number of October 1 Documents - multiplied by 100 Based on the number of students in each grade tested multiplied by the state targets and adjusted with a confidence interval Made AYP Index Rate is greater than the CI Index Target Actual Calculation 2006 Index Rate: (276  362)*100 = 75.41

August Safe Harbor If a school/district does not make AYP and they made AYP in the “Other” indicator that school/district is eligible for safe harbor Safe harbor is a 10% decrease in the number of non-proficient scores.

August Safe Harbor

August

August Multi-Year Averaging If a school/district does not make AYP using safe harbor additional calculations are done. Data is added across years and then compared with updated Index Targets and safe harbor targets. Up to 3 years of data may be combined.

August Appeals Data Suppression Appeal due August 22 nd Student and status level Appeals and Waivers due September 15 th Appeal and Waiver results will apply to final data.

August Data Suppression Appeal Due August 22  Appeal forms are included in your handouts  Appeals may be faxed or mailed to Greg Marcus  These appeals will prevent any academic data from being published until November 15 th

August Appeal vs. Waiver An appeal overrides the AYP status of a cell (in the white students math proficiency change the B to an A) A waiver removes the cap on the number of index points that come from the alternate assessment  a waiver can cause a number of different things including more/different schools being identified

August Appeal Types SAAP District/School AYP District AMAO Student level

August School Report Cards School Year

August What is the same? The “Report to Taxpayers” section is unchanged from the 2005 report card.  Information has been updated based on data collected during the school year.  Check with Dick Guevremont in MDE Program Finance or your school district business officer for questions.

August What is new for 2006? New information in many sections:  Enrollment  District Mobility  Advanced Academic Opportunities  2006 MCA – II  School Opportunities  Highly Qualified Teacher Information  Professional Staff Development  Q Comp

August What is new 2006? (continued) Schools that serve both elementary and middle school grades or middle school and high school grades will only get one report card.  The grade specific sections will be repeated, for example: Both high school and middle school advanced academic opportunities will be shown on the same report card for a 7-12 school.

August Data Sources Where does the information on the School Report come from?  Much of the information comes from MDE school year data collections including: MARRS  Enrollment and student demographic data STAR  Teacher and administrator data MCA – II  Test Scores and AYP data

August Data Sources  Report to Taxpayers data comes from the UFARS data.  AYP Attendance AYP Graduation and the High School Drop Rate and District mobility rates come from MARRS enrollment data.

August Data Sources Some of the data is entered directly by schools though the Accountability Gateway  This data can be updated on a daily basis and includes: Advanced Academic Opportunities Stars School Safety Policies and Programs Stars School Opportunities Administrative and Teacher Salaries Professional Development for Staff

August Highlights The District Mobility section is expanded. The Advanced Academic Opportunities Stars have been revamped to be more similar across elementary, middle and high school report cards. The School Opportunities section now showcases EPAS assessments and CLEP tests at the high school level and IB courses for all schools.

August Highlights There are three new sections under School and District Staffing:  Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers Statewide  Professional Development for Staff  Q Comp The School Staff section now includes information on Highly Qualified Teachers and Paraprofessionals.

August Questions about the School Report Card? MDE Communications: Doug Grey MARSS Enrollment: Marilyn Loehr STAR Teacher information: Linda Alberg MCA – II: AYP Data: Greg Marcus Report to Taxpayers: Dick Guevrement

August Data Validation One data validation window  hybrid window Data validation AYP results Report Card data collection Academic star ratings Help Desk  They can answer AYP/Report Card and Accountability Gateway Questions Local (651) Long Distance