MERA November 26, 2013

 Priority School Study  Scorecard Analyses  House Bill 5112 Overview

 Priority Schools have existed for four years.  They experience challenges in: –Student achievement, gap closure, growth and graduation rates – Building and district leadership, effective classroom instruction, building a culture and climate geared to success, and school governance

 Top to Bottom (TTB) Components – Student achievement level  Individual student progress or schoolwide improvement  Size of the within-school achievement gap  Graduation rate and improvement in graduation rate (high school only)

 Identification of Priority Schools  Bottom 5% on the TTB list  Grad rate less than 60% for three years running  Identification versus Intervention  Intervention for at least four years  Re-identification every year

6

7

8

9

20% proficiency rate - 21 proficient - 84 not proficient 4.8% annual decline in proficiency 10

35% proficiency rate - 88 proficient not proficient 1.5% annual increase in proficiency 11

55% proficiency rate - 64 proficient - 52 not proficient 6.5% annual increase in proficiency 12

13

14

Same Priority School as Before 15

Same Priority School as Before 20% proficiency rate Achievement gap a little less than 2 standard deviations smaller than the state average 16

Same Mid-Level Comparison School as Before 35% proficiency rate Achievement gap a little larger than the state average 17

Same High-Level Comparison School as Before 55% proficiency rate Achievement gap a little more than 1 standard deviation larger than the state average 18

19

20

Same Priority School as Before 21

Same Priority School as Before 64% graduation rate 4% annual improvement in graduation rate 22

Same Mid-Level Comparison School as Before 79% graduation rate 1% annual improvement in graduation rate 23

Same High-Level Comparison School as Before 95% graduation rate 2% annual improvement in graduation rate 24

 Individual proficiency, graduation/attendance cells use three colors:  Differentiated proficiency targets by content area (all five) for each school and district  Attendance for schools that do not graduate students – whole school only. Target is 90% or improvement target  Graduation cohort uses 4, 5, 6 year rate with 80% target or improvement target 210 Target was MetSafe HarborTarget not Met

 Individual participation, educator evaluations, compliance factors use two colors:  No points are earned for participation – red cells (<95%) directly affect the overall scorecard color  Educator Evaluations and Compliance Factors are worth an additional 5% each of proficiency points

Attain 85% or greater of possible points Attain at least 70% but less than 85% of possible points Attain at least 60% but less than 70% of possible points Attain at least 50% but less than 60% of possible points Attain less than 50% of possible points

 Red cells present on the Scorecards will lower the overall Scorecard color  Red overall grad/attend/ed evals/compliance factors = overall scorecard no higher than yellow  At least two content areas with less than 95% participation rate = red overall scorecard

 Each system can affect the other:  Top to Bottom -> Scorecard  Priority = Red Scorecard  Scorecard -> Top to Bottom  Red Scorecard will take away Reward label  Red Scorecard two consecutive years or three out of last five years for participation = Priority label  Green Scorecard with at least 85% proficiency in each subject and showing continuous improvement = Reward label  Green Bottom 30% cells in all subjects and 75 th percentile or higher on TTB = no Focus label

 Overall Colors Building-Level:  Green = 93  Lime = 0  Yellow = 2598  Orange = 184  Red = 481

SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat Asian Black/Af. Am Hispanic Two or More White SE ED EL Bottom All Subgroups

SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat Asian Black/Af. Am Hispanic Two or More White SE ED EL Bottom All Subgroups

SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat Asian Black/Af. Am Hispanic Two or More White SE ED EL Bottom All Subgroups

SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat Asian Black/Af. Am Hispanic Two or More White SE ED EL Bottom All Subgroups

SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat Asian Black/Af. Am Hispanic Two or More White SE ED EL Bottom All Subgroups

Out of 93 Green schools, 49 schools have no proficiency data (participation, compliance factors) 2893 schools had at least one red proficiency cell for the Bottom 30% subgroup  Overall color drops to yellow with at least one red cell 162 schools had 10 or less possible points:  41 green  36 yellow  20 orange  65 red

 Safe Harbor is currently met when meeting the state’s rate of improvement at the 80 th percentile  350 buildings made Safe Harbor in at least one content area and subgroup

 Alternate color scale for schools with small amount of possible points (162 with 10 or less)  Example scenario:  X >= 75% = Green = 41 schools (no change)  60% <= x < 75% = Lime = 0 schools (no change)  50% <= x < 60% = Yellow = 53 schools (+17)  40% <= x < 50% = Orange = 7 schools (-13)  X < 40% = Red = 61 schools (-4)

 Schools with 10 possible points or less and no audits  Example scenario:  X >= 75% = Green = 46 schools (+5)  60% <= x < 75% = Lime = 2 schools (+2)  50% <= x < 60% = Yellow = 46 schools (+10)  40% <= x < 50% = Orange = 7 schools (-13)  X < 40% = Red = 61 schools (-4)

 Schools with 10 possible points or less, no audits, Safe Harbor threshold = 65 th percentile  Example scenario:  X >= 75% = Green = 53 schools (+12)  60% <= x < 75% = Lime = 0 schools (no change)  50% <= x < 60% = Yellow = 81 schools (+45)  40% <= x < 50% = Orange = 3 schools (-17)  X < 40% = Red = 25 schools (-40)

 Add an indicator for new schools/schools without proficiency points meeting non- proficiency areas (participation, compliance, etc.)  49 schools in would have met this criteria

 Change audit rules for proficiency cells  Example Scenario:  1 red cell = overall green  2 red cells = overall lime  > 2 red cells = overall yellow minimum  Results for :  168 green (+75)  143 lime (+143)  2380 yellow (-218)  184 orange  481 red

 Change audit rules for proficiency cells – example 2  Example Scenario:  0 red cells = overall green  1 red cell = overall lime  > 1 red cell = overall yellow minimum  Results for :  93 green  86 lime (+86)  2512 yellow (-86)  184 orange  481 red

 Change audit rules for proficiency cells – example 3  Example Scenario:  2 red cells = overall green  5 red cells = overall lime  > 5 red cells = overall yellow minimum  Results for :  229 green (+136)  1264 lime (+1264)  1198 yellow (-1400)  184 orange  481 red

 Modify Safe Harbor so the threshold is the 65 th percentile instead of the 80 th  results affect orange, yellow, and red counts:  93 green  0 lime  2806 yellow (+208)  96 orange (-88)  361 red (-120)

 All Students cells with low (10 or less) FAY numbers  No points for all students cells with low (under 10) FAY students  Display color but do not award points and do not include in audit checks  Results:  134 green (+41)  3 lime (+3)  2569 yellow (-29)  172 orange (-12)  478 red (-3)

 Do not display all students cells for third, fourth, or fifth content area - only display two content areas with most FAY students  Results:  93 green  0 lime  2758 yellow (+160)  111 orange (-73)  394 red (-87)

 Need Stakeholder input – internal and external  Watch for MDE survey asking for feedback  Finalize recommendations  Submit amendments with ESEA Flexibility extension in February 2014

 Starting in letter grade system A-F  Buildings containing grades K-8:  One point for each 1% of pupils scoring in performance levels 1 or 2 in each of the five content areas  One point for each 1% of pupils making annual growth in reading/math  One point for each 1% of included pupils in the bottom 30% making annual growth in reading/math  Buildings containing grades 9-12:  Points system  At least 50% of points based on pupil proficiency  Balance of points based on graduation rate, measures of college and career readiness, and learning gains

 Points are summed and schools assigned a grade based on annually determined grading scale. Two separate scales will exist for K-8 and 9-12 buildings  Initial grade distribution:  10% of schools receive A  28% of schools receive B  31% of schools receive C  28% of schools receive D  5% of schools receive F  Grading scale can be changed to ensure 5% of schools receive F grades, or when greater than 74% of schools received an A or B grade in preceding year  Schools that do not contain all of grades K-8 or 9-12 will have modified grading scales to reflect total possible points that may be achieved with the grade configuration

 For schools and districts  Letter grades for current year and the preceding two years  Number of teachers and administrators rated effective or highly effective  Total number of teachers and administrators

 Buildings containing both spans (K-8 and 9-12) will get a separate grade for each span  Buildings in operation for at least three years shall be ordered closed or placed under supervision of State School Reform Office if:  Receive a grade of F for two or more years in a four year span AND  Identified in the lowest 5% of all schools in learning gains for two or more years in a four year span

 MDE shall not establish any other evaluation or ranking system for public schools  Statutory or regulatory reports can be waived for schools consistently maintaining a grade of A or B  Schools fitting certain criteria (SDA, 95% SE pop, etc.) can be designated Alternative Education Campuses  No letter grade  Assigned “Maintaining” or “Failing” status  Maintaining = pupils making meaningful, measurable academic progress toward educational goals

 