Progress Reports for New York City Public Schools Elementary/Middle/K-8 Updated: September 2, 2009.

Progress Reports for New York City Public Schools Elementary/Middle/K-8 Updated: September 2, 2009

2 Progress Reports 1.Purpose and Background 2.Overview of Progress Reports a.Metrics b.Peer / City Horizons 3.Confirmed Changes for the 2008-09 EMS Progress Report 4.Calculations of EMS Progress Report Measures 5.Appendix – Tools and Resources

School Accountability in New York City WHAT EVALUATE ENFORCE CONSEQUENCES ENABLE HOW Progress Reports Grades based on student outcomes Quality Reviews Scores based on performance management criteria Learning Environment Survey Parent, teacher, and student surveys about school environment Federal and State Evaluation Measures of schools’ Adequate Yearly Progress and accountability standing Rewards Monetary bonuses Consequences Immediate restructuring of chronically failing schools. Target setting for other D/F schools; if no improvement, leadership change after 2 and closure after 4 years Aligned Mechanisms City and SSO performance targets, Principals’ Performance Review and bonuses, school-wide teacher performance bonuses Periodic Assessments Diagnose and track progress Achievement Reporting and Innovation System (ARIS) Fully integrated knowledge and data management Children First Intensive Hands-on data training through Inquiry Teams Knowledge Management Support structures and tools for collaboration and knowledge sharing 33

4 Progress Report Guiding Principles Measure student outcomes as accurately as possible given the different challenges schools face Ensure that schools can verify and re-create metrics so schools understand how they are measured and how they can improve their performance Compare school performance to that of “peer schools” (schools serving similar student populations) and all schools Citywide Be criterion-referenced, not norm-referenced (all schools know their targets, the cut-offs for each grade, and can receive an A if they make significant progress) Produce outcomes that are not correlated with socioeconomic status, Special Education populations, or other demographic characteristics Incorporate direct input from parents, teachers, and students

5 Progress Report Overview The Progress Report measures: Longitudinal progress with students (to and beyond proficiency) Mastery by all students of state learning standards as required by state and federal (NCLB) law Student attendance in school Closing of the achievement gap for high need populations Desired conditions for learning as assessed by hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers, and students Student readiness for high school (and ultimately) college success High school graduation and progress toward high school graduation 5

6 54.7% 81.1% 93.2% Longitudinal progress to and beyond proficiency is directly related to success in high school and after

Progress Reports have been developed for most general education schools The first official Progress Reports were released in Fall 2007 (evaluating the 2006-2007 school year) Elementary/Middle Schools (EMS) High Schools (HS) Transfer Schools (HST) Progress Reports for YABCs and Early Childhood schools have been developed and are currently slotted for the first official release in Fall 2009 (evaluating the 2008-2009 school year) Progress Reports for other school types, such as D75 and D79, are still under development 7 Note: The “09 Progress Reports” refer to the Progress Reports that evaluate the 2008-09 school year

8 An evolving process After the 2006-07 release, we gathered feedback on the Progress Reports from Principals, parents, CSA, UFT, Panel for Educational Policy, School Support Organizations, and many other parties Based on this feedback, we made several changes to the Progress Reports for 2007-08 We also held feedback sessions after the 2007-08 release; however, in an effort to provide stability to schools, only minor modifications were made to the Progress Reports for 2008-09 Changes for the 2009-2010 release will be announced later this Fall

Progress Report (page 1) Three ways of evaluating schools 1.Progress Report grade 2.Quality Review score 3.NYS Education, Federal Accountability Status 10

11 Progress Report Categories and Scoring Grade and Overall Score Out of 100 points (front page) School Environment 15 points Student Performance 25 points Student Progress 60 points Additional Credit Up to 15 points Learning Environment Survey results Attendance Student test scores in ELA and Math (median proficiency and % Level 3/4) Student progress on ELA and Math test scores (avg. change and % making progress) Graduation rates (4-year and 6-year) Exemplary progress on test scores with high need students Exemplary progress in credit gains with high need students Learning Environment Survey results Attendance Credit accumulation Regents completion and pass rates Elementary, Middle, and K-8 Schools High Schools

13 School Environment – Surveys + Attendance 1. Academic Expectations 2. Communication 3. Engagement 4. Safety and Respect School surveys tell us about the learning environment at each school. Survey results contribute 10 points to the Progress Report. Student attendance contributes another 5 points. School Community ParentsTeachers Students

14 EMS Student Performance and Progress 200 800 Scaled scores State ELA and Math tests are graded on a scale of 200 to 800 Performance levels The State decides what scaled scores correspond to each performance level (1, 2, 3, or 4) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Proficiency Ratings The City uses a more precise translation to distinguish among students at each performance level 4.00 – 4.50 3.00 – 3.99 2.00 – 2.99 1.00 – 1.99 Not meeting learning standards Partially meeting learning standards Meeting learning standards Meeting learning standards with distinction Proficiency The Progress Report rewards progress for students at all levels of performance Different cohorts of students Same cohorts of students

15 Imagine there are 20 3 rd Graders at Gotham Elementary School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 12 13 15 11 16 14 1918 17 20 Level 4 (Advanced) Level 3 (Proficient) Level 2 Level 1 1.00 2.99 3.00 2.00 1.99 4.50 4.00 3.99 20% (4 out of 20) of the 3rd Graders at Gotham ES are Proficient or Advanced If all we measured were Student Achievement, this would be the only measurement that would matter (and students 4-6 would be the main focus of attention)

16 These 20 students are now 4 th Graders at Gotham Elementary School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 12 13 15 11 16 14 1918 17 20 Level 4 (Advanced) Level 3 (Proficient) Level 2 Level 1 1.00 2.99 3.00 2.00 1.99 4.50 4.00 3.99 The following year, when these students are 4th Graders, two more students are Level 3 and now 30% of students are Proficient or Advanced

17 2.00 1.99 When these students are 5 th Graders, 30% of students are still scoring at Levels 3 & 4, but… Some of the students who scored at Levels 3 & 4 last year improve even more Some of the students who scored at Level 2 last year improve within Level 2 Some of the students who scored at Level 1 last year improve to Level 2 or within Level 1 Finally, these students become 5 th Graders at Gotham Elementary School 1.00 2.99 3.00 4.50 4.00 3.99 Level 4 (Advanced) Level 3 (Proficient) Level 2 Level 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 15 11 16 14 1918 17 20

18 HS Student Performance and Progress We measure graduation rates as well as the key performance indicators that track progress toward graduation Credits Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Graduation Advanced Regents Diploma with Honors Advanced Regents Diploma Regents Diploma Local Diploma GED Regents (completion and pass rates) English Math U.S. History Global Studies Science +

19 Closing the Achievement Gap We award schools “additional credit” for closing the achievement gap with high need populations Elementary/Middle/K-8 Schools earn additional credit through exemplary gains on State tests, with their high need populations High Schools earn additional credit through exemplary gains based on credit accumulation and/or Regents results with their high need populations 1.English Language Learners 2.Special Education Students 3.Hispanic Students who are in the Lowest Third Citywide 4.Black Students who are in the Lowest Third Citywide 5.Other Students who are in the Lowest Third Citywide 5 NCLB Populations The Progress Report rewards schools that close the achievement gap

21 Peer groups A peer group is a group of schools with similar student populations that serve approximately the same grade levels >For elementary and K-8 schools, peer groups are determined based on a comparison of student demographics across schools >For middle schools and high schools, peer groups are determined based on a comparison of student performance on ELA and Math test scores Peer groups consist of up to 40 schools serving approximately the same grade levels (i.e., elementary schools have only other elementary schools in their peer group; same goes for middle schools, K-8 schools, and high schools) Each school has a unique peer group (so each school can be in the middle of its peer group)

22 Comparing results across peer schools and the City Peer Horizon Scores (count 3X – 75%) Each school’s performance is compared to the performance of schools in its peer group The “Peer Horizon” is the range of outcomes achieved by the peer group (i.e., the top and the bottom score in the peer group for each measure) City Horizon Scores (count once – 25%) Each school’s performance is also compared to the performance of all schools Citywide The “City Horizon” is the range of outcomes achieved by all schools Citywide (i.e., the top and the bottom score in the City for each measure) The Peer Horizon scores count three times as much as the City Horizon scores because we want to emphasize the relative performance of schools with similar student populations.

23 Example: Attendance (Peer Horizon) School A has an attendance rate of 90% The attendance rates for schools in School A’s peer group ranged from 85% to 95% School A scored exactly in the middle between the lowest and highest score in its peer group Therefore, School A’s Peer Horizon score would be 50% 85% 95%90% School A’s attendance is 50% of the distance between the lowest and highest scores in its peer group 50% Lowest peer score* Highest peer score* Note: Minimums and maximums are established using +/- 2 standard deviations from the mean

24 School A has an attendance rate of 90% The attendance rates for all schools Citywide ranged from 80% to 95% School A scored exactly two thirds of the way from the lowest to the highest score among City schools Therefore, School A’s City Horizon score would be 67% 80% 95%90% School A’s attendance is 67% of the distance between the lowest and highest scores among City schools 67% Lowest City score* Highest City score* Note: Minimums and maximums are established using +/- 2 standard deviations from the mean Example: Attendance (City Horizon)

.75 x (.50) +.25 x (.67) =.54 25 Example: Attendance Metric (5 points) 90% 85%95% 50% Peer Min* Peer Max* Note: Minimums and maximums are established using +/- 2 standard deviations from the mean 80%95% 67% City Min* City Max* counts for 75%counts for 25% Weighted horizon score.54 x 5 points = 2.7 Total points earned for attendance Your School Relative to City Horizon:Your School Relative to Peer Horizon: Your School’s Score:

27 Change #1: Shared Accountability Policy To the greatest extent possible, students with disabilities should be served in the school they currently attend If it is determined that a student requires services that cannot be provided at that school and he/she needs to transfer to another DOE school to obtain those services, there will be shared accountability for that student Such students will be on the Progress Report of both the sending school and the receiving school until the student completes the next articulation grade (e.g. 5th, 8th or 12th grade) At both the sending and receiving school, the student will be given the same weight in accountability metric calculations as any other student in the school

28 Change #1: Shared Accountability Eligibility There is shared accountability for students who transfer schools because of the following changes in their educational services From general education to collaborative team teaching, special class, or a special education school (District 75) From related services only to collaborative team teaching, special class, or a special education school (District 75) From special education teacher support services to collaborative team teaching, special class, or a special education school (District 75) From collaborative team teaching to special class or a special education school (District 75) From special class to a special class with a more intensive student/adult ratio (e.g. 12:1 to 12:1:1) From special class to special education school (District 75)

29 Change #2: Student Attendance We wanted to ensure that no school’s attendance outcome was adversely affected by the H1N1 virus Therefore, the 2008-09 Progress Report will only measure attendance up through April 30 th, 2009

31 Calculations of Progress Report measures School Environment –Survey scores –Attendance Student Performance (ELA and Math) –Percentage of students who are level 3/4 –Median student proficiency Student Progress (ELA and Math) –Percentage of students making one year of progress –Percentage of students in the school’s lowest third making one year of progress –Average change in student proficiency for Level 1/2 students –Average change in student proficiency for Level 3/4 students

32 School Environment (15 points) Survey scores – 2.5 points each for four survey categories –Academic Expectations –Communication –Engagement –Safety and Respect Attendance – the total number of days attended by all students divided by the total number of days on the school’s register for all students (data can be reviewed using the RGAR screen in ATS); 5 points –Includes the attendance for all students on a school’s register at any point during the school year (September through June) –Excludes Pre-K

33 Student Performance (25 points) To be eligible for inclusion in these Student Performance measures, a student must: –Be on your school’s October 31, 2008 audited register* (we use the enrollment from the audited register because this is what is used to allocate funds to schools) –Have a State test score in 2009 Percentage of students who are Level 3/4: of the eligible students at your school, this measure calculates the percentage of students who scored a Level 3 or higher on the 2009 State test Median student proficiency: of the eligible students at your school, this measure calculates the median (middle) student proficiency on the 2009 State test. Note: proficiency is determined using proficiency ratings, not scale scores * A student can also be included in your performance measures based on the Shared Accountability Policy (see slide 27)

34 Student Progress (60 points) To be eligible for inclusion in the Student Progress measures, a student must: Be on your school’s October 31, 2007 OR October 31, 2008 audited registers* (or both) –If the student was on the audited register at your school in both years, that student’s progress counts fully toward your school –If the student was only on the audited register at your school for one year, that student’s progress is shared between your school and the other school the student attended. The weight assigned to your school for this student depends on whether your school is the sending school or receiving school and whether the subject is ELA or Math  ELA: 60% weight to sending school, 40% weight to receiving school  Math: 40% weight to sending school, 60% weight to receiving school Be in at least 4th grade in 2008-09. Progress cannot be determined until we have two years of test data for a student Have taken the State test one grade level higher in 2009 than the student did in 2008 (i.e., if the student took the 4th grade test in 2008, she must have taken the 5th grade test in 2009) * A student can also be included in your progress measures based on the Shared Accountability Policy (see slide 27)

35 Activity: Which students contribute to Progress category? What weight would their score be given? Student DBN from 10/31/07 audited register DBN from 10/31/08 audited register Test grade in 2008 Test grade in 2009 Include in progress measure (yes/no) Weight (100%/60%/ 40%/0%) A01M999 34Yes100% B01M999 45 C 55 D 35 E 01M00056 F01M11101M99934 Example of student attribution and weights for ELA Student Progress measures (from the perspective of school 01M999) Note: there are no weights for the lowest third measure, and students must be at your school on 10/31/08 to be included

36 Activity: Which students contribute to Progress category? What weight would their score be given? Student DBN from 10/31/07 audited register DBN from 10/31/08 audited register Test grade in 2008 Test grade in 2009 Include in progress measure (yes/no) Weight (100%/60%/ 40%/0%) A01M999 34Yes100% B01M999 45Yes100% C01M999 55No0% D01M999 35No0% E01M99901M00056Yes60% F01M11101M99934Yes40% Example of student attribution and weights for ELA Student Progress measures (from the perspective of school 01M999) Note: there are no weights for the lowest third measure, and students must be at your school on 10/31/08 to be included

37 Activity: Contribution to Progress Category, Part 2 Student DBN from 10/31/07 audited register DBN from 10/31/08 audited register Test grade in 2008 Test grade in 2009 Include in progress measure (yes/no) Weight (100%/60%/ 40%/0%) A01M999 34Yes100% B01M999 45 C 55 D 35 E 01M00056 F01M11101M99934 Example of student attribution and weights for Math Student Progress measures (from the perspective of school 01M999) Note: there are no weights for the lowest third measure, and students must be at your school on 10/31/08 to be included

38 Activity: Contribution to Progress Category, Part 2 Student DBN from 10/31/07 audited register DBN from 10/31/08 audited register Test grade in 2008 Test grade in 2009 Include in progress measure (yes/no) Weight (100%/60%/ 40%/0%) A01M999 34Yes100% B01M999 45Yes100% C01M999 55No0% D01M999 35No0% E01M99901M00056Yes40% F01M11101M99934Yes60% Example of student attribution and weights for Math Student Progress measures (from the perspective of school 01M999) Note: there are no weights for the lowest third measure, and students must be at your school on 10/31/08 to be included

39 Student Progress: ‘At Least One Year of Progress’ measure Percentage of students making at least one year of progress: of the eligible students at your school, this measure calculates the percentage of students at your school who demonstrate an equal or higher proficiency (as measured by a student’s proficiency ratings) on the 2009 State test than on the 2008 State test. Some additional rules: –If a student is a Level 4 in ELA in both 2008 and 2009, that student automatically qualifies as making one year of progress –If a student is not at least a Level 2 in ELA in 2009, that student does not qualify as making one year of progress –If a student was designated Special Education in 2008, that student receives a +0.2 proficiency rating adjustment for 2009 before the determination of progress is made Percentage of students in the school’s lowest third making at least one year of progress: this measure is calculated in the same way as the above measure, except that the only students considered are those in the lowest third of the school as determined by grade level based on the 2008 test. A student must be on your school’s audited register on October 31, 2008 to be included in this measure

40 Student Progress: ‘Average Change in Student Proficiency’ measure Average change in student proficiency for Level 1/Level 2 students: this measure includes only students who were at Level 1 or 2 based on their 2008 test score. This measure looks at the change in a student’s proficiency rating from 2008 to 2009 and averages that change across all the students at your school who are included in this metric (note: if a student was designated Special Education in 2008, that student receives a +0.2 proficiency rating adjustment for 2009 before that student’s change in proficiency is evaluated) Average change in student proficiency for Level 3/Level 4 students: this measure includes only students who were at Level 3 or 4 based on their 2008 test score

41 Activity: Determining students under “one year of progress” and “average change in proficiency” metrics Student 2008 Proficiency Rating 2009 Proficiency Rating Treatment in ‘One Year of Progress’ (yes/no) Treatment in ‘Average Change in Proficiency for Level 1/2 Students’ Treatment in ‘Average Change in Proficiency for Level 3/4 Students’ A3.63.8YesNA+0.2 B3.6 C 3.4 D4.44.3 E2.42.7 F1.82.3 G1.41.8 H2.83.2 Example of progress determination for sample students

42 Activity: Determining students under “one year of progress” and “average change in proficiency” metrics Student 2008 Proficiency Rating 2009 Proficiency Rating Treatment in ‘One Year of Progress’ (yes/no) Treatment in ‘Average Change in Proficiency for Level 1/2 Students’ Treatment in ‘Average Change in Proficiency for Level 3/4 Students’ A3.63.8YesNA+0.2 B3.6 YesNA0.0 C3.63.4NoNA-0.2 D4.44.3YesNA-0.1 E2.42.7Yes+0.3NA F1.82.3Yes+0.5NA G1.41.8No+0.4NA H2.83.2Yes+0.4NA Example of progress determination for sample students

43 Student Progress: Point Allocation Progress MeasuresWeight* ELA (30 points total) % of students making one year of progress 7.5 % of students in the lowest third of the school making one year of progress 7.5 Average change in proficiency for Level 1/2 students 15 (based on the school’s % of students in each group) Average change in proficiency for Level 3/4 students Math (30 points total) % of students making one year of progress 7.5 % of students in the lowest third of the school making one year of progress 7.5 Average change in proficiency for Level 1/2 students 15 (based on the school’s % of students in each group) Average change in proficiency for Level 3/4 students Student Progress is 60 points (out of 100) which are allocated to the progress measures as defined in the table below *Note: if a school has fewer than 15 students who take the ELA or Math State tests, the points for that subject would be re-allocated to the other subject

44 Example: Student Progress Point Allocation The average change in proficiency measures for ELA are worth a total of 15 points School A has 600 students at its school who are eligible for these measures These students have the following starting proficiency levels in ELA—i.e., ELA student proficiency in 2008 –200 students in Levels 1 and 2 in ELA (33%) –400 students in Levels 3 and 4 in ELA (67%) The progress measures are then weighted proportionally –Average change in proficiency for Level 1/2 students in ELA (33% * 15 = 5 points) –Average change in proficiency for Level 3/4 students in ELA (67% * 15 = 10 points) The same process would be repeated for allocating the 15 points for Math

45 The point of all this? To expand the sphere of success at every school

46 Contact us PR_Support at (212) 374-6646 or PR_Support@schools.nyc.gov Phil Vaccaro, Executive Director, School Performance, DAAR pvaccaro2@schools.nyc.gov pvaccaro2@schools.nyc.gov Brook Fonzone, Implementation Manager, School Performance, DAAR kgreen62@schools.nyc.gov kgreen62@schools.nyc.gov

48 A Progress Report Data File is sent to each school for data verification and potential inquiry work

49 A unique Progress Report Modeler is built for each school, allowing schools to simulate their scores

ARIS also provides schools with Progress Report information 50

Trainings are held during the summer and early fall 51

The Progress Report website contains several public resources 52 http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/SchoolReports/ProgressReports/default.htm 1. Detailed result spreadsheets 2. Translation Guides3. Educator Guides

Progress Reports for New York City Public Schools Elementary/Middle/K-8 Updated: September 2, 2009.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Progress Reports for New York City Public Schools Elementary/Middle/K-8 Updated: September 2, 2009."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Progress Reports for New York City Public Schools Elementary/Middle/K-8 Updated: September 2, 2009.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Progress Reports for New York City Public Schools Elementary/Middle/K-8 Updated: September 2, 2009."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback