1. 2011 Top to Bottom and Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools List Overview Briefing: MDE August 23, 2011

2. Top to Bottom (TTB) versus Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA) Top to Bottom Ranking: Ranking of all schools in the state, based on proficiency, improvement and achievement gap in all five tested subjects. PLA List: List of the schools identified as Persistently Low Achieving Schools (PLA schools) following a set of federal guidelines

3. 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

4. Why are we publishing both? TTB Ranking ▫Includes ALL schools ▫Represents MDE’s preferred methodology, developed in collaboration with stakeholders  Three rounds of public hearings  Three State Board of Education presentations  Referent group feedback  Multiple presentations to stakeholder groups (30+ presentations) ▫Provides increased light of day for a larger number of low-performing schools ▫Changes made to reflect feedback and recommendations from stakeholders

5. Why are we publishing both? PLA list ▫State statute ties our identification of PLA schools to the approved business rules for the School Improvement Grant program. ▫Attempted to obtain waiver from USED; waiver denied. ▫Would not approve new rules because of USED timelines ▫Must use currently approved federal rules for identification of PLA schools

6. Information to be published on 8.26.11 Top to Bottom Ranking PLA List ListYes Ranking (number)YesNo Full data fileYesUpon request from PLA schools “Brackets” displayYesUpon request from PLA schools Data dictionaryYesUpon request Business rulesYes FAQYes Explanatory PowerpointYes

7. Z-Score “Cheat Sheet” Z-scores are a standardized measure that helps you compare individual student (or school) data to state average data. 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

8. 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 0 1 23 -2-3 State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average

9. Z-Score Examples Your school has a z-score of 1.5. You are better than the state average. 0 1 23 -2-3 State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5

10. Z-Score Examples Your school has a z-score of.2. You are better than the state average, but not by a lot. 0 1 23 -2-3 State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5 Z-score of 0.2

11. Z-Score Examples Your school has a z-score of -2.0. You are very far below state average. 0 1 23 -2-3 State Average Better than state average….…Worse than state average Z-score of 1.5 Z-score of 0.2Z-score of -2.0

12. TTB Overview Prezi presentation Will contain voiceover Interactive Overview of TTB Ranking

13. Using the “Brackets” Tool Created a tool to help schools walk through their own data. Will post this on the website. Will send this out to all of you after this presentation so you can try it out ahead of time. TTB Brackets Display

15. Number of Schools Identified ListNumber of Schools 2011 PLA List98 2010 PLA list92 Lowest 5% of Top to Bottom 151

16. Comparison of 2010 and 2011 PLA Lists ComparisonNumber On both PLA 2010 and PLA 2011 58 New to 2011 PLA list40 (4 of these not ranked in 2010) On 2010 list; OFF 2011 list34

17. 2011 PLA List: Districts District InformationNumber Districts represented on 2011 PLA list 53 Districts represented on 2010 PLA list 48 Number of Detroit schools (2011) 38 Number of Detroit schools (2010) 40

18. Comparison: PLA and Lowest 5% ComparisonNumber PLA 2011 AND Lowest 5% TTB 48 Schools on 2011 PLA list who would NOT be identified in Lowest 5% 50 Schools in lowest 5% who are not in 2011 PLA list 103

19. On 2011 PLA; Not on Lowest 5% Highest rank of these schools: 64 th percentile (University High) Lowest rank: 5 th percentile

20. Understanding University High 2011 PLALowest 5% Subjects includedReading and math onlyReading, math, science, social studies, writing High performance subjects Math Social studies Graduation rate Lower performing subjects ReadingScience Social Studies Writing Achievement gaps--Small gaps; helps ranking Tiers?Tier 2 (high schools only, Title I eligible, fail AYP) No tiers CalculationsPercent proficient and improvement disadvantages UP Z-scores help UP, as do achievement gaps

22. Why are some schools on the PLA list but ranked higher than 5 th percentile in TTB? Differences in ranking methodology; most significantly: ▫Only math and reading in PLA rules; all five subjects in TTB. ▫Graduation rate in TTB ranking Tiers used in PLA ▫Tier 1: Receiving Title I, failing AYP ▫Tier 2: Eligible for Title I, secondary school

23. Are you comparing “apples to apples?” Improvements in TTB to ensure we are comparing students and schools more equally ▫Translating student scale scores into z-scores instead of into performance levels; compares students to like students. ▫Z-scores on school measures compare elementary/middle schools to other elementary/middle schools, and high schools to other high schools.

24. High-performing schools are disadvantaged by the ranking Included “ceiling effects” provisions ▫Schools with over 90% of students proficient are ranked on achievement and gap only ▫Students who are previously proficient who maintain are counted as improving ▫Graduation rate over 90%; do not look at improvement, only rate.

25. The inclusion of achievement gap hurts high performing schools High performing schools who do not ensure all students are high-performing will have their ranking impacted Only ¼ of final ranking Don’t want to decrease proficiency to improve gap because achievement is ½ of ranking Need to get serious about making sure all students are learning

26. This system is too complex and hard to understand Capturing school performance requires a nuanced system. Complexity does not decrease transparency ▫Transparency does not equal simplicity ▫Transparency does equal the ability for external verification ▫Transparency includes providing details on the system’s complexity Complexity of the model has been added at the request of the field and experts to more appropriately capture school performance MDE will support the transparency through professional learning, technical assistance, and open access to data

27. What are we missing for the release plans? What additional information would you like to have available for internal usage?