1 / 49

Accountability Programs

MERA November 26, 2013. Accountability Programs. Priority School Study Scorecard Analyses House Bill 5112 Overview. Outline. Priority Schools have existed for four years. They experience challenges in: Student achievement, gap closure, growth and graduation rates

aqua
Télécharger la présentation

Accountability Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MERA November 26, 2013 Accountability Programs

  2. Priority School Study Scorecard Analyses House Bill 5112 Overview Outline

  3. 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 Priority Schools Background

  4. 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) Methodology Overview

  5. 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 Priority School Identification

  6. 6

  7. 7

  8. 8

  9. 9

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

  11. 35% proficiency rate - 88 proficient - 158 not proficient 1.5% annual increase in proficiency 11

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

  13. 13

  14. 14

  15. Same Priority School as Before 15

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

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

  18. 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. 19

  20. 20

  21. Same Priority School as Before 21

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

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

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

  25. Overall Colors Building-Level: • Green = 93 • Lime = 0 • Yellow = 2598 • Orange = 184 • Red = 481 2012-13 School Scorecard Results

  26. 2012-13 subgroup results - Math

  27. 2012-13 subgroup results - Reading

  28. 2012-13 subgroup results - Science

  29. 2012-13 subgroup results – Social Studies

  30. 2012-13 subgroup results - Writing

  31. 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 A Brief Analysis

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

  33. 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) Small Schools Scale Change Scenario

  34. 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) Small Schools Alternate Scale And No Audits

  35. Schools with 10 possible points or less, no audits, Safe Harbor threshold = 65th 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) Small Schools Alternate Scale, No Audits, Modified Safe Harbor

  36. Add an indicator for new schools/schools without proficiency points meeting non-proficiency areas (participation, compliance, etc.) • 49 schools in 2012-13 would have met this criteria New Schools Possible Changes for 2013-14

  37. 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 2012-13: • 168 green (+75) • 143 lime (+143) • 2380 yellow (-218) • 184 orange • 481 red Proficiency Cell Audit Scenarios

  38. 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 2012-13: • 93 green • 86 lime (+86) • 2512 yellow (-86) • 184 orange • 481 red Proficiency Cell Audit Scenarios

  39. 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 2012-13: • 229 green (+136) • 1264 lime (+1264) • 1198 yellow (-1400) • 184 orange • 481 red Proficiency Cell Audit Scenarios

  40. Modify Safe Harbor so the threshold is the 65th percentile instead of the 80th • 2012-13 results affect orange, yellow, and red counts: • 93 green • 0 lime • 2806 yellow (+208) • 96 orange (-88) • 361 red (-120) Safe Harbor Scenarios

  41. 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 • 2012-13 Results: • 134 green (+41) • 3 lime (+3) • 2569 yellow (-29) • 172 orange (-12) • 478 red (-3) Low FAY Possible Change for 2013-14

  42. Do not display all students cells for third, fourth, or fifth content area - only display two content areas with most FAY students • 2012-13 Results: • 93 green • 0 lime • 2758 yellow (+160) • 111 orange (-73) • 394 red (-87) Low FAY Possible Changes for 2013-14 Alternate 2

  43. Need Stakeholder input – internal and external • Watch for MDE survey asking for feedback • Finalize recommendations • Submit amendments with ESEA Flexibility extension in February 2014 Change Process

  44. Starting in 2016 - 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 Proposed Legislation

  45. 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 Proposed Legislation cont’d

  46. 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 Proposed Reporting Requirements

  47. 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 Other Items of Note in Proposal

  48. 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 Other Items of Note in Proposal cont’d

  49. 877-560-8378 mde-accountability@michigan.gov Contact

More Related