1 / 46

Accountability Programs

SLIP January 24, 2014. Accountability Programs. Scorecard Summary Scorecard Change Analysis for 2012-13 SY House Bill 5112 Overview Shared Educational Entities Overview Current Status of Educator Evaluations. Outline. Brief scorecard summary. Overall Color Counts for Building-Level:

benita
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. SLIP January 24, 2014 Accountability Programs

  2. Scorecard Summary Scorecard Change Analysis for 2012-13 SY House Bill 5112 Overview Shared Educational Entities Overview Current Status of Educator Evaluations Outline

  3. Brief scorecard summary

  4. Overall Color Counts for Building-Level: Green = 93 Lime = 0 Yellow = 2598 Orange = 184 Red = 481 2012-13 School Scorecard Results

  5. 2012-13 subgroup results Analysis - Math

  6. 2012-13 subgroup results Analysis - Reading

  7. 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 fewer possible points: • 41 green • 0 lime • 36 yellow • 20 orange • 65 red A Brief Analysis

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

  9. Scorecard change scenarios

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. Need Stakeholder input – internal and external • If you have feedback, please email: mde-accountability@michigan.gov • Finalize recommendations • Submit as amendments with ESEA Flexibility extension in February 2014 Change Process

  21. HB 5112 Proposed letter grade system

  22. 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 - House Bill 5112

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. Current Options for Alternate Accountability Systems Shared educational entities

  28. Policy created to attribute student scores to district-level accountability, rather than to a school building or program. Created to help “good deed” schools and programs have some flexibility on how school accountability is distributed. What is the “Sending Scores Back” policy?

  29. Alternative Education Early/Middle College Gifted & Talented Special Education “Good deed” school & program types

  30. MDE and CEPI created two vehicles to accommodate flexible accountability for these “good deed” schools and programs. 1) SEEs: “Shared Educational Entities” 2) S2E2s: “Shared Specialized Educational Entities” Sending Scores Back The solution:

  31. “Shared Educational Entity” A separate school that “stands alone” and does not serve a mix of SEE and non-SEE students SEE students enroll in the SEE building, using the SEE building code SEE students test at the SEE building SEE building is MME test center if 11th/12th graders are served that test with this assessment 1) SEEs A SEE is a School!

  32. Sparty’s Special Education Center Bdlg. in Sparty’s School District SEEs: Conceptually East Lansing School District Special Ed. Students Lansing School District Special Ed. Students Sparty’s School District Special Ed. Students A SEE is a School!

  33. SEEs: Conceptually School C “Middle School” School A ***Entire population of SEE building is students with disabilities*** School B “Elem. School” School D “High School” School A serves only SEE students. A SEE is a School!

  34. Only for those entities who are in a relationship to deliver educational services to students in classrooms spread among multiple locations • One code per ISD or consortium; can use class/group codes or research codes to differentiate students by program for assessment results • Will be used in a special way during MSDS reporting 2) S2E2: A Special Kind of SEE S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program!

  35. “Specialized Shared Educational Entity” An ISD or consortium program structure where students are served in multiple classrooms among member districts S2E2 students enroll in the school building in which they are educated S2E2 students test in the school building in which they are educated Buildings that house S2E2 classrooms mustbe in a MME test center approved school if 11th/12th graders are served What is a S2E2? S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program!

  36. Mild CI Classroom in EastLansing School District’s High School S2E2s: Conceptually “Go Green, Go White S2E2” a cooperative programof Sparticus IntermediateSchool District Lansing DistrictSWD Students S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program! Severe CI Classroom in Waverly School District’s Middle School East Lansing District SWD Students SWD Classroom in Sparty’s School District Elementary School Okemos District SWD Students

  37. S2E2s: Conceptually School A School C Mild CI Classroom Mild CI Classroom School B Severe CI Classroom School D Mild CI Classroom Classrooms exist in multiple buildings/districts. S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program!

  38. S2E2s: Conceptually School A School C Mild CI Classroom Mild CI Classroom School B Mild CI Classroom School D Mild CI Classroom These classrooms makeup the S2E2! S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program!

  39. Sending Scores Back Student Assessment Proficiency Rates and Assessment Participation Rates are Sent Back to the Resident District. Resident District Student Scores Student Scores Resident District & Student Scores Student Scores SEE S2E2 Student Scores Student Scores Resident District Resident District

  40. SEE and S2E2 students are accountable at their RESIDENT DISTRICTS • SEE & S2E2 students are pulled out of their respective buildings and sent back to the district-level Accountability Scorecard for where they are a resident of • SEE & S2E2 students contribute on scorecards for their RESIDENT DISTRICT Sending Scores Back Scorecard for: Capitol Area School District

  41. Current Status Educator Evaluations

  42. Educator Evaluations for the 2013-14 SY must be based on 25% student achievement and growth measures. 40% of evaluation for 14-15 and 50% for 15-16. Currently passed eval law not specific about which assessments can be used for data component (state, local, vendor, etc.). Not specific about decisions for educators of special education students, simply stated that MCEE tools must allow for eval of SE educators. Current status

  43. Bipartisan proposed changes to current Eval Law 380.1249 of Revised School Code: • HB 5223 • http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HB-5223 • HB 5224 • http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HB-5224 • HB 5223/5224 House Fiscal Agency specific analysis available on either above link. Proposed changes to current Eval Law

  44. Effectiveness labels remain the same. Data component of eval remains 25% for 13-14, 14-15, 15-16, and 16-17 school years. Teachers evaluated 2x/year except where 2 consecutive effective or highly effective evals. School-level growth not more than 10% eval. Local/vendor developed assessments for content areas not provided by the state where state standard exists. Proposed changes to current Eval Law

  45. Four teacher observation tools selected. Three administrator tools selected. Teacher and administrator tools consistent with MCEE recommendations. Local tool available as an option if tools meets specific criteria identified in new bills. MCEE recommendations report can be found at: http://www.mcede.org/. Proposed changes to current edeval law

  46. 877-560-8378 mde-accountability@michigan.gov Contact INFORMATION

More Related