1 / 76

2007 Accountability Annual Meeting

2007 Accountability Annual Meeting. Evaluation and Reporting Office Florida Department of Education September 6, 2007. Agenda. Welcome and Introductions Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting 2006-07 School Grade Changes, Results, and Outlook

betty_james
Télécharger la présentation

2007 Accountability Annual Meeting

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. 2007 Accountability Annual Meeting Evaluation and Reporting Office Florida Department of Education September 6, 2007

  2. Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • 2006-07 School Grade Changes, Results, and Outlook • 2006-07 AYP Results, Benchmarks, and Safe Harbor • Impact of Growth Model • AYP in 2007 and Beyond • SV23 Matching/Updating Process • New Website • Existing Website Improvements • School Grade Issues for 2007, Going Forward • School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools Rule Development Workshop

  3. Evaluation and Reporting Staff Juan C. Copa, Bureau Chief • Accountability Programs – Ed Croft, Director • State Accountability Programs – Tracy Selman, Program Director • Analysts – Sue Klos; Gambhir Shrestha, Ph. D. • Federal Accountability Programs – Reneé Bruno, Program Director • Analyst – Kiersten Farmer • Support Staff – Toye Coxe, Staff Assistant • Phone – 850-245-0411 • Email – evalnrpt@fldoe.org

  4. Evaluation and Reporting Staff (cont.) • Research and Evaluation – Marcus Mauldin, Ph. D, Director • Analysts – Martha Miller, Ph. D; Jennifer Blalock • Support Staff – Tria Parsons, Administrative Secretary • Phone – 850-245-0429 • Email – evalnrpt@fldoe.org

  5. School Grades and AYP • School Grades Under A+ Plan • School grades were first issued in 1999. • Since 1999 there have been many changes to the calculation of school grades. • We continue to look for ways to improve the calculation. • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • The federal accountability indicator in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. • AYP has been calculated since 2003. • The growth model was approved in 2007.

  6. Schools in Need of Improvement • Required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). • Evaluation and Reporting works with the Division of K-12 Public Schools to determine Schools in Need of Improvement. • Only Title I schools subject to sanctions.

  7. Alternative Schools Accountability • Part of the A++ Legislation passed during the 2006 Legislative Session (s. 1008.341, F.S.). • Provides Alternative Schools the option of receiving a traditional school grade or a school improvement rating. • If an alternative school chooses to receive a school improvement rating, the performance of the alternative school’s students will be included in the calculation of the rating and the school grade of the students’ home school.

  8. School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools – 2006 and 2007 • Alternative Schools were identified based on their Primary Service Type as reported on the Master School Identification (MSID) file and district input and adjustment. • Those schools were given the option of receiving a “Points Only” designation or a school grade. • “Points Only” refers to the calculation of a school grade without the assignment of a letter grade.

  9. School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools – Activities (2006-07) • Collected information to identify students who are statutorily to be excluded from the calculation • Collected information on a student’s zoned school and district (element description adjusted for 2007-2008 data collection) • Held rule development workshops on March 20 and August 30 in Tallahassee • Workshop Scheduled for this afternoon (3:30-5:30pm)

  10. School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools – Timeline • April 2007 – Provided districts the opportunity to verify the list of alternative schools in their district (as identified in 2005-06) • May 2007 – Provided alternative schools the option of a “Points Only” designation or a school grade • August - September 2007 – Conduct rule development workshops on the calculation of school improvement ratings • October/November 2007 – Final passage of rule before State Board of Education • June 2008 – Release school grades, school improvement ratings for alternative schools, and AYP

  11. Summary of Issues Raised at Workshops • Major concerns raised • Potential exclusion of choice option schools from the definition of “alternative school” • Some charters serve at-risk populations and have students referred to the school • Crediting of students back to the “home school” • What limitations? Only referred students? Can middle school student performance be credited back to an elementary school? • Lack of a full-year enrollment requirement for the school improvement rating • Statute specifies Survey 2 and/or Survey 3

  12. Calculation Issues to be Determined • Crediting of students back to the “home school” • Limit to only those students referred? • Limit to only those students whose “home schools” reflect the same grade configuration as the alternative school? • Magnitude of Learning Gains needed to define the categories of improvement – Improving, Maintaining, Declining • Improvement of at least 1%, 5%, 10% over the previous performance? • Examine other performance measures (e.g., QA for DJJ schools) and determine their compliance with the statutory requirements. • Cell Size • Unlike school grades, statute outlines that students enrolled in either membership count (fall and/or spring) are to be included. • At least 30 students in either count? More than 10 students?

  13. Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten (VPK) Accountability • Evaluation and Reporting worked with the Department’s Office of Early Learning to calculate Readiness Rates for VPK Providers • Readiness Rates can be found at https://vpk.fldoe.org/

  14. Sample School Information Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten (VPK) Accountability

  15. Merit Award Program (MAP) • Evaluation and Reporting developed Value Tables that districts may use to measure improved student achievement for teachers in performance pay calculations. • Value Tables were provided to measure performance in Reading and Math in Grades 4-10. • FCAT • NRT (Grades 4 and 5) • A total of 19 Value Tables were made available to districts (grade-level and school type-level). • Value Table Points were also attached to student records and made available through the INDV file.

  16. Supplemental Educational Services Accountability • Evaluation and Reporting is working with the Division of K-12 Public Schools to develop an accountability calculation for effectiveness of SES providers.

  17. Research, Analysis and Evaluation • Research, Analysis, and Evaluation. • Evaluation and Reporting is tasked with a number of analyses, focusing mainly on examining the impact of programs and policies on student achievement.

  18. SAT/ACT/PSAT/Plan, Teacher Projections and Projected High School Graduates • SAT/ ACT/ PSAT/ PLAN and Teacher Projections • Multiple results and trends are published on our website. • Teacher Projections • Multiple trends and statistical reports pertaining to teacher data are on our website. • New hires • Critical teacher shortage areas • Florida teacher retention • Supply of New Teachers • Projected High School Graduates

  19. 2006-07 School Grade Changes (Recap) • Writing • Remained at 3.5, no increase to 4.0. • Essay only. • Science • Added as a seventh component. • Math, Lowest 25 Percent • Added as an eighth component. • Revised School Grading Scale • 800 point scale changed from current 600 point scale. • Retakes of Grade 11 and 12 • High Schools earned ten bonus points when half of all 11th and 12th graders retaking the FCAT met the graduation requirements in reading and math.

  20. History of School Grades

  21. Red bars indicate years when accountability requirements were increased. The count of "F" schools drops the year after each major increase in requirements. 140 Lowest Performing Schools 120 100 83 78 78 80 64 49 60 35 40 21 20 4 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Raising Standards and Higher Accountability Lead to Increased Student Performance

  22. School Grades 2007: What is Measured • Additional requirements applied AFTER a school’s points are calculated: • Adequate Progress for Lowest 25%—required to earn grade based on calculated points. If a school does not meet this requirement, the school’s grade is lowered one letter grade. • Participation Requirement (Percent Tested)—required to earn grade based on calculated points. Schools must test at least 95% of their students to earn an “A”, at least 90% to earn any other grade.

  23. Performance Components 2007

  24. Students Included in Performance Components Students who are enrolled all year (i.e., enrolled in the fall and spring terms through the testing period) and who are standard curriculum students* * Including speech-impaired, gifted, hospital homebound, and English language learners in an ESOL program two or more years.

  25. Performance Component Criterion: Are students achieving at or above grade level?

  26. Meeting Performance Criteria: Grade level performance for math, reading, and science = FCAT achievement level 3; Grade level performance for writing (essay) = FCAT score of 3.5; One point is awarded for each percent of students scoring at or above grade level.

  27. Performance Components Points 2007 Schools receive one point for each percent of students meeting the performance criteria.

  28. Overall Learning Gains Components

  29. Students Included in Learning Gains Components All students (including students with disabilities and ELL students) who are enrolled all year (i.e., enrolled in the fall and spring terms through the testing period) and who have both current and prior-year FCAT scores.

  30. Learning Gains Criterion: Are students making at least one year’s worth of progress in a year’s time? Schools receive one point for each percent of students making learning gains.

  31. Meeting the Learning Gains Criterion: a. Improving by one or more FCAT achievement levels – e.g., from 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5; b. Maintaining FCAT achievement levels 3, 4, or 5; c. For non-retained students at achievement levels 1 or 2: showing more than one year’s growth on FCAT developmental scale scores (DSS).

  32. Students Included in Learning Gains for the Lowest Performing 25% Of students included in the learning gains calculation, the count of the lowest 25% is based on prior-year FCAT developmental scale scores.

  33. Learning Gains for the Lowest 25%: Who Is Included The count of the lowest performing 25% is restricted to students at FCAT achievement levels 1, 2, and 3.

  34. 2007 School Grades Points Components, Total PLUS 11th and 12th grade retakes for possible bonus points (10)

  35. Additional Criteria • Percent Tested (Participation Requirement) • Adequate Progress of Lowest Performing Students

  36. Percent Tested • What percentage of eligible students who should have been tested on the FCAT were actually tested? • Grade A schools - 95% or more tested • All other grades - at least 90% tested • Grade I schools - fewer than 90% tested

  37. Adequate Progress for the Lowest 25 % of Students • Criterion: At least half (50% or more) of the lowest performing students must show learning gains in reading and math. • Penalty for missing adequate progress = drop one letter grade.

  38. Impact of Adequate Progress Requirement • In 2007, a total of 136 Schools dropped a letter grade due to the Adequate Progress requirement: • 66 schools dropped from an “A” to a “B” • 22 schools dropped from a “B” to a “C” • 48 schools dropped from a “C” to a “D” • Impact by School Type • 28 elementary schools dropped a letter grade (2% of all elementary schools) • 2 middle schools dropped a letter grade (less than 1% of all middle schools) • 101 High schools dropped a letter grade (26% of all high schools • 5 combination schools dropped a letter grade

  39. School Grades - 1999-2007

  40. A/B Schools Compared to D/F Schools - 1999-2007

  41. School Grades by Type 2007

  42. School Grades: 2007 Compared to 2006

  43. School Recognition: Schools Maintaining an “A” or Improving Grades

  44. 2007 Grades for 2006 “F” Schools

  45. 22 High Schools That Earned the Bonus Points Improved a Letter Grade

  46. 2007-08 Outlook • Adequate Progress of Low 25% • Writing Plus • Science and Writing (Use of District Averages in the Calculations) • School Grading Scale • Rating System for Alternative Schools

  47. No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress 2007 vs. 2006

  48. 2007 School Grades Compared to AYP

  49. Subgroups Classifications AYP calculations are based upon nine subgroups. 1. Total School 2. White (W) 3. Black (B) 4. Hispanic (H) 5. Asian (A) 6. Native American (I) 7. Economically Disadvantaged Students 8. English Language Learners (ELL) 9. Students With Disabilities (SWD)

  50. 39 Components of AYP • Participation Rate in Reading for the 9 subgroups • Participation Rate in Math for the 9 subgroups • Reading Proficiency of 9 subgroups • Math Proficiency of 9 subgroups • Change in School Writing Proficiency • Change in School Graduation Rate • School Grade

More Related