Transcript On Target - Missouri School Boards Association

1
THE MISSOURI SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
September 28, 2012
Missouri Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education
Overview
2

MSIP 5 Resource and Process Standards

MSIP 5 Performance Standards and Scoring Guide

Question and Answer
Why we’re here!
3
MSIP 5 Policy Goals

Promote Continuous Improvement and Innovation

Establish the State's Expectations

Distinguish Performance of Schools and Districts

Empower All Stakeholders
School District Classification
Third Cycle
Performance
+
Resource
+
Process (review)
=
Accreditation
Fourth Cycle
Annual Performance Report
↓
Determines Review Types
↓
Review (resource and process)
↓
School Improvement Team
↓
Performance
=
Accreditation
School District Classification
Fourth Cycle
MSIP 5
Annual Performance Report
↓
Determines Review Type
↓
Review (resource and process)
↓
School Improvement Team
↓
Performance
=
Accreditation
Annual Performance Report
↓
Determines Interventions and
Supports
↓
Review (resource and process)
↓
School Improvement Team
↓
Performance
=
Accreditation
Resource Standards

Elementary

High School

Class Size and Assigned Enrollments

Guidance and Counseling Staff

Certification and Licensure

Principals/Building Administrators
Process Standards

Teacher/Leader Standards (2)

Instruction Standards (11)

Governance Standards (11)
8
Performance Standards

Academic Achievement

Subgroup Achievement

College and Career Readiness (K-12 only)
High School Readiness (K-8 only)

Attendance Rate


Graduation Rate (K-12 only)
Percent Districts Meeting
4th Cycle Standard
2012 Fourth Cycle Results
4th
Cycle Standard
Percent Districts
meeting standard
State Performance
Percent Students
scoring proficient/advanced
3-5 Math
93%
52.9% (MET)
3-5 Communication
Arts
89%
50.5% (MET)
6-8 Math
96%
56.4% (MET)
6-8 Communication
Arts
96%
53.5% (MET)
Algebra I
89%
56.6% (MET)
English II
84%
73.0% (MET)
ACT
81%
34.8% (MET) scoring at or above nat’l avg
MSIP 5 Targets




Exceeds – represents a level of performance approximately equivalent to the
projected 2020 performance of the top 10 states on the corresponding NAEP
exam OR, in subjects for which state-by-state NAEP data are unavailable, an
equally rigorous target.
On Target —represents a level of performance about equal to 75%
proficient by year 2020. Current performance is compared to this
target, then a linear trajectory is created that requires equal annual
progress increments to reach the 2020 target.
Approaching—represents a level of performance about equal to
100% Basic if each
Floor—represents a level of performance less than 100% Basic
Transition
4th Cycle
MSIP 5
Cyclical
Annual
Number of Mets/Not Mets
Percent of Points Earned
5 years of data
3 years of data
Grade Span ELA and Math
Subject Area ELA, Math, SS, Science
District/LEA Level APR
District/LEA and Building Level APR
Targets based on state norm
Targets based on Top 10 by 20 goal
Status + Progress
Status + Progress OR Growth (where app)
ACT
ACT or SAT or COMPASS or ASVAB
Enrollment in Advanced Courses
Successful Completion of Advanced Courses
K-8 GPA standard
K-8 High School Readiness Standard
Aggregate Attendance
Attendance of Individual Child
Cohort Graduation Rate
5-year Adjusted Cohort Rate
Focus on Continuous Improvement
Focus on Continuous Improvement
Academic Achievement
14

Multiple Measures
Status
Progress
Growth
Exceeds Target
16
12
12
On Target
12
6
6
Approaching Target
9
3
3
Below Target
0
0
0

Status + Progress OR Growth (where applicable)

Apply Full Academic Year (FAY) for accountability; report all students

Eliminate “grade span” and report at school/LEA configuration
Academic Achievement - Status



Set Standardized Status Expectation for all districts
Use 3 most recent years to calculate status
Use an Index to calculate and add percent
proficient for reporting
Achievement Level
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Point Value
1
3
4
5
Academic Achievement - Status
16
Achievement Level Index Point Value
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
1
3
4
5
# of Students
x
x
x
x
25
35
40
30
Index points
=
=
=
=
Total Index Points
Total Index Points
Total # of Students
/
MPI
=
*100
Academic Achievement - Status
17
Achievement Level Index Point Value
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
1
3
4
5
# of Students
x
x
x
x
25
35
40
30
Index points
=
=
=
=
25
105
160
150
Total Index Points
440
Total Index Points
440
Total # of Students
/
130
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
336.0
341.7
338.5
MPI
=
3.385
3 year
total
=
1,016.2
*100
3 year
average
/3
338.7
338.5
MAP Performance Index
Prof
Rate
Prof
Rate
MPI
Prof
Rate
MPI
MPI
B Basic 25%
25
B Basic 0%
0
B Basic 13%
13
Basic
25%
75
Basic
50%
150
Basic
12%
36
Prof
25%
100
Prof
25%
100
Prof
50%
200
Adv
25%
125
Adv
25%
125
Adv
25%
125
325
375
374
Proposed Status Targets - Mathematics
19
Year
Below Target
Approaching
On Target
Exceeds
2012
100-299.9
300.0-355.7
355.8-392.7
392.8-500
2013
100-299.9
300.0-358.1
358.2-392.7
392.8-500
2014
100-299.9
300.0-360.5
360.6-392.7
392.8-500
2015
100-299.9
300.0-362.9
363.0-392.7
392.8-500
2016
100-299.9
300.0-365.3
365.4-392.7
392.8-500
2017
100-299.9
300.0-367.7
367.8-392.7
392.8-500
2018
100-299.9
300.0-370.1
370.2-392.7
392.8-500
2019
100-299.9
300.0-372.5
372.6-392.7
392.8-500
2020
100-299.9
300.0-374.9
375.0-392.7
392.8-500
MPI (1,3,4,5) Proposed Targets for Status (Academic Achievement)
Academic Achievement - Progress

Promote continuous improvement

Allow for differentiated improvement targets
 Use
percentage gap reduction
Academic Achievement - Growth

Student Growth Pilot Concluded
 Missouri

Growth Model
Statistical Significance
 Exceeding
 On
Target
 Below Target
Subgroup Achievement

Challenges Associated with NCLB Implementation
 “All
or nothing” approach
 Distribution of subgroups among LEAs
 Number of subgroups vary LEA to LEA
 Minimum “n”
 Duplicated Count
Subgroup Achievement

Report all subgroups individually
 Maintains

focus on the performance of each child
Apply accountability to a super subgroup
 Allows
for inclusion of students otherwise missed
due to small “n” size
 Eliminates duplicated count
 Levels playing field among districts – accountability
measured using one subgroup in each district
Proficiency Rates by Subgroup
Subgroup
% Of
State
Population
CA
2009
CA
2010
CA
2011
Math
2009
Math
2010
Math
2011
Total
100%
51.2
53.6
54.6
47.6
52.7
54.2
Asian/Pacific Is
1.9%
61.7
65.6
65.0
64.8
70.5
72.0
Black
16.3%
29.7
32.0
32.7
21.2
23.0
29.0
Hispanic
4.3%
37.7
40.6
41.6
34.4
35.8
41.4
American In
0.5%
51.1
51.1
51.2
41.8
44.0
48.6
White
75.6%
56.6
59.0
60.1
52.8
53.6
58.3
Multi-Racial
1.3%
60.3
53.7
53.5
58.9
65.1
53.1
FRL
46.6%
36.3
39.4
40.5
31.8
33.3
38.9
IEP
12.5%
23.6
26.2
27.0
22.7
25.8
29.2
LEP
2.6%
24.7
25.2
23.2
28.4
28.6
31.4
Subgroup Achievement

Multiple Measures
 Status
 Progress
 Growth

Goal
 Cut
Gap in Half by 2020
Super Subgroup Example
26
Asian/
Pac Is
Student
Total
Black
A
X
X
B
X
X
C
X
X
D
X
X
E
X
F
X
G
X
X
H
X
X
I
X
X
J
X
Hispanic
Am In
White
Multi
Racial
X
FRL
IEP
X
X
X
X
X
X
ELL
X
X
X
X
Accountable Total
Accountable Super Subgroup
10 students (all)
5 students (B,C,D,E,G)
Sample of population. Minimum n must meet 30 for accountability determinations.
Algebra I EOC / Grade Level
27




Choose one test for middle school student EOC
or grade level
Proficient Algebra I in middle school + Algebra II
in high school
Proficient Algebra I and Geometry in middle
school + Algebra II in high school
Proficient Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II in
middle school + plan from district
CCR *1-3
28
Student
Weight
0
ACT Composite
Score
No record of
participation
SAT Critical
Reading + SAT
Math
No record of
participation
COMPASS
ASVAB AFQT
No record of
No record of participation
participation
0.25
< 18
< 870
Algebra < 66 and Reading
< 81 OR Algebra < 66 and
No Reading Score OR
Reading < 81 and No
Algebra Score
0.75
18 - 21
870 - 980
Algebra >= 66 OR Reading
>= 81
30 - 62
1
22 - 25
990 - 1180
Algebra >= 66 AND
Reading >= 81
63-87
1.25
26 - 36
1190 - 1600
n/a
88-99
< 30
CCR *4
29
Assessment
AP exam (any)
IB exam (any)
TSA (department approved)
Early College course, dual enrollment
course, dual credit course (from a
Missouri institution that is complying
with the Coordinating Board for
Higher Education’s Dual Credit Policy
and Principles of Good Practice)
AP or IB course
Score
3 or higher
4 or higher
Proficient
B or higher (final
average)
Weight
1.25
1.25
1
1
B or higher (final 1
average)
CCR *5-6 Status
30
Weight
Number of Graduates who attend post-secondary education
1.0
Number of Graduates who attend post-secondary training
1.0
Number of Graduates who are in the military
1.0
Number of Graduates who complete a Department-approved Career
Education Program and are placed in an occupation directly related to
their training
1.0
Number of Graduates Without recognized placement
0.0
HSR *1 Status
31
Weight
With a Proficient Score
1
Without a Qualifying Score
0
Attendance Status
32

STEP 1- Determine the number of students with qualifying attendance and
multiply by associated point value.
No. of
Students
Points
Points
Earned
With Attendance Rate < 90%
30
x
0
0
With Attendance Rate >90%
240
x
1.0
240
Total
270
x

240
STEP 2- Divide the number of points earned by the number of students and
multiply by 100.
Points
earned
240
No. of
Students
/
270
Percent
=
.888
x 100
88.8%
Graduation Rate
33



Five Year Adjusted Cohort Rate for accountability
Four Year Adjusted Cohort for reporting
Will run both and use best
34
Academic
Achievement
Status
Progress
Growth
CA
Exceeds = 16
On Target =12
Approach =9
Floor =0
Exceeds = 12
On Target =6
Approach =3
Floor =0
Exceeds = 12
On Target =6
Approach =3
Floor =0
Mathematics
Exceeds = 16
On Target =12
Approach =9
Floor =0
Exceeds = 12
On Target =6
Approach =3
Floor =0
Exceeds = 12
On Target =6
Approach=3
Floor =0
Science
Exceeds = 16
On Target =12
Approach =9
Floor =0
Exceeds = 12
On Target =6
Approach =3
Floor =0
Social Studies
Exceeds = 8
On Target = 6
Approach =5
Floor =0
Exceeds = 6
On Target =3
Approach =1.5
Floor =0
Additional
EOCs
16
16
16
8
8
Subgroup
Achievement
CA
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies
Additional
EOCs
Exceeds = 2
On Target =1.5
Approach =1
Floor =0
Exceeds = 1.5
On Target =1
Approach =.5
Floor =0
Exceeds = 2
On Target =1.5
Approach =1
Floor =0
Exceeds = 1.5
On Target =1
Approach =.5
Floor =0
2
2
Progress
Growth
Points
Possible
Exceeds = 4
On Target =3
Approach =2
Floor =0
Exceeds = 3
On Target =2
Approach =1
Floor =0
Exceeds = 3
On Target =2
Approach =1
Floor =0
4
Exceeds = 4
On Target =3
Approach =2
Floor =0
Exceeds = 3
On Target =2
Approach =1
Floor =0
Exceeds = 3
On Target =2
Approach =1
Floor =0
4
Exceeds = 4
On Target =3
Approach =2
Floor =0
Exceeds = 3
On Target =2
Approach =1
Floor =0
4
Exemplars
Risk Factors
Exemplars
Exceeds = 8
On Target = 6
Approach =5
Floor =0
Exceeds = 6
On Target =3
Approach =1.5
Floor =0
Points
Possible
Status
Risk Factors
35
CCR
Status
Progress
Points
Possible
*1-3
Exceeds = 10
On Target = 7.5
Approach = 6
Floor = 0
Exceeds = 7.5
On Target = 4
Approach = 2
Floor = 0
10
*4
Exceeds = 10
On Target =7.5
Approach = 6
Floor =0
Exceeds = 7.5
On Target = 4
Approach =2
Floor =0
10
Attendance
Status
Progress
Points
Possible
Graduation
Status
Progress
*5-6
Risk Factors
Exemplars
Risk Factors
Exemplars
Risk Factors
Exemplars
Exceeds = 10
On Target = 7.5
Approach = 6
Floor =0
Exceeds = 7.5
On Target = 4
Approach =2
Floor =0
10
Exceeds = 10
On Target = 7.5
Approach =6
Floor = 0
Exceeds = 7.5
On Target =4
Approach = 2
Floor = 0
10
4-5 Year Rate
Exceeds = 20
On Target = 15
Approach = 12
Floor = 0
Exceeds = 15
On Target = 8
Approach = 4
Floor = 0
20
State
Exceeds = 10
On Target = 7.5
Approach = 6
Floor = 0
Exceeds = 7.5
On Target = 4
Approach = 2
Floor = 0
10
Sample Annual Performance Report
(K-12)
Standard
Points POSSIBLE
Academic
Achievement
64
Subgroup
Achievement
16
College and
Career Readiness
30
Attendance
Graduation Rate
Total Points
Possible
10
30
150
District Score
Risk Factors
Exemplar Flags
Accreditation Levels
37

Accredited With Distinction >90% of points +
other criteria as determined

Accredited >70% of points

Provisional >50% to 69.9% of points

Unaccredited < 50% of points
Transition
38
Assessment
Data
APR release
Classification
SB 576
2011-2012
4th Cycle MSIP - 2012 APR
(summer 2012)
Board Classification for all
remaining 4th Cycle districts
2011-2012
MSIP 5 - 2012 APR
(fall 2012)
Draft MSIP 5
2012-2013
MSIP 5 - 2013 APR
(summer 2013)
Year 1 MSIP 5
Year 1
APR
2013-2014
MSIP 5 - 2014 APR
(summer 2014)
Year 2 MSIP 5
Year 2
APR
2014-2015
MSIP 5 - 2015 APR
(summer 2015)
Year 3 MSIP 5
Board Classification for all
districts based on MSIP 5
Year 3
APR
Aligned System of Accountability
Federal
Mathematics/Communication Arts
Graduation Rate
State
Additional EOCs; additional CCR
indicators
Local
Formative Assessments
Data Corrections
40

Historical and current data clean up through

Historical Supporting APR data frozen
6/30/2013
7/1/2013
Class of 2016

Required Additional End-of-Course Assessments


English I
American History

Administered online

No cost to LEAs/districts

Sample tests and achievement level descriptors may be found
at http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/eoc_resources.html.
Next Steps
42




Terminology
Public Relations
Scoring Guide Webinars/Tutorials
APR release - schedule
43
THANK YOU!!!