Transcript AMOs 101: Understanding Annual Measurable

AMOs 101
Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives
Office of Educational Accountability
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
November 2012
AMO Background
Background
• Under NCLB, schools were required to meet AMOs in reading,
math, and graduation. The AMOs in reading and math were tied
to the goal of 100% proficiency in both content areas by 2013-14.
• This goal was widely panned as unrealistic and was the main
driver for ESEA reauthorization conversations, which, when stalled
in Congress, led to the waiver process.
• To receive a waiver, the US Department of Education (USED)
requires states to establish ambitious but achievable AMOs in
reading and mathematics proficiency and in graduation rates,
and to publicly report performance on the AMOs.
Background
Former AMOs for Reading and Mathematics
2001-02 to 2010-11
Starting Point
Intermediate Goal
(Begin new 3-8 tests)
Intermediate Goal
Intermediate Goal
Reading Proficiency
Math Proficiency
2001-02
61%
37%
2002-03
61%
37%
2003-04
61%
37%
2004-05
67.5%
47.5%
2005-06
67.5%
47.5%
2006-07
67.5%
47.5%
2007-08
74%
58%
2008-09
74%
58%
2009-10
74%
58%
2010-11
80.5%
68.5%
Background
• The old AMOs increased over time, but did not necessarily
increase each year.
• The same AMOs applied to all districts, schools, and student
groups in the Wisconsin public school system.
• The goal of NCLB was that all students would be proficient in
Reading and Mathematics by 2013-14.
New AMOs
• AMOs are still part of Wisconsin’s accountability system, but they
are not used to calculate the accountability scores that
determine ratings and support.
• Starting with the 2011-12 school report card, AMO data is
reported publicly but not factored into the accountability index.
• AMO data for all subgroups are presented on the last page of
the School Report Card.
Establishing New
AMOs
Establishing New AMOs
• In our waiver request, we submitted ambitious but achievable AMOs
based on proficiency rates resulting from Wisconsin’s new WKCE
performance level cut scores.
• Using 2011-12 data, AMOs were set to move all schools in the state to
the level of the schools that are now performing at the 90th percentile
within six years.
• By 2016-17, the expectation is for all schools to have all student groups
reach 50% reading proficiency and 65% mathematics proficiency.
• Some subgroups have steeper AMO trajectories because they are
further behind in proficiency rates.
• A minimum 1% of growth is expected annually. This would apply to those
schools/subgroups that are already meeting the AMOs but for whom we
expect continued growth.
Reading AMOs
Math AMOs
Meeting AMOs
• For a school’s reading and mathematics AMOs, a group’s
performance compared to its AMO is measured by the higher of
(1) the proficiency rate in the current year; or
(2) the average proficiency rate in the current and prior year.
• A cell size of 20 is used and a 95 percent confidence interval is
applied to determine whether or not an AMO is met.
Confidence
Intervals
• A confidence interval (CI) is a type of estimate
used to indicate the reliability of a statistic.
• The CI gives an estimated range of scores
(interval) within which the school’s or group’s
“true score” falls.
• The level of confidence of the CI indicates the
probability that the confidence range captures
this true population parameter given a
distribution of samples. It does not describe any
single sample.
• The confidence interval gives us 95% certainty
of the group’s performance. If the performance
is within the confidence interval, it is determined
to have met the AMO. We are 95% confident
that the true value is in our confidence interval.
Meeting AMOs
Graduation AMO
• Schools also have an AMO for graduation rate. Wisconsin uses the
graduation rate goal of 85 percent. A cell size of 20 and a 95 percent
confidence interval are used to determine whether an AMO was met.
• Separate graduation rate improvement targets are used for the fourand six-year rates. A school meets the graduation rate AMO for
graduation if:
– (1) the graduation rate for the most recent year, or for the most recent two
years combined, meets the 85 percent goal; or
– (2) the improvement in graduation rate meets the applicable target. DPI will
first evaluate whether a school met the goal or target for the four-year rate. If
it does not, the school will be evaluated using the six-year rate.
• In 2011-12 only, the first year of this accountability system, a five-year
rate was used in place of the six-year rate because we do not have
the data to run a six-year rate until 2012-13.
Graduation AMO Improvement Targets
Meeting AMOs
Impact of AMOs on
Subgroups
Subgroup AMOs
• The AMOs expect an increase of 1% or more in proficiency rates
annually. This assures that the top-performing subgroups
continue to make progress.
• The six-year targets of 49.9% proficiency in reading and 65.3%
proficiency in mathematics reflect dramatic increases in
performance for most subgroups.
• Dramatic increases in performance will require dramatic effort.
Subgroup AMOs
Subgroup AMOs
AMO Performance
A Look at the New AMOs
• With the new cut scores, 2011-12 statewide reading proficiency is
35.8% and mathematics proficiency is 48.1%.
• The AMOs set forth in the waiver for “All Students” in 2011-12
show that statewide we are missing both AMOs.
– 37.9% is the Reading AMO for 2011-12
– 49.8% is the Math AMO for 2011-12
AMO Analysis
• Half of all schools met all AMOs
AMO Analysis
• Nearly half of the schools that met all the AMOs are Title I schools
• Of those, the majority are targeted assistance schools.
Non-Title I
Title I
AMO Analysis
• Of the schools that are NOT meeting AMOs, six in ten are Title I
schools. Of those, the majority are SWP schools.
AMO Analysis
• Of the Title I schools that are NOT meeting AMOs, three quarters
are “other T1” – they are neither Focus nor Priority Schools.
AMO Analysis
• On average, there is a ten point difference in index scores between those
schools that met AMOs and those that didn’t.
AMO Analysis
# of deductions
• Schools that did not meet their AMOs were also more likely to receive
deductions for Student Engagement.
AMO Analysis
• Schools that did not meet their AMOs were also more likely to receive
deductions for Student Engagement.
Another 25 of these schools are also
Focus Schools
Data Analysis
• Let’s examine AMO misses by content area
– Reading
– Math
– Graduation
• Let’s examine AMO misses by school type
– Elementary
– Middle
– High School
• Cross-reference with Focus/Priority status to zero in on area of need
and intervention.
• Examine where schools made it by confidence interval only
Using AMO Data
Using AMO Data
• Since all schools received a school report card, all schools can
readily gauge their progress with their students and specific
student groups.
• Schools can pinpoint how much progress their students and
each student group will need to make annually, potentially
establishing improvement plans with 2016-17 as a focal point.
• For those Title I schools that were identified as Title I Priority or Title
I Focus schools, AMOs will be used as part of the exit criteria from
those identifications (a four-year cohort). As such, these schools
will want to pay particular attention to the progress of student
groups each year of the cohort.
Using AMO Data
• Common Core instruction
• Multi-level systems of support (RTI/PBIS) to ensure we’re reaching
all students
• Consider links to Indistar, SIR, school improvement planning that
incorporates AMO data and/or action plans
AMO Worksheet
• Schools can calculate the improvement needed to reach the
AMOs required for each subgroup based on this year’s School
Report Card data.
• (subtract 2011-12 performance from 2016-17 AMO and divide by 5)
• For example, in order to meet statewide all students
– 35.8% reading in 2011-12 means 2.82% increase in percent proficient
annually
– 48.1% math in 2011-12 means 3.4% increase in percent proficient annually
Office of Educational Accountability
Department of Public Instruction
http://oea.dpi.wi.gov/