Transcript Slide 1

Missouri
School Improvement Program (MSIP)
Fourth Cycle
Becky Kemna, Coordinator
School Improvement and Accreditation
[email protected]
(573) 751-4426
http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/index.html
1
MSIP
The Missouri School Improvement Program…Missouri’s
system of accountability
– review and classify the 524 school districts in Missouri within a fiveyear review cycle (since 1990)
– mandated by state law
– goal to promote school improvement within each district on a
statewide basis
– districts failing to earn accreditation face lapse or state takeover
– July 1 begins first year of the 4th MSIP Cycle
2
Standards and Indicators
• Outline the vision and expectations
for quality schools.
• Organized into three sections:
– Performance Standards (Student
achievement)
– Resource Standards (Pupil teacher ratios,
course offerings, teacher qualifications)
– Process Standards (compliance,
instructional design and practices, school
climate, differentiated instruction)
3
Third Cycle
• Annual Performance Report generated
annually to evaluate performance
standards
• Resource Report generated annually
• Process evaluated on-site by review team
• Number of points earned in Performance,
Resource, and Process determine
accreditation
4
What we’ve learned…
• APR does not accurately reflect improvement needs of all
524 districts
• APR scores are too volatile, leading to inconsistent
accreditation decisions
• Reviews need to focus less on compliance and more on
quality in order to facilitate true improvement in student
performance
• Reviews should focus on improvement needs in districts as
determined by available data at the school, subject, and
grade level
• District level accreditation does not always reflect individual
building status –leads to conflicts in accountability systems
• Resource and Process do not impact accreditation
5
Where we’re going …
Performance…
“For an accountability system to be fair
it has to be complicated.”
• Determines accreditation
• Status and Progress measures lead to
• More stability in APR calls
• More appropriate “recognition”
• Credit when achievement is adequate
• APR
• Provides more detailed, disaggregated data and
evaluative, narrative feedback
• Identifies areas in need of improvement
• Used as a true “school improvement planning tool”
• Determines waiver eligibility (Limited Waiver or Full
Waiver)
6
7
2006 DISTRICT SUMMARY OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT (APR)
County/District Code: «DISTCODE» District Name: «DISTNAME»
MSIP
Standard/
Indicator
GRADE SPAN
GRADE LEVEL
Status
Points
Progres
s Points
Status
Points
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng
Avg=
3 Over 2=
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
9.1*2 MAP
Grades 3-5
Communication
Arts
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng
Avg=
3 Over 2=
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
9.1*3 MAP
Grades 6-8
Mathematics
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng
Avg=
3 Over 2=
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
9.1*4 MAP
Grades 6-8
Communication
Arts
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng
Avg=
3 Over 2=
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
9.1*5 MAP
Grades 9-11
Mathematics
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng
Avg=
3 Over 2=
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw
Avg=
Floor=
9.1*1 MAP
Grades 3-5
Mathematics
Progress
Points**
DATE
Total Points Earned
Grade Span
Status
Grade Level
Progress
**No progress points may be earned for grade level test data in Year 1 of the Fourth MSIP Cycle.
Status
TOTAL=
TOTAL=
TOTAL=
TOTAL=
TOTAL=
Points
Req
Met/
Not
Met
Progress
*
40 Status
or
50 Status
+
Progress
40 Status
or
50 Status
+
Progress
40 Status
or
50 Status
+
Progress
40 Status
or
50 Status
+
Progress
40 Status
or
50 Status
+
Progress
8
MSIP
Standard/
Indicator
Status
Points
Progress
Points
Total Points Earned
Status
Status +
Progress
Points Required (Minimum)
Status
Status + Progress
9.3 ACT
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng Avg=
3 Over 2=
4
4
9.4*1 Advanced
Courses
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng Avg=
3 Over 2=
Combined=
4
4
9.4*2 Career
Education
Courses
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng Avg=
3 Over 2=
Combined=
4
4
9.4*3 College
Placement
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng Avg=
3 Over 2=
Combined=
4
4
9.4*4 Career
Education
Placement
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng Avg=
3 Over 2=
Combined=
4
4
9.5 Graduation
Rate
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng Avg=
3 Over 2=
4
4
9.6 Attendance
Rate
High 1=
High 2=
Avg=
Blw Avg=
Floor=
Annual=
Rlng Avg=
3 Over 2=
4
4
Met/
Not
Met
9
Performance Status and Progress Measures – SAMPLE YEAR 1, 2006
9.1*1 MAP GRADE SPAN 3-5 Mathematics
STATUS
Status
G
Measures
R
A
D High 1
E
S
High 2
P
A
N Average
Below
Average
Floor
MPI Score
(5-Yr Avg)
PROGRESS
Status
Points
Earned
Progress
Measures
Progress
Points
Earned
Progress
Points
Possible
Progress Measure Description
220.4-300
50
Annual
10 per
increase
40
10 points for each annual MAP Performance Index (MPI)
increase of 2 points.
210.4220.3
40
Rolling
Average
10 per
increase
30
10 points for each rolling average increase of 2 MPI
points.
200.5210.3
30
3 Over 2
20
20
20 points for an increase of 6 MPI points (latest three
years averaged compared with the first two years
averaged).
190.5200.4
20
Level Not Determined (LND): Zero (0) points will be awarded for grade span data when the LND
is exceeded.
100-190.4
0
9.1*1 MAP GRADE LEVEL 3-5 Mathematics
G
R
Status
A Measures
D
E
High 1
L
E High 2
V
E Average
L
STATUS
PROGRESS
MPI Score
(5-Yr Avg)
Status
Points
Earned
Progress
Measures
Progress
Points
Earned
Progress
Points
Possible
Progress Measure Description
NYA
NYA
Annual
NYA
NYA
Rolling
Average
NYA
NYA
3 Over 2
Below
Average
NYA
NYA
Level Not Determined (LND): Zero (0) points will be awarded for grade level data when the LND
is exceeded.
Floor
NYA
NYA
NYA=Not Yet Available
Grade level status and progress details will be determined after Grade Level test
results are available.
10
9.3 ACT
STATUS
PROGRESS
Status
Measures
%
(5-Yr Avg)
Status
Points
Earned
Progress
Measures
Progress
Points
Earned
High 1
39.1-100%
High 2
5
Annual
1 per
increase
4
1 point for each 1% annual increase.
32.8-39.0%
4
Rolling
Average
1 per
increase
3
1 point for each rolling average increase of 1%.
Average
26.6-32.7%
3
3 Over 2
2
2
2 points for an increase of 2% (latest three years averaged
compared with the first two years averaged).
Below
Average
20.3-26.5%
2
Status: % of graduates scoring at or above the national average on the ACT.
0-20.2%
0
Floor
Progress
Points
Possible
Progress Measure Description
9.4*1 Advanced Courses
STATUS
PROGRESS
Status
Measures
%
5-Yr Avg)
Status
Points
Earned
Progress
Measures
Progress
Points
Earned
High 1
48.9-100%
High 2
5
Annual
1 per
increase
4
1 point for each 2% annual increase.
43.5-48.8%
4
Rolling
Average
1 per
increase
3
1 point for each rolling average increase of 2%.
Average
38.0-43.4%
3
3 Over 2
2
2
2 points for an increase of 5% (latest three years averaged
compared with the first two years averaged).
Below
Average
32.5-37.9%
2
0-32.4%
0
Combined: If the % of students enrolled in advanced and career education courses combined
(Standards 9.4*1 and 9.4*2) are at or above the required Combined percentage, both standards are
considered met.
64.8-100%
4
Floor
Combined
Progress
Points
Possible
Progress Measure Description
11
2001
195.2
2002
198.3
2003
199.4
2004
202.1
GRADE LEVEL TESTS
GRADE SPAN TESTS
3-5 MATHEMATICS
2005
204.5
3-5 MATHEMATICS
GRADE
2006
3
200.2
4
202.3
5
204.5
TOTAL
202.33
9.1*1 MAP GRADE SPAN 3-5 MATHEMATICS
STATUS
Status
High 1
High 2
Average
Below
Average
Floor
GRADE SPAN DATA
PROGRESS
GRADE LEV
STATUS
MPI
District Status Progress Progress District Progress Status
Score
Score Points Measures
Points
Progress Points
(5-Yr
Earned
Earned
Possible
Avg)
220.4 +
50
Annual
10 per
30
40
High 1
increase
210.440
Rolling
10 per
20
30
High 2
220.3
Average
increase
200.530
3 Over 2
20
0
20
Average
210.3
190.5- 199.9
20
Level Not Determined (LND): Zero (0)
Below
200.4
points will be awarded for grade span data
Average
when
the
LND
is
exceeded.
0-190.4
0
Floor
LND > 5%?
SUBTOTALS
20
TOTAL Status
REQUIRED TO MEET
TOTAL Progress + Status
REQUIRED TO MEET
MPI
Score
(5-Yr
Avg)
???
District
Score
Status
Points
Earned
202.3
??5??
LND > 5%?
+
30
+
5
25
40
55
50
12
Summary
• Single-system of accountability reduces conflicts in
accountability systems
• Resources allocated to provide assistance to schools
that need it most
• School improvement efforts will be better coordinated
to provide ongoing support
• Customized reviews will minimize
paperwork/documentation necessary for on-site review
• Performance
– Is more stable
– Identifies areas in need of improvement
– Allows districts to establish goals for improvement
– More accurately reflects overall performance of district
13
Questions/Comments
School Improvement and
Accreditation
http://www.dese.mo.gov
(573) 751-4426
14