Transcript Document

July 30, 2012
9:00 – 10:30 a.m.
by Doug Greer



What will accountability such as AYP look like
this August and how will this impact our
district?
What are the highlights of ESEA waiver
regarding accreditation?
How will we communicate to our community
about changes in accrediation?
ESEA FLEXIBILITY, PRIORITY
AND FOCUS SCHOOLS:
UPDATE
Presentation to MI-EXCEL ISD/ESA Meeting
July 19, 2012
Venessa Keesler, Ph.D.
Evaluation Research and Accountability
Bureau of Assessment and Accountability
HOW DOES ESEA FLEX HELP MI?
• Supports career and college ready focus for all
students
• Increased focus on accelerating student achievement
and closing gaps
• Modifies current accountability to reflect cut scores;
eliminates requirement of 100% proficient by 2014
and identification of all schools not making AYP.
• Helps enhance system of supports
• Targets resources
1.
Timeline for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress, 100% by 2013-14
2.
Implementation of School Improvement Requirements, Corrective Actions
& Restructuring for schools not making AYP at the LEA level
3.
Same as above at SEA level
4.
Rural LEA $$$ dependent on AYP status
5.
School wide Title I eligibility requires 40%+ F/R
6.
Support of School Improvement ($ follows NCLB labels i.e. Improvement,
Corrective Action & Restructuring)
7.
Reward Schools $ Incentives section 1117(c) - unfunded
8.
Highly Qualified Teachers Improvement Plans
9.
Transfer Certain Funds to Title I-A limited
10. School Improvement Grant Funds to Support Priority Schools 1003(g)
(Optional) Use of 21st Century Community Learning Center Program Funds (MI
elected not to waive this but did add “replacement of principal”)
Four Principles
1. College and Career Ready Expectations for all
Students (CCSS, new cut scores and SBAC)
2. State-Developed Differentiated Recognition,
Accountability, and Support (Reward, Focus,
Priority)
3. Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
(Option A focuses on teacher evaluations in Waiver
currently in development with MCEE)
4. Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden
Principal 2 – Accreditation & Accountability
1. Top to Bottom Ranking given to all schools with
30 or more students tested, full academic year
(0 – 99th percentile where 50th is average)
2. NEW designation for some schools



Reward schools (Top 5%, Significant Improvement or
Beating the Odds)
Focus schools (10% of schools with the largest
achievement gab between the top and bottom)
Priority schools (Bottom 5%, replaces PLA list)
3. NEW in 2013, AYP Scorecard based on point
system replacing the “all or nothing” of NCLB.
Understanding the TWO Labels
Priority/Focus/Reward
(Top to Bottom List)
AYP Scorecard (Need > 50%)
Green-Yellow-Red
Normative—ranks schools
against each other
Criterion--referenced—are
schools achieving a certain
PROFICIENCY level?
Focuses attention on a smaller
subset of schools; targets
resources
Given to all schools; acts as an
“early warning” system; easy
indicators
The primary mechanism for
sanctions and supports
Used primarily to identify areas
of intervention and
differentiate supports
Fewer schools
All schools
9
Michigan’s Differentiated
System of Accountability
Green
Schools
Yellow
Schools
Top 5%
Red
Schools
Title I Schools:
Required to Set-aside
20% District and 10%
Building Title I Funds
Reward Schools
plus BtO or Improv
10% (or more)
Focus Schools
(with the greatest achievement Gap)
PLUS most schools are also given a percentile ranking ranging
from the 1st percentile to the 99th percentile (if n > 30 FAY)
Bottom
5%
Priority
Schools
10
ACCOUNTABILITY SCORECARD (2013)
• Will replace AYP
• Differentiated targets for each school, based on
getting to 85% proficient in 10 years
• Subgroup targets = same as school
• Safe harbor based on four year improvement
slope.

July 19: ESEA Waiver approved unconditionally

July 30: Overview of Waiver at OAISD



Tuesday, July 31: “Embargoed” notice to district
superintendents of Priority and Focus schools
Wednesday, August 1: MDE Webinars
Thursday, August 2: Likely public release and
embargo lifted
ACCOUNTABILITY TIMELINES
• August 2012:
• AYP (original system with new targets to accommodate
new cut scores for approximately 3,400 schools)
• Education Yes! (original system; not modified)
• Top to Bottom Ranking (2,866 schools)
• Priority Schools (formerly PLA) (146 schools)
• Focus Schools (358 schools)
• Reward Schools (286 schools)
• August 2013: New AYP Scorecard
What is staying THE SAME
in August?
AYP (general structure,
designations)
What will be NEW in August?
• New targets (reset for new cut scores)
• District AYP – now K-12
• Graduation rate: includes all
subgroups (USED requirement)
EducationYES!
(no changes)
Lowest performing schools will be
identified
• Will be named Priority schools
(instead of PLA)
• Will be identified as lowest 5% of the
Top to Bottom metric (instead of
original methodology)
Focus and Reward Schools identified


Tuesday, July 31: “Embargoed” notice to
district superintendents of Priority and
Focus schools
Thursday, August 2: Likely public
release
◦
◦
◦
◦
Ed YES! Report Card (letter grade)
AYP Status (pass or fail)
Top to Bottom Ranking
Optional designation (Reward, Focus or Priority)

New Cut Scores …
◦ Therefore, students had “higher” proficiency levels
(i.e. 1’s became 2’s, 2’s became 3’s, etc.)
◦ Achievement Status is based on an Index number
whose denominator is computed by summing the
“higher” proficiency levels.
Index numbers decreased
however, State legislation did NOT change.

Feds approve NEW AYP targets in light
of the ESEA Waiver application
Before we move on to the Top to Bottom
Rankings and NEW designations (Reward,
Focus or Priority) …
What questions do you have about the
upcoming release of AYP status and EdYES!
Report Cards (letter grades)?
NOTE: Our communications team, led by
Michelle Ready, has talking points & a
sample letter available for you today!
TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING
Ranks all schools in the state with at least 30 full academic
year students in at least two tested content areas (Reading,
Writing, Math, Science and Social Studies weighted equally
plus graduation).
• Each content area is “normed” in three categories:
• 2 years of Achievement (50 – 67%)
• 3 – 4 years of Improvement (0 – 25%)
• Achievement gaps between top and bottom (25 – 33%)
• Graduation rate (10% if applicable)
• 2 year Rate (67%)
• 4 year slope of improvement (33%)
HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING
CALCULATED
 For science, social studies, writing, and grade 11 all tested
subjects
Two-Year Average
Standardized Student
Scale (Z) Score
School Achievement
Z-Score
Four-Year
Achievement Trend
Slope
School Performance
Achievement Trend
Z-Score
Two-Year Average
Bottom 30% - Top
30%
Z-Score Gap
School Achievement
Gap Z-Score
1/
2
1/
4
1/
4
School
Content
Area Index
Content
Index Zscore
HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING
CALCULATED
 For graduation rate
Two-Year Average
Graduation Rate
School Graduation
Rate Z-Score
Four-Year Graduation
Rate Trend Slope
School Graduation
Rate Trend
Z-Score
2/
3
1/
3
School
Graduation
Rate Index
Grad
Index Zscore
HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING
CALCULATED
 Calculating an overall ranking for a school with a
graduation rate
School Mathematics
Std Index
School Reading Std
Index
School Science Std
Index
School Social Studies
Std Index
School Writing Std
Index
School Graduation
Rate Std Index
18
%
18
%
Overall Standardized
School Index
18
%
18
%
18
%
10
%
Overall School
Percentile Rank
Year X Grade Y
MEAP
Performance
Level
Year X+1 Grade Y+1 MEAP Performance Level
Not
Proficient
Partially
Proficient
Proficient
Adv
Low
Mid
High
Low
High
Low
Mid
High
Mid
Low
Not
Mid
Proficient
High
M
D
D
I
M
D
I
I
M
SI
I
I
SI
SI
I
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Partially Low
Proficient High
SD
D
D
M
I
I
SI
SI
SI
Low
Proficient Mid
High
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
D
SD
SD
SD
D
D
SD
SD
M
D
D
SD
I
M
D
D
I
I
M
D
SI
I
I
M
SI
SI
I
I
Advanced Mid
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
D
D
M
HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING
CALCULATED
 For grade 3-8 reading and mathematics
Two-Year Average
Standardized Student
Scale (Z) Score
School Achievement
Z-Score
Two-Year Average
Performance Level
Change Index
School Performance
Level Change
Z-Score
Two-Year Average
Bottom 30% - Top
30%
Z-Score Gap
School Achievement
Gap Z-Score
1/
2
1/
4
1/
4
School
Content
Area Index
Content
Index Zscore
HOW IS THE TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING
CALCULATED
 Calculating an overall ranking for a school without a graduation rate
School Mathematics
Std Index
School Reading Std
Index
School Science Std
Index
School Social Studies
Std Index
School Writing Std
Index
20
%
20
%
Overall School
Standardized Index
20
%
20
%
20
%
Overall School
Percentile Rank
WHAT ARE PRIORITY SCHOOLS?
• Formerly known as PLA schools (Federal and
state accountability now aligned)
• Bottom 5% replaces the tiered list as the
identification strategy for PLA schools (includes
both Title I and non-Title I schools)
• Year 1 planning (Closure, Restart, Turn-around
or Transformation), Year 2 – 4 Implementation
30
WHAT ARE FOCUS SCHOOLS?
• Schools with the largest achievement gaps.
• Achievement gap is defined as the difference
between the average scale score for the top 30% of
students and the bottom 30% of students.
• This methodology is an improvement over using a
solely demographic-based gap methodology
because it targets achievement gaps.
31
WHAT ARE FOCUS SCHOOLS?
• Identifying Focus Schools is a critical component
to Michigan achieving key goals:
• -to close the achievement gap within schools
• -to reduce the achievement gap statewide
• Common Concerns
• Are schools more likely to be Focus schools if they have
____________ kids (fill in the blank)?
• Does methodology target high performing schools?
• Does methodology target high socio-econ classes?
32
33
ARE CERTAIN TYPES OF SCHOOLS MORE
LIKELY TO BE FOCUS SCHOOLS?
• Have not detected any significant patterns yet
• Continuing to analyze the data
• Because metric compares top 30 percent of
kids to bottom 30 percent of kids in the school,
it’s unlikely the gap is being driven exclusively
by one group or type of kids.
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
Overall Percentile Rank
Focus Schools
80
100
Non-Focus Schools
35
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
Overall Percentile Rank
Focus Schools
80
100
Non-Focus Schools
36
NON-FOCUS/FOCUS SCHOOLS BY SUBGROUP
Focus School
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Non-Focus School
p 50 of bottom30ed
p 50 of bottom30lep
p 50 of bottom30black
p 50 of bottom30hispanic
p 50 of bottom30se
p 50 of bottom30white
p 50 of bottom30asian
p 50 of bottom30multi
Graphs by focusv1
37
100
Suburb
Town
Rural
0
50
100
0
50
Urban
0
50
100 0
50
100
School Percentile Rank
Focus School
Non-Focus School
Graphs by locale4cat
38
High School
0
50
100
Elementary/Middle School
0
50
100 0
50
100
Overall Percentile Rank
Focus
Graphs by gradespan
Non-Focus
39
Before we move on to the last
section regarding IF you have a
Focus school …
What questions do you have about
the upcoming release of Top to
Bottom rankings and NEW
designations (Priority, Focus and
Reward schools)?




Summer, 2012: MDE development of toolkit
based on MI School Imp. Framework and
Academy of Pacesetting Districts.
August 2: Public release of Focus schools
District responds with communications with
the support of OAISD talking points.
September: Districts will be provided a toolkit
and possibly a “DIF” District Improvement
Facilitator (if multiple Title I buildings)




Deep data diagnosis led by toolkit and/or DIF
by October 1, 2012.
Oct. 1 – Jan. 30: Professional dialogue led by
toolkit and/or DIF, revised SIP and Cons. App.
Quarterly reports to school board required.
Unlike Priority label, Focus label may only be
one year. (MDE monitors both Top and
Bottom 30% for improvement)

Some schools may be exempt from Focus
school designation in year 2 IF they are
deemed Good-Getting-Great (G-G-G):
◦ Overall achievement is above 75th percentile
◦ Bottom 30% meets Safe Harbor improvement (or
possibly AYP differentiated improvement)

G-G-G schools will be exempt for 2 years,
then will need to reconvene a similar deep
diagnostic study in year 4.
Note: See ESEA Approved Waiver pp. 151-152
Tuesday, July 31: “Embargoed” notice to
district superintendents of Priority and
Focus schools
 Thursday, August 2: Public release
likely of the following:

◦ Ed YES! Report Card (old letter grade)
◦ AYP Status (old pass or fail system)
◦ Top to Bottom Ranking and possibly:
 Reward schools (Top 5%, Top improvement, BtO)
 Focus schools (largest achievement gap top vs. bottom)
 Priority schools (Bottom 5%)
Doug Greer
877-702-8600 x4109
[email protected]