Transcript Update on Accountability

Presented by
Ira Schwartz, Assistant Commissioner
Office of Accountability
New York State Education Department
March 4, 2011
1




Anticipating the “School Improvement
Tsunami”
Setting New Graduation Rate Goal and
Targets
Moving From Institutional to Individual
Accountability
College and Career Readiness: Implications
for Accountability
2
Changes Made During the 2009-10 School
Year Have Created an “AYP Earthquake”




Elimination of Statistical Adjustment for
Students with Disabilities (“The 34-Point Rule”)
Time Adjustment of Grades 3-8 ELA and Math
Test Administration
New Process for Equating Tests Between Years
New High School Graduation Rate Goals and
Targets
3
New Standards Based on College
and Career Readiness




Aligning Regents Scores with College Readiness
Aligning Grade 8 ELA and Math Proficiency Levels
with Regents College Readiness Scores
Linking Grades 3-7 ELA and Math Proficiency Levels
with Grade ELA and Math
Preparing for the “Wave” by Changing the Grades 3-8
ELA and Math Annual Measurable Objectives
4
Schools Identified for Improvement, Corrective
Action or Restructuring in 2010-11
NYC
Rest of
State
Total
17
28
45
5
10
17
Improvement (year 1) - Comprehensive
52
19
71
Improvement (year 2) - Basic
12
6
18
4
10
14
Improvement (year 2) - Comprehensive
20
13
33
Corrective Action (year 1) - Focused
10
16
26
Corrective Action (year 1) - Comprehensive
24
12
36
7
13
20
11
7
18
5
6
11
13
9
22
6
5
11
Restructuring (year 2) - Comprehensive
11
13
24
Restructuring (Advanced) - Focused
21
8
29
103
40
143
321
215
536
IMPROVEMENT STATUS
Improvement (year 1) - Basic
Improvement (year 1) - Focused
Improvement (year 2) - Focused
Corrective Action (year 2) - Focused
Corrective Action (year 2) - Comprehensive
Restructuring (year 1) - Focused
Restructuring (year 1) - Comprehensive
Restructuring (year 2) - Focused
Restructuring (Advanced) - Comprehensive
TOTAL
5
2009-10 Accountability Year
Potential New Schools
Actual New Schools
320
54
2010-11 Accountability Year
Potential New Schools
221
Actual New Schools
101
2011-12 Accountability Year
Potential New Schools
Actual New Schools
1185
?
6

In August 2010, the Board of Regents decided to raise New York’s ELA and
mathematics achievement standards for Grades 3-8. Proficiency now
means that a student is on track to meet high school exit examination
requirements and pass first year college courses in ELA and math, without
the need for remediation.

In 2009-10, there were 536 schools identified. As a result of the new cut
scores, there are potentially 1,185 schools at risk of identification for 201112.

SED has received approval from the USDE to revise the accountability
workbook to reset the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) for Grades 3-8
ELA and mathematics to reflect the new, higher Grades 3-8 ELA and math
achievement standards and change the trajectory established for the
percentage of students expected to be proficient each year between now
and 2013-14 for purposes of making AYP determinations.

The amendment allows New York to reset the AMO from a Performance
Index of 167 to 122 for Grades 3-8 ELA and from 151 to 137 for Grades 3-8
mathematics for 2010-11, with annual equal increments up to 200 by 201314.
7
AMOs 2010-11 through 2013-14
with Amendment
Year
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Grades 3-8 ELA
122
148
174
200
Grades 3-8
Mathematics
137
158
179
200
AMOs 2010-11 through 2013-14
CURRENT
Year
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Grades 3-8 ELA
167
178
189
200
Grades 3-8
Mathematics
151
167
183
200
8
2008-09
3-8 ELA
3-8 Math
HS ELA
HS Math
3-8 Sci
Grad Rate
Made AYP
93%
99%
81%
84%
99%
94%
Failed AYP
7%
1%
19%
16%
1%
6%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
2009-10
3-8 ELA
3-8 Math
HS ELA
HS Math
3-8 Sci
Grad Rate
Made AYP
64%
95%
74%
78%
99%
73%
Failed AYP
36%
5%
26%
22%
1%
27%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
PROJECTED for 2010-11
3-8 ELA
3-8 Math
HS ELA
HS Math
3-8 Sci
Grad Rate
Made AYP
55%
63%
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Failed AYP
45%
37%
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Total
100%
100%
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
9
2009-10
All
SWD
Native
Am
Asian
Black
Hisp
White
LEP
ED
MR
Grades 3-8 ELA
370
1045
0
11
324
270
19
344
415
0
Grades 3-8 Math
24
168
0
2
16
9
2
20
21
0
Projections for 2010-11 Based on Revised AMOs
All
SWD
Native
Am
Asian
Black
Hisp
White
LEP
ED
MR
Grades 3-8 ELA
494
1292
2
10
474
385
29
413
622
0
Grades 3-8 Math
405
1030
1
7
420
307
37
273
529
0
10

For the 2011-12 prospective best case/ worst case
accountability status of schools, please visit:
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/APA/Mem
os/2011-12ProspectiveStatus.xls

NYSED has also posted a Phase and Category
worksheet that helps schools project various AYP
scenarios and see their resulting 2011-12
accountability status. The worksheet can be accessed
at:
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/APA/Differ
entiated_Accountability/CategoryWorksheet201112.xls
11
2008-09
Schools not meeting Graduation Rate Goal of
55% or Progress Target of 1% Gain
12.0%
2009-10
Schools not meeting Graduation Rate Goal of
80% or Progress Target of 20% Gap Reduction
33.4%
12

Accountability for high school graduation rate will
be based on the performance of all student groups
and the performance of both the 4-Year and 5Year Graduation Rate Cohorts.

The one-day enrollment rule instead of the 5month rule will be implemented.

Un-graded students with disabilities will enter the
cohort upon entry into high school.

Changes in the rules regarding the transfer of
incarcerated youth will be implemented.
13

Beginning in the 2011-12 school year, upon
the approval of the NYS Board of Regents,
schools and districts will make AYP with an
accountability group, if the group meets or
exceeds:
4-Year
4-Year
5-Year
5-Year
Graduation
Graduation
Graduation
Graduation
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
Goal; or
Progress Target; or
Goal; or
Progress Target.
14
Each year two different cohorts
are measured. For example, in
2011-12, we will measure the
2007 four year graduation rate
cohort and the 2006 five year
graduation rate cohort.
15

The Board of Regents Must Determine the
High School Graduation Rate Goal and
Progress Targets to be Used.
◦ For example:
 Higher Goal with More Modest Progress Targets OR
 Lower Goal with More Ambitious Progress Targets
16
The New Annual Professional
Performance Review
17
 New
performance evaluation system for teachers
and principals
 20% - State student growth data or comparable measure of
student growth (increased to 25% upon implementation of a
value-added growth model)
 20% - Locally selected measures of student achievement that
are determined to be rigorous and comparable across
classrooms in accordance with regulations of Commissioner
(decreased to 15% upon implementation of value-added
model)
 60% - Multiple measures of teacher/principal effectiveness
based on standards prescribed in the Regulations of the
Commissioner
 Four
rating categories: highly effective; effective;
developing; ineffective
 Results
in a single composite score of teacher or
principal effectiveness
18
 Appropriate
Training for All Evaluators
 Teacher/Principal
Improvement Plans
(Developing/Ineffective)
 Utilize
Evaluation Results as a Factor in Career
Ladder Decisions and Other Recognition
 Locally-Developed
Appeal Process
 Expedited
3020a Process (Single Hearing
Officer/After Two Consecutive Ineffective Ratings)
19
“twenty percent of the evaluation shall
be based upon student growth data
on state assessments as prescribed
by the Commissioner or a
comparable measure of student
growth if such growth data is not
available.”
20


Center for Assessment under contract to explore whether student growth
percentiles could be a basis for a revised institutional accountability
model.
Have completed student growth percentiles (SGPs) calculations for all
students with 2009-10 test results and at least 1 year prior history. (also
08-09, 07-08)
◦

Quality checks and statistical analysis still in process so all results preliminary
Initial student level results show model works generally as expected:
◦ no correlation at student level between prior student achievement and student
growth percentile.
◦ Model more predictive the more years of student data (ie old students) but quite
predictive even at 4th.
◦ More variation in SGP in math, than ELA

School level results show other expected trends:
◦ Wide range of performance across state and within districts
◦ Wide range of median SGP by prior achievement
21

At school level, median SGP shows some correlation with
other student demographics which may need to be
considered in assigning evaluation scores
◦ Poverty
◦ Students with disability
◦ Possibly others

Also exploring ways to correct for false negatives
◦ Identify statistical outliers where small changes in test scores of
generally high achieving students could lead to poor results on
growth percentile comparisons
◦ How to identify and use statistical confidence intervals
22
● Add
additional state-wide assessments with
focus on core academic subjects with
largest number of teachers.
►Planned:
 ELA 9 – 11 (2011-12)*
►Possibilities, subject to funding availability/
approval:




Science 6 – 7
Social Studies 6 – 8
PARCC ELA 3 – 11 (2014-15)
PARCC Math 3 – 11 (2014-15)
*Dec 2009 Regents item: Discussed and approved prior to inclusion in the Department's strategic plans and RFP
23
●
●
●
Use existing assessments in other content
areas to create a baseline for Grades 4 and 8
science tests and Regents examinations.
Use commercially available assessment(s) to
create a baseline for State assessments, such
as Grade 3 ELA and math tests.
Use a commercially available assessment(s) to
create a baseline and measure growth.
24
● Collaborate
with state-wide professional
organizations or multi-state coalition to
identify or develop performance
assessments in subjects such as the arts,
physical education and CTE.
● Empower
local level resources to create and
carry out a solution that meets state-wide
requirements.
25
●
Use a Group Metric
► A group metric is a measure of a school’s (or grade’s) overall growth as
opposed to an individual teacher's impact - on student learning.
► Tennessee is considering using school-wide achievement growth in nontested subjects; in DC, school-wide value-added measures account for 5%
of a non-tested subject teacher’s rating.
► Orange County, FL: non-tested subject teachers can link themselves to
teachers of tested subjects who have set student achievement goals.
► TAP: A performance compensation program used in some high needs
districts from The System for Teacher and Student Advancement,
recommends that for teachers in non-tested grades and subjects, 50% of
performance bonuses are based on school-wide achievement gains.
→ SC TAP: 30% based on school-wide performance. Teachers in nontested subjects are given the option to choose to align themselves with
math or reading gains based on which subject they have best
opportunity to reinforce.
26


The Regents College and Career Readiness Working
Group has begun discussions about the effectiveness
of New York’s high school graduation policies.
Policy Directions for Consideration:
◦ Increase graduation requirements
◦ More flexibility in the ways students can meet
requirements
◦ Offer alternative or supplemental credentials
◦ Rethink the “safety net” for students with disabilities
27






Four Years of Math
Four Years of Science
“College and Career Ready” Credit
◦ a career and technical education (CTE) course (linked to credential)
◦ a college course
◦ an advanced course (i.e., AP or IB)
A Second Regents Exam in Mathematics
Increase the Required Passing Scores on the English
and Math Regents Exams to a Level that is
Associated with College Readiness (75 in ELA; 80 in
math)
Extend the School Day/School Year
* While the local diploma is being phased out for general education students, it
remains available to students with disabilities through the “Safety Net” provisions of
State regulations. The Safety Net could be extended to apply to the new
requirements.
28



Student choice in one or more of their five required Regents exams
Successful completion of a CTE technical assessment (as part of an
approved CTE program) to substitute for one of the five required
Regents exams
Increase the maximum number of academic credits that students
can earn through integrated CTE programs and specialized CTE
courses

Flexibility in the courses that students may take in middle school

Allow students to earn additional credits through demonstration of
competency rather than seat time. Current regulations allow for:




6.5 credits via credit by examination
3 credits via independent study
1 credit for visual arts
Credit via make-up credit regulations
29
Office of Accountability
Ira Schwartz, Assistant Commissioner
[email protected]
(718) 722- 2797
30