121713 Michael Flicek edd Education Accountability Consultant 201314 Wyoming School Accountability WAEA School Performance Levels Exceeding Expectations Meeting Expectations Partially Meeting Expectations ID: 784021
Download The PPT/PDF document "Presentation for DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL E..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Presentation for DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION(12/17/13)Michael Flicek, ed.d.Education Accountability Consultant
2013-14 Wyoming School Accountability
Slide2WAEA School Performance LevelsExceeding ExpectationsMeeting ExpectationsPartially Meeting ExpectationsNot Meeting Expectations
2
Slide3Indicators used to Identify School Performance LevelSchools with grades 3 through 8
Achievement
Growth
Equity
Schools with grades 9 through 12
Achievement
ReadinessEquity
3
Slide4Achievement – Grades 3-8Assessments used in 2014PAWS reading – Grades 3-8PAWS math – Grades 3-8
PAWS science – Grades 4 & 8
SAWS
– Grades 3, 5 &7
4
Slide5Achievement – Grade 11Assessment used in 2014ACT Subject-Area Tests
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Combined English/Writing
5
Slide62014 Standard SettingPAWS & ACT Subject Area TestsNew student performance levels to be establishedAlignment with Wyoming State Standards (i.e. CCSS)Expected to be more rigorous than current performance levels
Slide7Some Business RulesMinimum n for all indicators = 10When fewer than 10 students look back is appliedLook back 1 year first, then a second year when needed
Small school review when fewer than 2 indicators meet minimum
n
Full Academic Year Only
October 1
st
to mid point of testing window
Slide8Grade 3 – 8 Model
Slide9Illustration of Computation of a Grade 3-8School Achievement Score
9
Content
Count of Tested Scores
Count of Proficient Scores
School Achievement Score
Math
80
65
Reading
80
60
Writing
40
25
Science
20
12
Column Totals
220
162
162/220
= 73.6%
Slide10Professional Judgment Panel (PJP)A representative group of 27 to 30 people Representing groups prescribed by statute
Selected by the State Board of Education
10
Slide11PJP Major TasksDetermined the cut points for school scores on each indicator that determine if schools are:
Exceeding Targets
Meeting Targets
Below Targets
11
Slide12Student Growth – Grades 4-8Growth in reading and in mathEach student will have a student growth percentile (SGP)Same grade in school
Similar test scores in previous years
Scores from 1 to
99
Excellent indicator for special education program improvement
12
Slide13School Growth – Grades 4-8For school accountability
For
accountability
School median SGP (MGP)
T
he SGP that ½ of students at the school scored above and ½ of students at the school scored
below
For
school & program improvement
Special Education median
SGP (MGP)
District overall
Within a school
Suppression rules applied to reports
13
Slide14Equity – Consolidated SubgroupCurrent subgroups performance will continue to be reported
For Wyoming accountability, however, a consolidated subgroup will be used
The consolidated subgroup
= all
students who scored below proficient on the previous year’s
reading test and/or math test
14
Slide15Equity – Grades 4-8Adequate Growth Percentile (AGP)
The SGP on this year’s test, the student needs to be on track for being proficient within 3 years or by the end of grade 8
These are computed for all students in grades 4 through 8 with more than one previous PAWS test
School’s Equity Score
The percent of students at the school who are considered on track to become proficient within 3 years (i.e., for whom their SGP equaled or exceeded their AGP
)
Another excellent indicator for special education
What % of special education students are on-track for proficiency
15
Slide16High School Model
Slide17High School Achievement Indicator
Slide18Alternative to Percent ProficientFluctuations in scale scores from year-to-year (i.e., documentation on WDE website)Percent proficient cut-scores subject to substantial fluctuation unrelated to school performance
Alternative standardized score
approach
More stable
More sensitive to changes due to school
performance
Slide19Student Standardized ScoresIdentify a baseline year (2013)Compute statewide mean score and standard deviation for that yearFor example, on the math subject area test:
Mean = 19.6
Standard deviation = 4.5
Compute a standardized score for each student
(state mean – student score)/ state standard deviation
Assume student score is 21
(21 – 19.6) = 1.41.4/4.5 = 0.31“The student scored 31% of a standard deviation above the baseline mean score”
These scores will be negative when the student score is below the state baseline mean score
Slide20School Achievement ScoreThe mean student standardized score at the school multiplied by 100 and rounded to a whole numberThe
mean
is for all subject area tests combined
Each
school score will be a whole number
Most school will have scores will be between -100 and +100
“A school with a score of 28 had a mean student score that was 28% of a standard deviation above the baseline year state mean score”
A mean of the special education subgroup would be helpful
Slide21High School Equity IndicatorPolicy objective: To encourage a focus on improving performance of the most high-risk students
Slide22High School Consolidated SubgroupCriteria for consolidated subgroup membershipCurrent grade 11 students withGrade 10 PLAN scores on 2013 subject area testsBelow 17 on the math test (bottom 37% of scores) and/or
Below 16 on the reading test (bottom 33% of scores)
Schools were notified on November 5
th
in a
WDE Assessment Update
about these criteria for the 2014 high school consolidated subgroup
Slide23Equity Score ComputationIllustration: student standardized score computationState ACT math baseline mean score = 19.6State ACT math baseline year standard deviation = 4.5
Assume a student’s ACT math score is 17
(17 – 19.6) = -2.6
-2.6/4.5 = -0.58
This student’s score was 58% of a standard deviation
below
the state baseline year mean scoreHigh School Equity Score = the median student standardized score for the consolidated subgroup for reading and math combined
Slide24Readiness – Grades 9-12Performance on ACT Suite (Explore, Plan & ACT)
Graduation index
Grade
9 credits earned
Hathaway eligibility
24
Slide25ACT Suite – Average Index Score for all Tested Students
Composite Score
Ranges
Wyoming ACT Readiness Levels
ACT Explore Grade 9
ACT Plan Grade 10
ACT Test Grade 11
Index Points
Level 1
1-14
1-15
1-16
20
Level 2
15-17
16-18
17-20
50
Level 3
18-20
19-21
21-24
80
Level 4
21-25
22-32
25-36
100
Aligned
with Hathaway Scholarship eligibility
cut-points
Each
student receives an index
score
The
average of the index scores for all students will be the school
score
25
Slide26Graduation Index
Criteria Numbers
Student Result
Points*
1
Diploma Earned in Four Years
100
2
Diploma Earned in More than Four Years
100
3
Continued Enrollment***
50
4
Noncompleter
0
The index points were established by the PJP
26
Slide27Grade 9 Credits EarnedThe percent of students who completed grade 9 with one fourth of the credits required to receive a diploma
27
Slide28Hathaway Scholarship Eligibility Index
Student Eligibility Level
Points
Honors
100
Performance
90
Opportunity
80
Provisional
70
Not Eligible
0
The
school’s score will be the mean of the student points for the
graduating class at the school
The school receives an index score for each graduate
The average of the index scores for all students will be the school
score
28
Slide29Illustration of Total School Readiness Score
Subindicator
Hypothetical Score
for a School
Example Subindicator Weight
(School Score * Weight)
ACT Suite
Index
55
.20
11
Graduation Index
67
.25
17
Grade 9 Credits
72
.10
7
Hathaway Eligibility
80
.45
36
School Readiness Score (Sum of Subindicator Weighted Scores) =
71
29
Slide30Achievement Below
Achievement Meeting
Achievement Exceeding
Growth Below
NOT
PARTIALLY
PARTIALLY
Equity Below
Growth Meeting
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Growth Exceeding
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Growth Below
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Equity Meeting
Growth Meeting
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Growth Exceeding
PARTIALLY
MEETING
EXCEEDING
Growth Below
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Equity Exceeding
Growth Meeting
PARTIALLY
MEETING
EXCEEDING
Growth Exceeding
MEETING
MEETING
EXCEEDING
Decision Table for Schools with Three Indicators for Grades 3-8
30
Slide31Performance Level Descriptions(For Schools with Grades 3-8)EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS:
This category is reserved for schools considered models of performance. These schools demonstrated high achievement and exceeded target on at least one other performance indicator – equity or growth – while meeting target on the other indicator.
MEETING EXPECTATIONS
:
Schools in this category demonstrated performance that met or exceeded target on multiple performance indicators. These schools typically had acceptable or better levels of achievement, student growth, and/or in promoting equity for students with below-proficient achievement.
PARTIALLY MEETING EXPECTATIONS
:
Schools in this category performed below target on multiple performance indicators
or
were below target in achievement while failing to exceed target in the other indicator(s). Many schools in this category showed acceptable performance in promoting equity based on growth for students with below-proficient achievement
and/or
met target for student growth from year to year.
NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS
:
Schools in this category had unacceptable performance on all indicators. For schools in this category, improvement is an urgent priority. These schools have low levels of achievement, demonstrate below-target growth, and fall short of producing academic improvement for below-proficient students that will move them toward proficiency.
PJP 2013 Version
31
Slide32Decision Table for Schools with Two Indicators for Grades 3-8
32
Achievement Below
Achievement Meeting
Achievement
Exceeding
Growth
Below
NOT
PARTIALLY
PARTIALLY
Growth
Meeting
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Growth
Exceeding
PARTIALLY
MEETING
EXCEEDING
Slide33Achievement Below
Achievement Meeting
Achievement Exceeding
Readiness Below
NOT
PARTIALLY
PARTIALLY
Equity Below
Readiness Meeting
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Readiness Exceeding
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Readiness Below
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Equity Meeting
Readiness Meeting
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Readiness Exceeding
PARTIALLY
MEETING
EXCEEDING
Readiness Below
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Equity Exceeding
Readiness Meeting
PARTIALLY
MEETING
EXCEEDING
Readiness Exceeding
PARTIALLY
MEETING
EXCEEDING
Decision Table for Schools with Three Indicators for High Schools
33
Slide34Performance Level Descriptions(For High Schools) EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS
:
This category is reserved for schools considered models of performance. These schools demonstrated high achievement and exceeded target on at least one other performance indicator – equity or readiness – while meeting target on the other indicator.
MEETING EXPECTATIONS
:
Schools in this category demonstrated performance that met or exceeded target on multiple performance indicators. These schools typically had acceptable or better levels of achievement, student readiness, and/or in promoting equity for students with below-proficient achievement.
PARTIALLY MEETING EXPECTATIONS
:
Schools in this category demonstrated either unacceptable levels of achievement
or
were below target on improving the achievement of below-proficient students
and
on graduation rate and tested readiness. Many schools in this category showed acceptable performance in promoting equity based on growth for low achieving students
and/or
met target for student readiness.
NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS
:
Schools
in this category had unacceptable performance on all indicators. For schools in this category, improvement is an urgent priority. These schools have low levels of achievement, fall short of targets on graduation and tested readiness, and have large achievement gaps that show little or no improvement.
PJP 2013 Version
Slide35Decision Table for High Schools with Two Indicators
35
Achievement Below
Achievement Meeting
Achievement
Exceeding
Readiness
Below
NOT
PARTIALLY
PARTIALLY
Readiness Meeting
PARTIALLY
MEETING
MEETING
Readiness Exceeding
PARTIALLY
MEETING
EXCEEDING
Slide36Participation Rate ImpactSchools with grades 3-8All schools had participation rates of 98% or higher in 2013
One small school was docked a performance level for having less than 95% participation when a prior year was included in an attempt to meet the minimum
n
requirement
This school went from “meeting” to “partially meeting”
Slide37High School Participation Rate11 of 84 high schools had participation rates on the ACT suite of between 90% and <95% 3 of these were already “not meeting expectations”
4 dropped from “meeting” to “partially meeting”
4 dropped from “partially meeting” to “not meeting”
Slide38Participation Rate “Not Met”12 high schools had less than 90% participation rate on the ACT suite of tests8 of these were already “not meeting”
3 dropped from “partially meeting” to “not meeting”
1
dropped from “meeting” to “not meeting”
Slide39The ResultGrades 3-8 did well on participation rate13 of 84 high schools (16%) had lower performance levels because of poor participation rate on the ACT suite of testsAn additional 10 of 84 high schools (12%) had less than 95% participation rate on the ACT Suite but were already “not meeting”
28% of high schools had participation Rate Problems.
Slide40Contact InformationMichael Flicekmikefli@msn.com
307-259-3963