Upload
ulf
View
45
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Edward Croft, Florida Department of Education Bureau Chief, Accountability Reporting Accountability, Research and Measurement Florida Charter School Conference, November 15, 2011. Florida’s School Accountability System Overview and Updates. Florida’s School Grading System. Purpose and Aims - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Edward Croft, Florida Department of EducationBureau Chief, Accountability ReportingAccountability, Research and MeasurementFlorida Charter School Conference, November 15, 2011
Florida’s School Accountability System Overview and Updates
2
Florida’s School Grading System
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Purpose and Aims• Making school performance clear to the public• Universally understood metric (A-F)• Performance is based upon student outcomes.• System of rewards and supports• Primary and lasting goals: raising student
achievement and success, bringing more opportunities to students, opening doors
Context• Accountability systems in transition• FCAT cut scores increasing – raising standards• School Grades – Changes to add new
statutorily required elements and new tests– End of Course (EOC) assessments– Middle school – acceleration measures
•high school EOCs and industry certifications
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
3Accountability, Research, and Measurement
4
Transition in School Grades System• Transition to new tests occurring over the next 4
years• Designing the system now to accommodate the
changes• Rule revision to lay out changes for 2011-12 and
beyond• Develop a multi-year model to:
– Implement statutory changes– Include new tests as they are available– Review and set school grading scale
• Working closely with stakeholdersAccountability, Research, and Measurement
5
School Grade Distribution – Graded Schools (2011 does not include high schools.)
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
8%
24% 24%
37%
49% 48%45%
53% 52%55%
61%
52%
58%
13%
11%
17%23% 23% 23% 22%
22%
17%
20%17%
23%18%
51%48%
46%
30%
23% 23% 22%
20%
21%
20%14%
19% 18%
25%
16%13%
8%5% 7% 8%
4% 8% 5% 6% 5% 5%3% 0% 0% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1%
3% 2% 2% 2% 1%
A B C D F
6
Elementary School Grade Distribution (A-F) 2002 to 2011
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
39%
56%
60%57% 58%
64%
59%
72%
54%58%
23%22% 20% 20% 22%
15%
19%15% 20%
18%
28%
18% 16% 17% 18%
17%
18%10%
20% 18%
8%3% 4% 5%
2%3% 3% 2% 4% 5%
2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%
A B C D F
7
Middle School Grade Distribution (A-F) 2002 to 2011
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
45%
52%
40%36%
67%
48%
60%64% 61%
59%
24%
26%
24%27% 20%
18%17% 16% 17% 17%
25%
18%
28% 29%
12%
24%19%
17% 17%19%
4% 4% 5% 6%1%
8%4% 2% 4% 5%
1% 0% 3% 2% 0%2%
1% 1% 1% 1%
A B C D F
8
High School Grade Distribution (A-F) 2002 to 2010
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
16%17%
10% 15% 17%14%
30%
17%
30%
19%23%
18%21%
25%
22% 22%24%
40%
48%
42%
44%
34%38%
30%
26%
27%
15%
12% 15%
23% 24%
18%
26%
18%
28%
13%
6%3% 4%
5%3%
8%4% 4%
1%
A B C D F
9
Charter School Grade Distribution (A-F)by Percent, 2004 to 2011*
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
39% 36%
50% 48%52%
63%
57% 57%
11%
15% 20%
21% 20%16%
14% 15%
24% 22% 21%
19% 19%12%
15% 17%13% 14%
6% 8%
4%
6% 8%
5%
12%12%
3% 5%5%
3% 6%
6%
A B C D F
* Results for 2011 do not include high school grades.
10Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Charter Schools, Reading PerformanceElementary School Grades
11Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Charter Schools, Reading PerformanceMiddle School Grades
12Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Charter Schools, Reading PerformanceHigh School Grades
38.3
13
Reading Outcomes for Schools Graded “A” in 2010
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Type
“A” Schools with at Least 50% of Students
at Level 3 and Up in Reading
“A” Schools with Less than 50% of
Students at Level 3 in Reading
Number Percent Number Percent
Elementary 950 100% 0 0%
Middle 352 100% 0 0%
High* 98 81% 23 19%*Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades.
14
Reading Outcomes for Schools Graded “B” in 2010
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Type
“B” Schools with at Least 50% of Students
at Level 3 and Up in Reading
“B” Schools with Less than 50% of Students at Level 3 in Reading
Number Percent Number PercentElementary 362 100% 1 0%Middle 95 99% 1 1%
High* 81 50% 81 50%*Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades.
15
Reading Outcomes for Schools Graded “C” in 2010
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Type
“C” Schools with at Least 50% of Students
at Level 3 and Up in Reading
“C” Schools with Less than 50% of Students at Level 3 in Reading
Number Percent Number PercentElementary 338 93% 25 7%Middle 64 65% 35 35%High* 1 2% 60 98%
*Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades.
16
Overview of School Grading: Assessment Components
(Comprising 100% of Elementary and Middle School Grades, and 50% of High School Grades)
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Current Elementary and Middle School Grades Model
Reading Math Writing Science
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
FCAT 2.0 (100)12.5%
FCAT (100)12.5%
FCAT (100)12.5%
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
(300)37.5%
(300)37.5%
(100)12.5%
(100)12.5%
Performance
Learning Gains: All Students
Low 25% Learning Gains
17Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Current High School Grades Model
18
Reading Math Writing Science Acceleration Grad Rate College Readiness
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
FCAT 2.0 (100)12.5%
FCAT (100)12.5%
FCAT (100)12.5%
Participation(175)
10.94%
Overall(200)12.5%
Reading(100)6.25%
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
Performance(125)7.81%
At Risk(100)6.25%
Math(100)6.25%
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
FCAT 2.0(100)12.5%
(300)18.75%
(300)18.75%
(100)6.25%
(100)6.25%
(300)18.75%
(300)18.75%
(200)12.5%
Performance
Learning Gains: All Students
Low 25% Learning Gains
Assessment Components = 50% Acceleration Components = 50%
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Points for Performance (Four Components)
One point for each percent of students meeting performance standards on the FCAT, as follows:– FCAT reading, math, and science = score at FCAT
Level 3 or higher. – FCAT Writing = a score of 4 or higher on the essay
component. (Increased from “3.5 or higher” in 2009-10).
19Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Defining Learning Gains
Three Ways to Make Learning Gains:1. Move up by one or more achievement levels.2. Maintain a satisfactory achievement level.3. For students who remain at FCAT Level 1 or
2, demonstrate more than one year’s worth of growth on the FCAT vertical scale.
20Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Additional RequirementsAdequate Progress of Lowest Performing 25% in Reading and Mathematics• At least 50% of the low performers in a school must
show learning gains in reading or math, or the school must show annual improvement in that percentage.
• The school grade is lowered one letter grade if the requirement is not met - for schools that would otherwise be graded “C” or higher
“Percent Tested” Requirement• 90% must be tested to receive a regular grade in lieu of
an “I”. • 95% must be tested for a school to be eligible for an “A.”
21Accountability, Research, and Measurement
22
Current Grading ScaleFor Elementary and Middle Schools
800 possible points:A = ≥ 525 pointsB = 495-524 pointsC = 435-494 pointsD = 395-434 pointsF = < 395 points
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
23
Students Included in the CalculationPerformance Components
• Students must be enrolled for the full year (present in Survey 2 and Survey 3)
• Standard curriculum, Gifted, Speech Impaired, Hospital Homebound, English language learners with > 2 yrs. in ESOL
• Current-year FCAT score in content area.Learning Gains
• Students must enrolled for the full year.• Must have current and prior-year test scores (FCAT or
Florida Alternate Assessment) in content area.
24
Reasons Why Some Schools Are Not Graded
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Statute provides conditions under which a school may not receive a school grade (Section 1008.34, F.S.)• Insufficient number of students tested (cell size requirements)• Alternative schools may elect to receive a school improvement
rating instead• DJJ centers are not assigned school grades. • ESE centers – not enough standard curriculum students with
FCAT scores (reading, math, writing, science). • Certain other types of schools that serve populations outside
the tested grades.
25
Reasons Why Some Schools Are Not Graded,and Cell-Size Issues
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
• School grades includes only standard curriculum students in the performance components. AYP includes all students. This reduces the number of students counted for school grades
• To receive a school grade schools must have a sufficient number of students tested in each “cell” of the formula
• Cell sizes required for school grades are 30 for reading and math and 10 for other areas where only 1 grade is tested
• Under AYP, minimum cell-size for the school = 11.• Cell-size criteria for AYP reporting are established in states’
federally approved accountability plans and may vary from state to state.
• Cell-size criteria for school grades are established in the implementing rule (6A-1.09981).
Cell Size Issues• Some competing factors considered when
establishing cell size are:• sample size and reliability of measures• the desire to have uniform criteria for inclusion • the desire to include as many students and schools
as possible in accountability determinations• the appropriateness of assessments for specific
populations• characteristics of special populations.
• Many schools do not receive a school grade because they do not meet the cell size requirements
26
27
Number of Florida Schools Receiving an AYP Rating vs. Number Receiving a School Grade
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
# Receiving AYP
Designation (Yes/No)
# Receiving a School Grade
(A – F) Difference2003 2,995 2,421 5742004 3,068 2,653 4152005 3,106 2,770 3362006 3,198 2,790 4082007 3,244 2,838 4062008 3,306 2,892 4142009 3,354 2,952 4022010 3,424 2,998 4262011* 3,396 3,035 361*Though complete high school grades for 2011 have not yet been issued, there is data available to determine the number of schools that will receive a grade.
High School Grades
28
High School Grades
29
• State Assessment Based Components = 50% of the school grade for high schools (800 points).
HS Components Outside State Assessments = 50% of High School Grade (800 points)
30
GRADUATION ACCELERATION(AP, IB, AICE, DE, Ind.Cert.)
READINESS(ACT, SAT, CPT,
P.E.R.T.)GROWTH/DECLINE
Overall Rate200
Participation200 (in 2009-10)175 (in 2010-11)150 (in 2011-12)
Performance on Reading100
For each component, schools earn up to 20 points for GROWTH
(up to 40 points for a double-weighted component , like the graduation rate)
At-Risk Rate100
Performance100 (in 2009-10)125 (in 2010-11)150 (in 2011-12)
Performance on Mathematics
100
For each component, schools lose 5 points for DECLINE
(up to 10 points for a double-weighted component, like the graduation rate)
Total Graduation Points
300
Total Acceleration Points
300
Total Readiness Points
200
Total HIGH SCHOOL Points Possible (Non-Assessment Measures)
800
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
High School Grades: Changes in 2010-11
31
• More emphasis on acceleration performance (125 points in 2011 vs. 100 points in 2010)
• Less emphasis on acceleration participation (175 points in 2011 vs. 200 points in 2010)
• P.E.R.T. scores (as available) now included for Postsecondary Readiness.
Graduation Rate
32
For 2009-10 and 2010-11, Florida is using the National Governors’ Association four-year graduation rate.
Which students are included in the cohort (denominator)? Entering 9th graders in Year 1 of the 4-year cohort plus incoming transfers, minus exiting transfers and deceased students
Who counts as a graduate? Standard diploma recipients and special diploma recipients
Who counts as a non-graduate? Students in the adjusted cohort who did not receive a standard diploma or special diploma (i.e., dropouts, certificate of completion recipients, GED diploma recipients, other non-graduates)
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Graduation Rate Summary Information
33
Graduation Rate Methods
Students Not Included in the Calculation
Graduates Non-Graduates
National Governors Association (NGA) Rate
Students who transfer to:• Other schools (public,
private, or Dept. of Juvenile Justice facilities);
• Home-education programs;• Adult education programs
Deceased students
• Standard Diploma recipients
• Special Diploma recipients
• Dropouts• Certificate of Completion recipients• GED recipients• Continuing enrollees who are not on-
time graduates
New Federal Uniform Rate Students who transfer to:• Other schools (public or
private)• Home-education programs
Deceased students
• Standard Diploma recipients
• Dropouts• Certificate of Completion recipients• GED recipients• Continuing enrollees who are not on-
time graduates• Special Diplomas• Transfers to Adult education
programs or Dept. of Juvenile Justice facilities who are not standard diploma recipients.
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Accelerated Participation
• Based on AP, IB, AICE exams; Dual Enrollment courses; Industry Certification programs
• Denominator = count of 11th and 12th grade students.
• Students in grades 9 and 10 are included in the numerator if they have successful completions
• Extra weighting for more than one exam/course.
34Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Accelerated Performance
35
• Included students = Participants from the acceleration participation calculation.
• Performance = Successful completions (i.e., credit-earning scores on AP, AICE, IB, Industry Certification; and, grade of “C” or higher in dual enrollment courses).
• Extra weighting for highest scores on AP, IB, AICE, and for certain Industry Certification programs.
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Postsecondary Readiness - Reading, Math
• Calculated separately for reading and mathematics with max of 100 points each.
• Beginning in 2011-12, by rule, the measure will apply to all on-time graduates.
36
Numerator DenominatorNumber of students “ready” on SAT, ACT, and/or CPT/P.E.R.T. any time during their high school careers
On-time HS graduates who scored a Level 3+ on the 10th Grade FCAT
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
High School Grade Scale
37
Grade Scale for High Schools = 1600 point scale:
• A = At least 1,050 points, • B = 990 to 1,049 points, • C = 870 to 989 points, • D = 790 to 869 points, • F = Fewer than 790 points.
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Changes Coming for School Grades
38
• FCAT 2.0 cut scores: increased rigor of test and achievement expectations.
• Moving toward new assessments of reading and mathematics in 2014-15: PARCC
• Adding new measures to the middle school grades (HS EOCs and Industry Certifications)
• Assimilating EOCs into the school grades model as they are implemented
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
39
Multi-year School Grades System• Transition to new tests occurring over the next 4
years• Designing the system now to accommodate the
changes• Develop a multi-year model to:
– Implement statutory changes– Include new tests as they are available– Review and set school grading scale
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Each time standards are raised, the number of lower performing schools has decreased in the following year.
40
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
515
845
1004
1447
1809
18021844
2077
1952
21272317
2221
677
401307
249
173 233
308
143
299
200 217 213
A and B Schools D and F Schools
Num
ber o
f Sch
ools
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Grades in 2011-12 and Beyond – Key Issues
• Changes already written in rule for 2011-12 to increase rigor for high school grades
• Include learning gains for EOCs as required in statute• Learning gains on the Florida Alternate Assessment
for students scoring at the lowest levels• Learning gains: structure for FCAT 2.0 reading and
mathematics• Balance of performance and learning gains in new
model(s); distribution/weighting of points for school grade components
41Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Grades in 2011-12 and Beyond - Key Issues (continued)
• Address the statutory requirement for greater emphasis on reading performance
• High school science performance in 2011-12, Biology 1 EOC in its baseline year
• Middle school grades – include high-school level EOCs and Industry Certifications (as available)
• Banking middle school performance on HS level EOCs (Algebra 1 for 2011-12) for high school grades
42Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Grades in 2011-12 and Beyond - Key Issues (continued)
• Criteria for setting school grading scale• Review cell size requirements• Possibly include exceptional education
students in proficiency calculations• Accountability for ESE centers• Accountability for DJJ Centers
43Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Impact of FCAT 2.0 Cut Scores on School Grades
• Won’t know the impact until:– Cut scores are finalized– School Grades model for next year is finalized– Working on simulations to determine the impact
of the raised scores on school grades
44Accountability, Research, and Measurement
AAAC Recommendation Learning Gains for FCAT 2.0
• Students who increase an achievement level• Students who maintain a Level 3 or higher achievement level• Students at achievement levels 1 and 2 must:
– Demonstrate more than 1 year’s expected growth on the new FCAT 2.0 scale.
– Under this model, Level 1 students would be expected to show more growth than Level 2 students.
– Model still being reviewed, subject to change.• The requirements will be included in the revised school grades
rule (6A-1.09981)
• Review value added model at the school level next summer
45Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Scale Scores – Reading, Draft Proposed Rule
46
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10150
175
200
225
250
275
300
182192
200207
213 218 222228
198208
216222 228
234238 243
210221
230237
243249 253 256
227238
246252
258264 268 271
FCAT 2.0 Reading Scale Score Cuts – Draft Proposed Rule, 10/7/11
Achievement Level 2 Cut Score Achievement Level 3 Cut Score Achievement Level 4 Cut ScoreAchievement Level 5 Cut Score
Grade Level
Scal
e Sc
ore
Not determined
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Differences in Cut Scores
47
(Subject to Change if Cut Scores Change.)
Grade Level 1-2 Level 2-3 Level 3-4 Level 4-53 to 4 10 10 11 114 to 5 8 8 9 85 to 6 7 6 7 66 to 7 6 6 6 67 to 8 5 6 6 68 to 9 4 4 4 49 to 10 6 5 3 3
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
AAAC Proposed Learning Gains Model for Florida Alternate Assessment Scores (for Students with Disabilities)
• Students’ second-year score must increase relative to their
first year score by more than the standard error of the difference of the two scores.
• AAAC recommends setting a fixed score differential for the calculation to make it more understandable to stakeholders.
• The fixed score differential would be derived from analysis of all state scores.
• This provision is supported by the Leadership Policy Advisory Council (LPAC).
• Task - Determine whether the value of the fixed score differential fluctuates among grade levels or achievement levels.
48Accountability, Research, and Measurement
AAAC Recommendation* Learning Gains for Algebra 1
• If a student scores at level 3 or higher on Algebra 1, the student is credited with a learning gain.
• For levels 1 and 2, compare the t-score for FCAT 2.0 Mathematics in the prior year with the t-score for Algebra 1. The t-scores are scores set on a common scale between the two assessments.
• Next summer, review the value added model for EOC learning gains at the school level.
49
* Keep in mind that these are just recommendations and may (or may not) be adopted by the State Board.
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
New Middle School Grades Component – AAAC Recommendation
Middle School acceleration measure – 100 points• Structured similar to the high school measure• Participation in high school end-of-course assessments (50 points)
Denominator =o Grade 8 students scoring at level 3 or higher on 7th grade FCAT +o 6th and 7th graders taking HS EOCs in the current year that have matched
course records +o Other 8th graders taking HS EOCs that have matched course records
• Performance on high school end-of-course assessments (50 points) Denominator = participants from the participation measure
• Attainment of National Industry Certifications – AAAC recommends including with HS EOCs in the acceleration measures,
when data become available.50
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Type of Assessment Assessment Area
Year Administered to Students (Baseline Yr. in Red)
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 FCAT FCAT Writing Gr 4, 8, 10 Gr 4, 8, 10 Gr 4, 8, 10
FCAT 2.0 FCAT 2.0 Reading Gr 3-10 Gr 3-10 Gr 3-10
FCAT 2.0 Mathematics Gr 3-8 Gr 3-8 Gr 3-8
FCAT 2.0 Science Gr 5, 8 Gr 5, 8 Gr 5, 8 Gr 5, 8
End-of-Course Assessments
Algebra 1 In Course In Course In Course
Geometry In Course In Course In Course
Biology 1 In Course In Course In Course In Course
US History In Course In Course In Course
CivicsMiddle School
Middle School
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
English language Arts Gr 3-11
Mathematics Gr 3-8
High School Math EOCs (3 subjects) In course
Postsecondary Education Readiness Test (PERT)
Reading, Writing, Mathematics Gr 11 Gr 11 Gr 11 Gr 11
51
New EOCs Added to School Grades
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
High SchoolAlgebra 1 (math component) XGeometry (math component) XBiology (science component) ? XU.S. History (50 pts) XMiddle SchoolCivics (100 pts) X
52Accountability, Research, and Measurement
ESEA Waiver Request(Four Areas to Address for State Requests)
53Accountability, Research, and Measurement
• 1: COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL STUDENTS
• 2: STATE-DEVELOPED DIFFERENTIATED RECOGNITION, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SUPPORT
• 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION AND LEADERSHIP
• 4: Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden on Local Education Agencies
ESEA Waiver Request andDifferentiated Accountability (DA)
54Accountability, Research, and Measurement
• Florida will need to revise its Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMOs) for AYP reporting to conform with options presented by the U.S. Department of Education.
• If the waiver request is approved, the AYP performance of subgroups and schools will be reported on annual reports but will not be used in determining school improvement requirements.
• If our DA system is revised as planned, schools will be classified in DA based solely on their school grade:• Prevent = “C” schools• Correct = “D” schools• Intervene = “F” schools
Request Submitted on Nov. 14, 2011
Timeline• May – Feedback from Leadership Policy Advisory Council
(LPAC)• July – Feedback from Assessment and Accountability Advisory
Committee (AAAC)• August – Feedback from LPAC• October – Feedback from AAAC and LPAC• November – Feedback from AAAC, Submit ESEA Flexibility
Request• December – FCAT rule to the State Board to set cut scores• December – School Grades rule workshops• January – Receive USDOE determination on ESEA Flexibility
Request• February – School grades rule to the State Board
55Accountability, Research, and Measurement