MASSP Spring Conference Keep the Destination in Mind Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education – MSIP 5 Update 1 March 25, 2013

MASSP Spring Conference

Keep the Destination in Mind

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education –MSIP 5 Update

1

March 25, 2013

Why We’re Here2

Preparing Every Child for Success in School and in Life

How We Got Here

MSIP is the state’s school accountability system used to review and accredit public school districts in Missouri.

MSIP began in 1990 and is entering its 5th version.

3

How It Happens

Annual Performance Reports (APRs): generated each year to determine appropriate supports for each public school, district and charter school.

Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP): All districts must maintain and implement.

4

Articulate the State's Expectations

Distinguish Performance of Schools and Districts

Empower All Stakeholders

Promote Continuous Improvementand Innovation

MSIP 5 Policy Goals5

Transition4th Cycle MSIP 5

Cyclical Annual

Number of Mets/Not Mets Percent of Points Earned

5 years of data 3 years of data

Grade Span ELA and Math Subject Area ELA, Math, SS, Science

District/LEA Level APR District/LEA and School Level APR

Targets based on state norm Targets based on Top 10 by 20 goal

Status + Progress Status + Progress OR Growth (where app)

ACT ACT or SAT or COMPASS or ASVAB

Enrollment in Advanced Courses Successful Completion of Advanced Courses

K-8 GPA standard K-8 High School Readiness Standard

Aggregate Attendance Attendance of Individual Child

Cohort Graduation Rate Up to 7-year Adjusted Cohort Rate

Focus on Continuous Improvement Focus on Continuous Improvement

1. Academic Achievement

2. Subgroup Achievement

3. College and Career Readiness (K-12 only)

or

3. High School Readiness (K-8 only)

4. Attendance Rate

5. Graduation Rate (K-12 only)

Performance Standards7

Academic Achievement

ELA, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies Multiple Measures

Status ProgressOr Growth

Goal Be in the top 10 performing states by 2020

8

Academic Achievement K-12

9

Academic Achievement ELA Mathematics Science Social Studies Total

Status 2020 Target= 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0

2020 Target = 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0


2020 Target = 8On Track = 6 Approach =5Floor =0

Progress Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0

Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0


Exceeds = 6On Target =3Approach =1.5Floor =0

Growth Exceeds = 12On Target =6Floor =0

Exceeds = 12On Target =6Floor =0

PointsPossible

16 16 16 8 56

Academic Achievement K-8

10

Academic Achievement ELA Mathematics Science Social

Studies Total

Status 2020 Target = 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0



Progress Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0



Growth Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0

Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach=3Floor =0

PointsPossible 16 16 16 48

11

EX Status Prog Grow Points Earned

A 16 12 12 16

B 16 12 6 16

C 16 12 3 16

D 16 12 0 16

E 16 6 12 16

F 16 6 6 16

G 16 6 3 16

H 16 6 0 16

I 16 3 12 16

J 16 3 6 16

K 16 3 3 16

L 16 3 0 16

M 16 0 12 16

N 16 0 6 16

O 16 0 3 16

P 16 0 0 16


Q 12 12 12 16

R 12 12 6 16

S 12 12 3 16

T 12 12 0 16

U 12 6 12 16

V 12 6 6 16

W 12 6 3 16

X 12 6 0 16

Y 12 3 12 16

Z 12 3 6 16AA 12 3 3 15BB 12 3 0 15CC 12 0 12 16DD 12 0 6 16EE 12 0 3 15FF 12 0 0 12


GG 9 12 12 16HH 9 12 6 16II 9 12 3 16JJ 9 12 0 16KK 9 6 12 16LL 9 6 6 15MM 9 6 3 15NN 9 6 0 15OO 9 3 12 16PP 9 3 6 15QQ 9 3 3 12RR 9 3 0 12SS 9 0 12 16TT 9 0 6 15UU 9 0 3 12VV 9 0 0 9


WW 0 12 12 12XX 0 12 6 12YY 0 12 3 12ZZ 0 12 0 12a 0 6 12 12B 0 6 6 6c 0 6 3 6d 0 6 0 6e 0 3 12 12f 0 3 6 6g 0 3 3 3h 0 3 0 3i 0 0 12 12j 0 0 6 6k 0 0 3 3l 0 0 0 0

Subject Areas

ELA Mathematics Science Social Studies

GLA 3-8MAP-A 3-8, 11English IEnglish II

GLA 3-8MAP-A 3-8, 10Algebra IAlgebra IIGeometry

GLA 5 and 8MAP-A 5,8,11Biology

GovernmentAmerican History

12

Additional EOCs TBD Grade 11 End-of-high-school operational in 2014-2015 (potential CCR

measure)

Status Targets 2020 Target – represents a level of performance approximately equivalent

to the projected 2020 performance of the top 10 states on the corresponding NAEP exam OR, in subjects for which state-by-state NAEP data are unavailable, an equally rigorous target.

On Track —represents a level of performance about equal to 75% proficient by year 2020. Current performance is compared to this target, then a linear trajectory is created that requires equal annual progress increments to reach the 2020 target.

Approaching—represents a level of performance about equal to 100% Basic if each

Floor—represents a level of performance less than 100% Basic

13

Progress Targets Promote continuous improvement

Are customized for each LEA and school

Use Rolling Average Multiple Years of Data Less Volatility

14

Growth Targets Missouri Growth Model

Uses three years of outcome data Outcome year is defined as a valid score pair Pairs include 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011 -

2012 A valid MAP score pair is a score from grades 4

through 8 with a score from the prior year and grade level

Growth data applies to grade level assessments

15

15

Growth Points Earned

Growth

Growth Measures

Growth Points Earned

Growth Measure Description

Exceeding 12a statistically

significant score>50

On Track 6not statistically

significant growth estimates

Floor 0a statistically

significant score <50

16

16

2. Subgroup Achievement— The district demonstrates required improvement in student performance for its subgroups.

1. English Language Arts

2. Mathematics

3. Science

4. Social Studies

MSIP 5 Performance Standards 2

17

Proficiency Rates by Subgroup

Subgroup % Of State

Population

CA 2009

CA 2010

CA 2011

Math 2009

Math 2010

Math 2011

Total 100% 51.2 53.6 54.6 47.6 52.7 54.2

Asian/Pacific Is 1.9% 61.7 65.6 65.0 64.8 70.5 72.0

Black 16.3% 29.7 32.0 32.7 21.2 23.0 29.0

Hispanic 4.3% 37.7 40.6 41.6 34.4 35.8 41.4

American In 0.5% 51.1 51.1 51.2 41.8 44.0 48.6

White 75.6% 56.6 59.0 60.1 52.8 53.6 58.3

Multi-Racial 1.3% 60.3 53.7 53.5 58.9 65.1 53.1

FRL 46.6% 36.3 39.4 40.5 31.8 33.3 38.9

IEP 12.5% 23.6 26.2 27.0 22.7 25.8 29.2

LEP 2.6% 24.7 25.2 23.2 28.4 28.6 31.4

18

Subgroup Achievement

Multiple Measures Status ProgressOR Growth

Goal Cut Gap in Half by 2020

19

Algebra I EOC / GLA Policy

Choose one test Algebra I in middle school + Algebra II in high

school Algebra I and Geometry in middle school +

Algebra II in high school Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II in middle

school + plan from district

20

EOC Retest Policy

LEAs are required to ensure students participate in the required end-of-course tests prior to graduation

LEAs may not assess a student who previously scored proficient or advanced on the SAME end-of-course (EOC) assessment multiple times.

LEAs may submit an appeal for a student who previously scored basic or below basic and is retaking the test for A+ eligibility

21

College and Career Readiness *1-6

22

Academic Achievement

CCR *1-3 CCR *4 CCR *5-6 Total

Status 2020 Target = 10On Track = 7.5Approaching = 6Floor = 0

2020 Target = 10On Track = 7.5Approaching = 6Floor = 0

2020 Target = 10On Track = 7.5Approaching = 6Floor = 0

Progress Exceeding = 7.5On Track = 4Approaching = 2Floor = 0

Exceeding = 7.5On Track = 4Approaching = 2Floor = 0

Exceeding = 7.5On Track = 4Approaching = 2Floor = 0

PointsPossible 10 10 10 30

Standard 3 CCR *1- 623

Graduate File Unduplicated Count Highest Score where applicable No Full Academic Year (FAY)

Standard 3 CCR *1- 6 Updates

Standard 3 *1-3 2020 Trajectory Increased Participation

Standard 3 *4 2020 Trajectory TSA data not yet included

Standard 3*5 National Student Clearinghouse

24

HSR

June Enrollment and Attendance- 8th Grade Exiters

Unduplicated Count A qualifying score of Proficient or Advanced No Full Academic Year (FAY)

25

Attendance 90% of the students in attendance 90% of the time

Proportional Attendance Rate Hours of attendance + Hours of absence School calendar hours

Use of Stopout Code

26

Graduation Rate Five-Year Adjusted Cohort Rate for accountability A Six- and Seven- Year adjusted cohort rate will be

used for accountability as the data become available

Four-Year Adjusted Cohort for reporting

27

4 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate




2011

2012 2012

2013 2013 2013

2014 2014 2014 2014

Changes to March 2012 Draft APR

Terminology and Reports Status and Progress Titles LEAs and School Titles LEP to ELL Performance Indicators (Remove risk factor language)

Weighted Proportional Attendance Rate

6-Year & 7-Year Graduation Rate

Revised Cut Scores CCR Indicators

28

Guidance Document

Appendix Matrix of Approximately Equivalent CCR *1-3

Assessment Scores Missouri institutions complying with the

Coordinating Board for Higher Education’s Dual Credit Policy and Principles of Good Practice for Dual Credit Courses

Approved Technical Skills Attainment (TSA) Assessments

29

Accreditation Levels

Accredited with Distinction >90% of points + other criteria as determined

Accredited >70% of points

Provisional >50% to 69.9% of points

Unaccredited < 50% of points

30

Transition into MSIP 5

Assessment Data

APR release Classification

2011-2012 4th Cycle MSIP - 2012 APR (summer 2012)

Board Classification for all remaining 4th Cycle districts

2011-2012 MSIP 5 - 2012 APR(fall 2012)

Draft MSIP 5

2012-2013 MSIP 5 - 2013 APR (summer 2013)

Year 1 MSIP 5 Year 1 APR

2013-2014 MSIP 5 - 2014 APR (summer 2014)

Year 2 MSIP 5 Year 2 APR

2014-2015 MSIP 5 - 2015 APR (summer 2015)

Year 3 MSIP 5Board Classification for all districts based on MSIP 5

Year 3APR

31

Other Things to Consider Test Participation

EOC MAP-A

Data Corrections Historical and current data clean up through 6/30/2013 Historical Supporting APR data frozen 7/1/2013

Look Ahead Plan for transition to new assessments Pay attention to all three years of data when projecting Focus on each student’s learning

32

Resource Standards

Elementary

High School

Class Size and Assigned Enrollments

Guidance and Counseling Staff

Certification and Licensure

Principals/Building Administrators

333333

33

Process Standards

34

Teacher/Leader Standards (2)

Instruction Standards (11)

Governance Standards (11)

34

High expectations for each child

More comprehensive reports

Multiple ways to meet measures

Greater flexibility in how the individual child demonstrates achievement

MSIP 5 Benefits35

36

Office of Quality Schools

Jocelyn Strand, Coordinator [email protected]

Melissa Hensley, Director [email protected]

Cathi Rust, Supervisor [email protected]

Office of Data Systems Management

Jason Young, Coordinator [email protected]

Janet Duncan, Assistant Director [email protected]

36

mailto:[email protected]



Characteristics of Proficiency-based Learning (PBL)

Students advance upon demonstrated mastery.

Learning objectives are explicit, measurable, transferable and empower students.

Assessment is meaningful and a positive learning experience for students.

Students receive timely, differentiated support.

Emphasis on application and creation of knowledge, and the development of important skills and dispositions.

Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013

37

Conceptual Framework

Beliefs All students can learn. Students learn at different rates.

Traditional structures hold time constant. Learning becomes the variable.

Goal: Free the learning process from time constraints.


38

PBL Task Force Recommendations

1. Revise the Graduation Handbook

2. Modify MOSIS to support PBL implementation

3. Establish minimum standards by which PBL Credit can be earned (ensure rigor and transferability of credit)

4. Increase the availability of EOCs, and possibly TSAs

5. Develop a standard statewide transcript

39


PBL Task Force Recommendations6. Develop an assessment system for primary and intermediate

grades/ages that supports PBL

7. Develop an assessment reporting system that supports PBL

8. Develop an accountability plan for PBL and Credit

9. Advocate for legislative action which supports funding for PBL in a manner similar to Virtual Education

10. Advocate for statutory change which provides economically efficient advantages to fund college credit

40


Further Study

Changes needed in the accreditation system. Implications for support of the delayed learner. Best transcription practices:

Incomplete mastery, Weighted Grades.

Funding for non-time-based learning structures, including ADA-based payments made upon course completion.


41

Common Core State Standards

• Define the knowledge and skills students need for college and career

• Developed voluntarily and cooperatively by states; more than 40 states have adopted

• Provide clear, consistent standards in English language arts/literacy and mathematics

Source: www.corestandards.org

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

A Balanced Assessment System


specify K-12

expectations for college and career readiness


specify K-12

expectations for college and career readiness

All students leave

high school college

and career ready

All students leave

high school college

and career ready

Teachers and schools have

information and tools they need

to improve teaching and

learning

Interim assessments

Flexible, open, used for actionable

feedback

Summative assessments

Benchmarked to college and career

readiness

Teacher resources for formative

assessment practices

to improve instruction

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

Educator Preparation

New Teacher – Principal Survey MEGA Surveys

44

Frames of Reference

The Right People Profile

Content Knowledge General Education - Entry Content and Pedagogy– Exit

Field & Clinical Performance Standards Based Performance

43

Questions???46

THANK YOU!!!47

Documents

MASSP Spring Conference Keep the Destination in Mind Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education – MSIP 5 Update 1 March 25, 2013