Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAMSSLIP January 24, 2014
OUTLINE Scorecard Summary Scorecard Change Analysis for 2012-13
SY House Bill 5112 Overview Shared Educational Entities Overview Current Status of Educator Evaluations
BRIEF SCORECARD SUMMARY
2012-13 SCHOOL SCORECARD RESULTS
Overall Color Counts for Building-Level:
Green = 93
Lime = 0
Yellow = 2598
Orange = 184
Red = 481
2012-13 SUBGROUP RESULTS ANALYSIS - MATHSubgroup Total Met Met
%Safe Harbor
Safe Harbor %
Total Met
Total Met %
Am. Indian/AK Nat.
27 22 81.5 1 3.7 23 85.2
Asian 173 170 98.3 0 0 170 98.3Black/Af. Am.
893 519 58.1 32 3.6 551 61.7
Hispanic 327 268 82 5 1.5 273 83.5Two or More 53 45 84.9 0 0 45 84.9White 2561 251
098 1 0 2511 98
SE 1333 443 33.2 107 8 550 41.3ED 2683 215
480.3 50 1.9 2204 82.1
EL 243 125 51.4 6 2.5 131 53.9Bottom 30 2950 109 3.7 30 1 139 4.7All Subgroups
11243 6365
56.6 232 2.1 6597 58.7
2012-13 SUBGROUP RESULTS ANALYSIS - READING
Subgroup Total Met Met %
Safe Harbor
Safe Harbor %
Total Met
Total Met %
Am. Indian/AK Nat.
27 25 92.6 1 3.7 26 96.3
Asian 173 168 97.1 0 0 168 97.1Black/Af. Am.
893 809 90.6 10 1.1 918 91.7
Hispanic 327 315 96.3 0 0 315 96.3Two or More 54 53 98.1 0 0 53 98.1White 2560 251
398.2 2 0.1 2515 98.2
SE 1344 229 17 237 17.6 466 34.7ED 2685 253
294.3 18 0.7 2550 95
EL 243 157 64.6 22 9.1 179 73.7Bottom 30 2951 564 19.1 254 8.6 818 27.7All Subgroups
11257 7365
65.4 544 4.8 7909 70.3
A BRIEF ANALYSIS• Out of 93 Green schools, 49 schools have no
proficiency data (participation, compliance factors)• 2893 schools had at least one red proficiency cell
for the Bottom 30% subgroup Overall color drops to yellow with at least one red cell
• 162 schools had 10 or fewer possible points: 41 green 0 lime 36 yellow 20 orange 65 red
SAFE HARBOR Safe Harbor is currently met when
meeting the state’s rate of improvement at the 80th percentile
350 buildings made Safe Harbor in at least one content area and subgroup
SCORECARD CHANGE SCENARIOS
SMALL SCHOOLS SCALE CHANGE SCENARIO
Alternate color scale for schools with small amount of possible points (162 with 10 or less) Example scenario:
X >=75% Green 41 schools (no change) 60% <= x < 75% Lime 0 schools (no
change) 50% <= x < 60% Yellow 53 schools
(+17) 40% <= x < 50% Orange 7 schools (-13) X < 40% Red 61 schools (-4)
SMALL SCHOOLS ALTERNATE SCALE AND NO AUDITS
Schools with 10 possible points or less and no audits Example scenario:
X >= 75% Green 46 schools (+5)
60% <= X < 75% Lime 2 schools (+2)
50% <= X < 60% Yellow 46 schools (+10)
40% <= X < 50% Orange 7 schools (-13)
X < 40% Red 61 schools (-4)
SMALL SCHOOLS ALTERNATE SCALE, NO AUDITS, MODIFIED SAFE HARBOR
Schools with 10 possible points or less, no audits, Safe Harbor threshold = 65th percentile Example scenario:
X >= 75% Green 53 schools (+12)
60% <= X < 75% Lime 0 schools (no change)
50% <= X < 60% Yellow 81 schools (+45)
40% <= X < 50% Orange 3 schools (-17)
X < 40% Red 25 schools (-40)
NEW SCHOOLS POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR 2013-14
Add an indicator for new schools/schools without proficiency points meeting non-proficiency areas (participation, compliance, ed evals)
49 schools in 2012-13 would have met this criteria
PROFICIENCY CELL AUDIT SCENARIOS
Change audit rules for proficiency cells Example Scenario:
1 red cell = overall green 2 red cells = overall lime >2 red cells = overall yellow minimum
Results for 2012-13:168 green (+75)143 lime (+143)2380 yellow (-218)184 orange481 red
PROFICIENCY CELL AUDIT SCENARIOS Change audit rules for proficiency cells – example 2
Example Scenario: 0 red cells = overall green 1 red cell = overall lime >1 red cell = overall yellow minimum
Results for 2012-13:93 green86 lime (+86)2512 yellow (-86)184 orange481 red
PROFICIENCY CELL AUDIT SCENARIOS Change audit rules for proficiency cells – example 3
Example Scenario: 2 red cells = overall green 5 red cells = overall lime >5 red cells = overall yellow minimum
Results for 2012-13:229 green (+136)1264 lime (+1264)1198 yellow (-1400)184 orange481 red
SAFE HARBOR SCENARIOS Modify Safe Harbor so the threshold is
the 65th percentile instead of the 80th
2012-13 results affect color outcome counts:
93 green0 lime2806 yellow (+208)96 orange (-88)361 red (-120)
LOW FAY POSSIBLE CHANGE FOR 2013-14
All Students cells with low (10 or less) FAY numbers No points for all students cells with low
(under 10) FAY students Display color but do not award points and do
not include in audit checks 2012-13 Results:
134 green (+41)3 lime (+3)2569 yellow (-29)172 orange (-12)478 red (-3)
LOW FAY POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR 2013-14 ALTERNATE 2
Do not display all students cells for third, fourth, or fifth content area - only display two content areas with most FAY students 2012-13 Results:
93 green0 lime2758 yellow (+160)111 orange (-73)394 red (-87)
CHANGE PROCESS Need Stakeholder input – internal and
external If you have feedback, please email:
[email protected] Finalize recommendations Submit as amendments with ESEA
Flexibility extension in February 2014
HB 5112
PROPOSED LETTER GRADE SYSTEM
PROPOSED LEGISLATION - HOUSE BILL 5112
Starting in 2016 - letter grade system A-F Buildings containing grades K-8:
One point for each 1% of pupils scoring in performance levels 1 or 2 in each of the five content areas
One point for each 1% of pupils making annual growth in reading/math
One point for each 1% of included pupils in the bottom 30% making annual growth in reading/math
Buildings containing grades 9-12: Points system At least 50% of points based on pupil proficiency Balance of points based on graduation rate, measures of
college and career readiness, and learning gains
PROPOSED LEGISLATION CONT’D Points are summed and schools assigned a grade based on
annually determined grading scale. Two separate scales will exist for K-8 and 9-12 buildings
Initial grade distribution: 10% of schools receive A 28% of schools receive B 31% of schools receive C 28% of schools receive D 5% of schools receive F
Grading scale can be changed to ensure 5% of schools receive F grades, or when greater than 74% of schools received an A or B grade in preceding year
Schools that do not contain all of grades K-8 or 9-12 will have modified grading scales to reflect total possible points that may be achieved with the grade configuration
PROPOSED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS For schools and districts
Letter grades for current year and the preceding two years
Number of teachers and administrators rated effective or highly effective
Total number of teachers and administrators
OTHER ITEMS OF NOTE IN PROPOSAL Buildings containing both spans (K-8 and 9-
12) will get a separate grade for each span Buildings in operation for at least three years
shall be ordered closed or placed under supervision of State School Reform Office if: Receive a grade of F for two or more years in a
four year span AND Identified in the lowest 5% of all schools in
learning gains for two or more years in a four year span
OTHER ITEMS OF NOTE IN PROPOSAL CONT’D
Statutory or regulatory reports can be waived for schools consistently maintaining a grade of A or B
Schools fitting certain criteria (SDA, 95% SE pop, etc.) can be designated Alternative Education Campuses No letter grade Assigned “Maintaining” or “Failing” status
Maintaining = pupils making meaningful, measurable academic progress toward educational goals
Current Options for Alternate Accountability Systems
SHARED EDUCATIONAL ENTITIES
WHAT IS THE “SENDING SCORES BACK” POLICY?
Policy created to attribute student scores to district-level accountability, rather than to a school building or program.
Created to help “good deed” schools and programs have some flexibility on how school accountability is distributed.
“GOOD DEED” SCHOOL & PROGRAM TYPES
Alternative Education
Early/Middle College
Gifted & Talented
Special Education
THE SOLUTION:
MDE and CEPI created two vehicles to accommodate flexible accountability for these “good deed” schools and programs.
1) SEEs: “Shared Educational Entities”
2) S2E2s: “Shared Specialized Educational Entities”
Sending Scores Back
1) SEES “Shared Educational Entity”
A separate school that “stands alone” and does not serve a mix of SEE and non-SEE students
SEE students enroll in the SEE building, using the SEE building code
SEE students test at the SEE building
SEE building is MME test center if 11th/12th graders are served that test with this assessment
A SEE is a School!
Sparty’s Special Education Center Bdlg.
inSparty’s School District
East Lansing School District Special Ed.
Students
Lansing School District Special Ed. Students
Sparty’s School District Special Ed. Students
SEEs: Conceptually
A SEE is a School!
School A
***Entire population of SEE building is students with disabilities***
School B
“Elem. School”
School C
“Middle School”
School D
“High School”
SEEs: Conceptually
School A serves only SEE students.A SEE is a School!
2) S2E2: A SPECIAL KIND OF SEEo Only for those entities who are in a relationship to
deliver educational services to students in classrooms spread among multiple locations
o One code per ISD or consortium; can use class/group codes or research codes to differentiate students by program for assessment results
o Will be used in a special way during MSDS reporting
S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program!
WHAT IS A S2E2? “Specialized Shared Educational Entity”
An ISD or consortium program structure where students are served in multiple classrooms among member districts
S2E2 students enroll in the school building in which they are educated
S2E2 students test in the school building in which they are educated
Buildings that house S2E2 classrooms mustbe in a MME test center approved school if 11th/12th graders are served S2E2 is NOT a School,
it’s a program!
Mild CI Classroom in East Lansing School District’s
High School
“Go Green, Go White S2E2”a cooperative program of
Sparticus IntermediateSchool District
Severe CI Classroom in Waverly School District’s Middle
School
SWD Classroom in Sparty’s School
District Elementary School
Lansing DistrictSWD Students
East Lansing District SWD Students
Okemos District SWD Students
S2E2s: Conceptually
S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program!
School A
Mild CI Classroom
School B Severe CI Classroom
School C
Mild CI Classroom
School D
Mild CI Classroom
S2E2s: Conceptually
Classrooms exist in multiple buildings/districts.
S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program!
School A
Mild CI Classroom
School B Mild CI Classroom
School C
Mild CI Classroom
School D
Mild CI Classroom
These classrooms makeup the S2E2!
S2E2 is NOT a School,it’s a program!
S2E2s: Conceptually
&SEE S2E2
Resident District Resident District
Resident DistrictResident District
Student Scores
Student Scores
Stud
ent S
core
s Student Scores
Stud
ent S
core
s
Stud
ent S
core
s
Sending Scores BackStudent Assessment Proficiency Rates and Assessment Participation Rates are Sent Back to the Resident District.
SEE and S2E2 students are accountable at their RESIDENT DISTRICTS
SEE & S2E2 students are pulled out of their respective buildings and sent back to the district-level Accountability Scorecard for where they are a resident of
SEE & S2E2 students contribute on scorecards for their RESIDENT DISTRICT
Scorecard for:Capitol Area School
District
Sending Scores Back
Current Status
EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS
CURRENT STATUS Educator Evaluations for the 2013-14 SY must
be based on 25% student achievement and growth measures.
40% of evaluation for 14-15 and 50% for 15-16. Currently passed eval law not specific about
which assessments can be used for data component (state, local, vendor, etc.).
Not specific about decisions for educators of special education students, simply stated that MCEE tools must allow for eval of SE educators.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT EVAL LAW
Bipartisan proposed changes to current Eval Law 380.1249 of Revised School Code: HB 5223
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HB-5223
HB 5224 http://
legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HB-5224 HB 5223/5224 House Fiscal Agency specific
analysis available on either above link.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT EVAL LAW
Effectiveness labels remain the same. Data component of eval remains 25% for 13-
14, 14-15, 15-16, and 16-17 school years. Teachers evaluated 2x/year except where 2
consecutive effective or highly effective evals. School-level growth not more than 10% eval. Local/vendor developed assessments for
content areas not provided by the state where state standard exists.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT ED EVAL LAW
Four teacher observation tools selected.
Three administrator tools selected. Teacher and administrator tools
consistent with MCEE recommendations.
Local tool available as an option if tools meets specific criteria identified in new bills.
MCEE recommendations report can be found at: http://www.mcede.org/.
