August 20061 Accountability Gateway Training. August 20062 Who we are Greg Marcus MDE (651)...
60
August 2006 1 Accountability Gateway Training
-
Upload
christian-jordan -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of August 20061 Accountability Gateway Training. August 20062 Who we are Greg Marcus MDE (651)...
August 2006 1
Accountability Gateway Training
August 2006 2
Who we are
Greg Marcus MDE (651) 582-8454
John Lindner Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan (952) 423-7732
August 2006 3
Outline of the Presentation
Timeline Consequences
Consequences of delayed publication AYP
Participation Proficiency Attendance Graduation
Report Card Academic Stars
Appeals Data Validation
August 2006 4
Handouts
Agenda PP Presentation Timeline Graphic Definition of Terms Consequence Tree Sample Report Appeal and Waiver Forms Business Rules Error Descriptors Suspicious Conditions Report USDE Letter Login Help
August 2006 5
Timeline
January: Test Ordering March: Standard setting begins April-May: Test Window June Accountability Gateway sign up begins June-July: Standard setting continues and other psychometric events
take place July: Commissioner approves scale scores August: Quality Control Procedures August: Data validation trainings August 22nd: Data Suppression Appeal Due August 15- September 15: Data validation and publication of
preliminary results September 1st: Preliminary Report Card published September 15th: Appeals and Waivers Due November 15: Publication of final data
August 2006 6
Timeline Delay
Traditionally results are published towards the end of August
Due to the following factors timelines have been pushed back. New tests (MCA-II) New Standards New Processes (TEAE reading
substituting for the MCA-II reading)
August 2006 7
August 2006 8
The Goal of NCLB?
“…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments”
August 2006 9
How NCLB Achieves its Goal Through AYP
Standards: Same for all students Identifying what students should know and be
able to do Encourage higher order thinking & problem
solving
Assessments: For all students
August 2006 10
Consequences
August 2006 11
Identification
Identification = not making AYP in a given area Identified in math Identified in reading Identified in the Other category
(Attendance and/or Graduation)
August 2006 12
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
KEY
Yes – did make AYP
No Stage
Stage 0
Stage 4.1
No Stage
Stage 1.1
Stage 1.2 Stage 2.1
No Stage Stage 2.2
No Stage
Stage 3.1
Stage 3.2
No Stage
No Stage
Stage 4.2
Stage 6.1 Stage 5.2
Stage 5.1
No – did not make AYP
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stages of AYP
August 2006 13
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
KEY
Yes – did make AYP
No Stage
Stage 0
Stage 4.1
No Stage
Stage 1.1
Stage 1.2 Stage 2.1
No Stage Stage 2.2
No Stage
Stage 3.1
Stage 3.2
No Stage
No Stage
Stage 4.2
Stage 6.1 Stage 5.2
Stage 5.1
No – did not make AYP
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stages of AYP
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
KEY
Yes – did make AYP
No Stage
Stage 0
Stage 4.1
No Stage
Stage 1.1
Stage 1.2 Stage 2.1
No Stage Stage 2.2
No Stage
Stage 3.1
Stage 3.2
No Stage
No Stage
Stage 4.2
Stage 6.1 Stage 5.2
Stage 5.1
No – did not make AYP
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stages of AYP
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
KEY
Yes – did make AYP
No Stage
Stage 0
Stage 4.1
No Stage
Stage 1.1
Stage 1.2 Stage 2.1
No Stage Stage 2.2
No Stage
Stage 3.1
Stage 3.2
No Stage
No Stage
Stage 4.2
Stage 6.1 Stage 5.2
Stage 5.1
No – did not make AYP
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stages of AYP
Bucky’s Elementary
math reading attendance
August 2006 14
Consequences at the School Level
Stage 0: Warning List
Stage 1.1: School Choice
•Notify the parents in the district
•Create a school improvement plan
•Provide school choice
August 2006 15
Consequences at the School Level
Stage 2.1: Supplemental services
•Notify the parents in the district
•Update school improvement plan
•Provide school choice
•Provide supplemental services
August 2006 16
Consequences at the School Level
Stage 3.1: Corrective Action
•Notify the parents in the district
•Update school improvement plan
•Provide school choice
•Provide supplemental services
•District takes some corrective action
August 2006 17
Consequences at the School Level
Stage 4.1: Planning for Restructuring
•Notify the parents in the district
•Update school improvement plan
•Provide school choice
•Provide supplemental services
•School and district plan for some restructuring that will improve school performance
August 2006 18
Consequences at the School Level
Stage 5.1: Restructuring
•Notify the parents in the district
•Update school improvement plan
•Provide school choice
•Provide supplemental services
•Executing Restructuring the school
August 2006 19
Consequences for Districts
August 2006 20
Consequences at the District Level
Stage 0: Warning List Stage 1.1: Needs Improvement
Write a District Improvement Plan
Stage 2.1: Update District Improvement Plan
(Set-aside of $2500 from Administrative funds) Corrective Action
August 2006 21
Consequences at the District Level
Stage 3.1: Update District Improvement Plan
(Set-aside of $2500 from Administrative funds)
Stage 4.1: Update District Improvement Plan
(same as above)
Stage 5.1: Update District Improvement Plan
(same as above)
August 2006 22
Consequences of delayed Publication
June 20th memo from USDE Consequences continue through:
The entire year for School Choice The first semester for SES
Schools and districts should act on preliminary data. It is very important to get data validated as soon as
possible.
Parents must be notified of the identification and their options before school starts.
August 2006 23
General AYP Info
August 2006 24
AYP Summary
Academic Performance Reading and Mathematics
Participation 95% All students tested 40 minimum group
9 groups reading 9 groups math
Proficiency October 1 students 20 minimum group 40 for LEP and special
education 9 groups reading 9 groups math
Attendance Elementary, Middle Schools, State
Approved Alternative Programs, and school districts
90% average rate Growth from previous year All students in the school 40 minimum group
All group onlyAND/OR
Graduation High Schools awarding diplomas
and school districts 80% average rate Growth from previous year Students grades 9-12 40 minimum group
All group only
August 2006 25
AYP Groups
All Student Racial/Ethnic Categories LEP (This includes the expanded LEP
sometimes called LEP +2) Special Ed (This includes the
expanded Special Ed sometimes called Special Ed +2)
Free and Reduced Price Lunch
August 2006 26
Grades Included
Elementary and Middle School Math and Reading
3-8
High School Reading
10 Math
11
August 2006 27
AYP Participation
August 2006 28
Data Report Participation
# of Students Tested This column indicates 386 students took an MCA or
an Alternate Assessment in math and had a valid score
# of Answer Docs Returned This column indicates 395 students were enrolled on
test day Includes all documents EXCEPT those marked NE or
ME. Please refer to the sample Current Verification and Correction Summary
August 2006 29
Data Report - Participation
% of Students Participating This column shows a participation rate of 97.72. This rate is
calculated by dividing the number of students participating by the number of tests returned and multiplying the result by 100.
AYP Marker This shows if the group made the required 95% participation
rate. A – Above the target B – Below the Target Z- Cell size limitation X – No data
August 2006 30
AYP Proficiency
Targets
Calculation
Safe harbor
August 2006 31
August 2006 32
August 2006 33
2006 Math Targets (pre-validation)
Grade Target (Index Rate)
3 78.95
4 69.64
5 59.79
6 59.89
7 58.80
8 59.39
11 28.13
August 2006 34
2006 Reading Targets (pre-validation)
Grade Target (Index Rate)
3 72.22
4 69.48
5 71.93
6 70.27
7 65.63
8 64.04
10 64.77
August 2006 35
Proficiency
The goal is for all students (100%) to be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2013-14.
A score of x50 on the MCA-II indicates proficiency.
Proficiency for schools and districts will be determined by an “AYP Index Rate” in each subject.
August 2006 36
Proficiency
The index rate is used to provide a single rating that combines scores from students at or above x50 and scores from students who “Partially Meets the Standards.” 1 point is awarded for students who score at or
above x50. 1/2 index point is awarded for students who
score between x40 and x49 or in the “Partially Meets the Standards” level.
0 points are given for students whose score “Does Not Meet the Standards”.
August 2006 37
Data Report Proficiency
2006 Index Rate The report for the sample school shows
the 2006 index rate is 75.41
The index rate is calculated by dividing the number of total index points (276) by the number of October 1 documents (362).
(276/362)*100 = 75.41
August 2006 38
August 2006 39
Data Report Proficiency
Index Target This column shows the AYP target of 69.43 for
the all group that has been adjusted using a confidence interval.
This target is a blend of the target for each grade level based on the number of students at the grade level.
The confidence interval has the most impact on small groups.
August 2006 40
Data Report Proficiency
Compare the 2006 Index Rate and the Index Target: The 2006 index rate of 75.41 is equal to or
greater than the index target of 69.43 the school has met AYP for proficiency.
AYP status is A - for above the target
August 2006 41
Data Report Proficiency
Sample District
Proficiency – Group A – All Students Math
Column TitlesTotal Index
Points in math
#of Oct 1 Ans. Docs. Returned
2006 Index Rate
Index Target in math
AYP Marker in math
Value Shown in Sample Report
276 362 75.41 69.43 A
Description of Calculation
Total number of index points earned by students
1 point – Level M or E
.5 point – Level P
0 point – Level D
Total number of students tested and
also enrolled on
October 1
Total Index Points earned - divided by the number of October 1 Documents - multiplied by 100
Based on the number of students in each grade tested multiplied by the state targets and adjusted with a confidence interval
Made AYP -
2006 Index Rate is greater than the CI Index Target
Actual Calculation
2006 Index Rate: (276 362)*100 = 75.41
August 2006 42
Safe Harbor
If a school/district does not make AYP and they made AYP in the “Other” indicator that school/district is eligible for safe harbor
Safe harbor is a 10% decrease in the number of non-proficient scores.
August 2006 43
Safe Harbor
49.43_
49.431.21.3710021.37
21.37__2005
HarborSafe
RateIndex
August 2006 44
August 2006 45
Multi-Year Averaging
If a school/district does not make AYP using safe harbor additional calculations are done.
Data is added across years and then compared with updated Index Targets and safe harbor targets.
Up to 3 years of data may be combined.
August 2006 46
Appeals
Data Suppression Appeal due August 22nd
Student and status level Appeals and Waivers due September 15th
Appeal and Waiver results will apply to final data.
August 2006 47
Data Suppression
Appeal Due August 22 Appeal forms are included in your
handouts Appeals may be faxed or mailed to Greg
Marcus These appeals will prevent any academic
data from being published until November 15th
August 2006 48
Appeal vs. Waiver
An appeal overrides the AYP status of a cell (in the white students math proficiency change the B to an A)
A waiver removes the cap on the number of index points that come from the alternate assessment a waiver can cause a number of different
things including more/different schools being identified
August 2006 49
Appeal Types
SAAP District/School AYP District AMAO Student level
August 2006 50
School Report Cards
2006-07 School Year
August 2006 51
What is the same?
The “Report to Taxpayers” section is unchanged from the 2005 report card.
Information has been updated based on data collected during the 2004-05 school year.
Check with Dick Guevremont in MDE Program Finance or your school district business officer for questions.
August 2006 52
What is new for 2006?
New information in many sections: Enrollment District Mobility Advanced Academic Opportunities 2006 MCA – II School Opportunities Highly Qualified Teacher Information Professional Staff Development Q Comp
August 2006 53
What is new 2006? (continued)
Schools that serve both elementary and middle school grades or middle school and high school grades will only get one report card. The grade specific sections will be
repeated, for example: Both high school and middle school advanced
academic opportunities will be shown on the same report card for a 7-12 school.
August 2006 54
Data Sources
Where does the information on the School Report come from?
Much of the information comes from MDE 2005-06 school year data collections including:
MARRS Enrollment and student demographic data
STAR Teacher and administrator data
MCA – II Test Scores and AYP data
August 2006 55
Data Sources
Report to Taxpayers data comes from the 2004-05 UFARS data.
AYP Attendance AYP Graduation and the High School Drop Rate and District mobility rates come from 2004-05 MARRS enrollment data.
August 2006 56
Data Sources
Some of the data is entered directly by schools though the Accountability Gateway
This data can be updated on a daily basis and includes:
Advanced Academic Opportunities Stars School Safety Policies and Programs Stars School Opportunities Administrative and Teacher Salaries Professional Development for Staff
August 2006 57
Highlights
The District Mobility section is expanded.
The Advanced Academic Opportunities Stars have been revamped to be more similar across elementary, middle and high school report cards.
The School Opportunities section now showcases EPAS assessments and CLEP tests at the high school level and IB courses for all schools.
August 2006 58
Highlights
There are three new sections under School and District Staffing:
Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers Statewide
Professional Development for Staff
Q Comp
The School Staff section now includes information on Highly Qualified Teachers and Paraprofessionals.
August 2006 59
Questions about the School Report Card?
MDE Communications: Doug Grey MARSS Enrollment: Marilyn Loehr STAR Teacher information: Linda
Alberg MCA – II: AYP Data: Greg Marcus Report to Taxpayers: Dick Guevrement
August 2006 60
Data Validation
One data validation window hybrid window
Data validation AYP results Report Card data collection Academic star ratings
Help Desk They can answer AYP/Report Card and
Accountability Gateway Questions Local (651) 582-8585 Long Distance 1-888-487-9453
