Accountability Update and Review



Download 67.17 Kb.
Date13.03.2017
Size67.17 Kb.
#13678

Accountability Update and Review


District Assessment and Accountability Coordinators’ Meeting

September 8, 2011



Edward Croft

Bureau of Accountability Reporting

Florida Department of Education

www.fldoe.org/evaluation


Session 1: Topics




Accountability Systems, Current Status:
  • School Grades (Assessment Components) 2010-11
  • High School Grades 2010-11
  • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reporting
  • School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools

  • Accountability Systems Updates



Overview of School Grading:

State Assessment Components

(Comprising 100% of Elementary and Middle School Grades, and 50% of High School Grades)

School Grading Assessment Measures




Eight Components
  • Percent at Level 3 or higher in FCAT Reading. 100 points max.
  • Percent at Level 3 or higher in FCAT Math. 100 points max.
  • Percent at Level 3 or higher in FCAT Science. 100 points max.
  • Percent scoring 4 or higher in FCAT Writing. 100 points max.
  • Percent making learning gains in reading. 100 points max.
  • Percent making learning gains in math. 100 points max.
  • Percent of Low 25% making learning gains in reading. 100 pts. max.
  • Percent of Low 25% making learning gains in math. 100 points max.

  • 800 Total Points possible. (High schools can qualify for 10 bonus points if at least 50% of students retaking the grade 10 FCAT in reading and math pass graduation requirements.)

Performance

Learning Gains

Additional Requirements




Adequate Progress Requirement for Lowest Performing 25% in Reading and Math
    • At least 50% of the low performers must show learning gains in reading or math, or the school must show adequate annual improvement in that percentage. (For schools that would otherwise be graded “C” or higher, the school grade is lowered one letter grade if the requirement is not met.)

    • “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.”

Performance Components




Points for Performance

One point for each percent of students meeting high 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) *For AYP, the standard remains 3 and above.


Defining Learning Gains (Current Status)


Three Ways to Make Learning Gains:

1) Move up by one or more achievement levels.

2) Maintain a proficient 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 developmental scale.

The FCAT developmental scale is a continuous scale score applied across grade levels.




Inclusion Criteria




Performance Components
  • Students must be full-year-enrolled (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 be full-year-enrolled.
  • Must have current and prior-year test scores (FCAT or Florida Alternate Assessment) in content area.

Grading Scale (For Schools Serving Grades other than 9-12)



  • Based on 800 possible points:

A = ≥ 525 points

B = 495-524 points

C = 435-494 points

D = 395-434 points



F = < 395 points

Recap of Changes to School Grades in 2010-11 (State Assessment Measures)



  • FCAT Writing criterion increased to score of 4 and above
  • Grade 9 FCAT Mathematics discontinued

  • Other Notable Events:
  • Equipercentile linking of FCAT 2.0 Reading and Math scores

School Grade Outcomes, Elementary: 2010-11 and 2009-10




 

2009-10

2010-11

Change

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

A

950

54%

1,026

58%

76

4%

B

363

20%

322

18%

-41

2%

C

363

20%

322

18%

-41

2%

D

67

4%

82

5%

15

1%

F

30

2%

23

1%

-7

-1%

School Grade Outcomes, Elementary



School Grade Outcomes, Middle: 2010-11 and 2009-10




 

2009-10

2010-11

Change

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

A

352

61%

340

59%

-12

-2%

B

96

17%

99

17%

3

0%

C

99

17%

112

19%

13

2%

D

21

4%

27

5%

6

1%

F

5

1%

3

1%

-2

0%

School Grade Outcomes, Middle



Reporting Enrollments for Virtual Instruction Providers




Virtual Instruction Providers (VIPs)
  • VIPs are assigned the 4-digit school number 7001.
  • Provider codes are assigned to approved providers.
  • District-operated programs are no longer assigned provider codes (they will now have their own school number [not 7001]).
  • Provider Code Table in Appendix CC of student database manual: www.fldoe.org/eias/dataweb/database_1112/appendcc.pdf
  • For students with a school number reported as 7001, the provider code(s) should be reported accurately on the applicable Student Course records.


Reporting Enrollments for Virtual Instruction Providers




Virtual Instruction Providers (VIPs)

These are the VIPs that will receive a statewide provider grade (assuming each has enough enrolled students with test scores), including the Virtual Instruction Provider codes.



Code Provider

071 Florida Virtual School FT (grades 9-12)

301 Florida Virtual School FT—Connections (grades K-8)

302 K12 Florida, LLC

303 Advanced Academics

305 Educational Options, Inc.

307 National Network of Digital Schools

DOE Report to Assist Districts and Providers in Reviewing Enrollments for VIPs



EIAS Report F71198 :

Full-Time Virtual Students

  • Available for Surveys 2 and 3
  • To verify student data for school 7001
  • Run by the district - generated by provider
  • Report lists student name, ID, grade level, VIP provider code and name.
  • District MIS departments are encouraged to share with providers early in the process for both surveys so the data can be verified by the providers.



High School Grades

High School Grades

High School Grades: Changes and Constants for 2010-11


Changes

      • Acceleration Participation weighting shifts from x 2.0 to x 1.75 (max points shift from 200 to 175).
      • Acceleration Performance weighting shifts from x 1.0 to x 1.25 (max points shift from 100 to 125).
      • P.E.R.T. scores (as available) now included for Postsecondary Readiness.

      • No Change
      • In graduation rate formula.
      • In Acceleration Participation denominator or numerator.
      • In Acceleration Performance denominator or numerator.
      • In Postsecondary Readiness denominator or formula.
      • In formula for measuring annual growth or decline.
      • In at-risk graduation-rate requirement for earning an “A.”

High School Grades



      • 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)




GRADUATION

ACCELERATION

READINESS

GROWTH/DECLINE

Overall Rate

200

Participation

200 (in 2009-10)

175 (in 2010-11)

150 (in 2011-12)

Performance on Reading

100

For each component schools may earn up to 20 additional points for GROWTH

(40 points for double-weighted measure)

At-Risk Rate

100

Performance

100 (in 2009-10)

125 (in 2010-11)

150 (in 2011-12)

Performance on Math

100

For each component schools may lose

5 additional points for DECLINE

(10 points for double-weighted factor)

Total Graduation Points

300

Total Acceleration Points

300

Total Readiness Points

200

Total HIGH SCHOOL Points Possible (outside of State Assessment Measures)

800
  • All components are percentages. A component weighted twice as much as others reflects a calculated percentage that is doubled (e.g., School X has a 75% graduation rate – School X earns 150 points (75*2) for that component).
  • All component values are capped at their maximum values. That is, if a school earns points in excess of the total for a particular component – through the growth adjustment or the escalating weights in the acceleration components – the school will receive no more than the maximum points for that component.

Accountability Data Processes: Key Functions for High School Grading

Education Information and Accountability Services (EIAS) Oversees the Data Corrections and Review Process for

  • Graduation Rate Data Reporting/Review.
  • . . . and data submission requirements for

  • DOE Student Database Reporting: Survey 5 (end-of-year) DOE student database reporting for accelerated participation and performance measures – dual enrollment, AICE, Industry Certifications.
  • Accountability Reporting Oversees the Data Corrections/Review Process for

  • External Data: Data collection/reporting for records provided by external vendors or other sources outside the DOE’s PK-12 data reporting system: AP, IB, ACT, SAT, CPT/PERT. (Data corrections/review period focuses on matching results to membership records.)

These are separate activities. The corrections and review processes are administered by different agency offices, each with its own procedures. The Department provides extensive technical assistance in each area.


Graduation Rate


[200 pts. (double-weighted)]

For 2010-11, Florida will use the National Governors’ Association four-year graduation rate for high school grades.

Which students are included in the cohort (denominator)?

Answer: All students who entered grade 9 for the first time in year 1 of the cohort (i.e., four years prior to the year for which the rate is reported), plus any incoming transfers who were 9th graders in year 1 of the cohort, 10th graders in year 2, 11th graders in year 3, and 12th graders in year 4.

This cohort is then adjusted to remove students who transferred out to attend another public or private high school, a home education program, or an adult education program. Deceased students are also removed from the calculation.

The resulting count is the adjusted cohort (denominator) of the graduation rate calculation.

Graduation Rate


Who counts as graduates?



Answer: Standard diploma recipients and special diploma recipients (for SWDs).

Who counts as non-graduates?



Answer: All students in the adjusted cohort who did not receive a standard diploma or special diploma, including . . .
      • Dropouts
      • Certificate recipients
      • GED diploma recipients
      • Students who are still enrolled but haven’t yet graduated.

Graduation Rate Summary Information




Graduation Rate Methods

Students Not Included in the Calculation

Graduates

Non-Graduates

National Governors Association (NGA) Rate

For use in 2009-10 and 2010-11 (high school grades only)

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

Federal Uniform Rate

For use in AYP beginning in 2011-12. Under discussion for high school grades.

*Note: If federal requirements for the uniform rate change in the interim, Florida’s federal uniform rate calculation will be adjusted accordingly.

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.

Graduation Rate for At-Risk Students


[100 pts.]



Denominator = a subset of the graduation rate adjusted cohort. Includes all students from the adjusted cohort who scored at levels 1 or 2 on the grade 8 FCAT in both math and reading.

Numerator = students in the denominator who received a standard diploma or a special diploma (for SWDs). Uses same criteria as the overall graduation rate.

If a school does not have at least 10 students in the at-risk subgroup, the school’s overall graduation rate will be substituted for this measure.


Graduation Rate Data Review and Corrections Process

October 31, 2011 - The last date on which corrections can be submitted. This is a non-appealable issue.

  • Annual process administered by Education Information and Accountability Services (EIAS)
  • Instructions for the review sent to district MIS departments on April 4, 2011, for the 2010-11 cycle.
  • Data sets of students in the cohort and adjusted cohort are provided for district review.
  • Later this year, files will be provided for making corrections. Certain amendments to 2010-11 records can be made through Survey 5 data submissions (e.g., on the Student End of Year Status records).
  • Beginning in September 2011, corrections will be limited to cohort data files provided by EIAS specifically for that purpose.
  • For more information, contact Education Information and Accountability Services (www.fldoe.org/eias) or e-mail askeias@fldoe.org. See also the technical guide at http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/word/gradgde1011.doc.


Graduation Rate Data Review and Corrections Process




The last date on which corrections can be submitted is October 31, 2011. This is a non-appealable issue.

For more information, contact Education Information and Accountability Services (www.fldoe.org/eias) or e-mail askeias@fldoe.org.



See also the technical guide at http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/word/gradgde1011.doc.

Graduation Rate Data Review and Corrections Process

Key features of the 2010-11 Graduation Rate Technical Guide (http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/word/gradgde1011.doc):

      • Procedures for reviewing and updating the 2010-11 cohort.
      • Cohort build overview.
      • Adjusting the cohort.
      • How to review cohort files provided by the Department.
      • Recommendations for reviewing files (spotting and resolving potential data issues).
      • How to submit corrections to data files.
      • Key dates and deadlines for the 2010-11 cohort data review process.
      • Lists of all applicable file names/reports.
      • Examples of common data issues in reviewing files.
      • FAQs
      • More.


Graduation Rate Data Review and Corrections Process




Key dates from the 2010-11 Graduation Rate Technical Guide (http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/word/gradgde1011.doc):
  • September 21, 2011 -- Four-year cohort file including 2010-11 Survey 5 is available.

  • DPS##.GQ.F63494.Y10115.P4YR
  • October 14, 2011 -- First due date for corrections. File name should be named DPS##.GQ.F63494.Y10115.P4YR.Rev
  • October 19, 2011 -- Revised data file is available for districts to review. This file includes all changes to the cohort file as of October 14, 2011.

  • DPS##.GQ.F63494.Y10115.P4YR.Rev2
  • October 31, 2011 -- All corrected files are due. A corrected file is to be sent via NWRDC, must be named DPS##.GQ.F63494.Y10115.P4YR.RevF, and must be in the same format as it was received.
  • Note: The files for district download are catalogued at the Northwest Regional Data Center (NWRDC) and may be accessed only by authorized staff in district MIS departments.


Participation in Accelerated Curriculum



  • Accelerated coursework participation for students in grades 9 – 12, based on exams taken for AP, IB, AICE, and industry certification, as well as dual enrollment course enrollments.
  • This component measures the combined weighted student participation count divided by the membership count of students in grades 11-12. Students are weighted extra if they have more than 1 instance of participation (extra weighting of 0.1 for each additional dual enrollment course or accelerated exam taken).
  • For 2010-11, students in grades 9 and 10 may only be included as participants in the numerator if they have successful completions (passing test scores, or, for dual enrollment, passing course grades of “C” or higher).
  • Weighted at a factor of 1.75 after growth points/deductions are applied. (175 points max.)

Performance in Accelerated Curriculum



  • Accelerated coursework performance: the weighted count of successful completions in accelerated coursework/exams divided by the unweighted count of accelerated coursework participants.
  • Students receive additional weighting in the numerator if they have more than 1 successful completion (an additional 0.1 weighting for each additional successful completion).
  • Weighted at a factor of 1.25 after growth points/deductions are applied. (125 points max.)

Performance in Accelerated Curriculum




Key Documents:

For AP, IB, and AICE:


  • Articulation Coordinating Committee’s Credit by Exam Equivalencies
    • http://www.fldoe.org/articulation/pdf/ACC-CBE.pdf

    • For Industry Certification:
  • Industry Certification Funding List:
    • http://www.fldoe.org/workforce/fcpea/default.asp
  • Career and Technical Education Statewide Articulation Agreements: Industry Certification to AAS/AS Degrees
    • http://www.fldoe.org/workforce/dwdframe/artic_indcert2aas.asp

Survey 5 Data Used in Accelerated Participation and Performance Components




October 31, 2011 - Deadline for submission of amended Survey 5 records for inclusion in the 2010-11 high school grades
      • This is a non-appealable issue.

      • Data used
      • AICE data: reported by Florida school districts on the Student Assessment record format, Survey 5.
      • Dual enrollment data reported by Florida school districts on the Student Course Transcript Information record format, Survey 5.
      • Industry certification data (Industry Certification Outcomes): reported by Florida school districts on the Vocational Student Course Schedule record format, Survey 5.


Survey 5 Data Used in Accelerated Participation and Performance Components




Dual Enrollment Courses
      • To be included in high school grades, a dual enrollment course must qualify for college credit toward an academic degree.
      • The Bureau of Accountability Reporting will provide districts with a file containing course numbers that meet dual enrollment criteria.

Survey 5 Data Used in Accelerated Participation and Performance Components


Weightings for Successful Completions in Performance Component Numerator


      • AP, IB, AICE successful completions may earn additional weighting for higher exam scores. Credits for AP, IB, and AICE courses that are included in this component are addressed in the Articulation Coordinating Committee’s Credit by Exam Equivalencies list at http://www.fldoe.org/articulation/pdf/ACC-CBE.pdf.
      • Minimum credit hours of 3 = 1 successful completion
      • Minimum credit hours of 6 = 2 successful completions
      • Minimum credit hours of 9 = 3 successful completions
      • And so on . . .

Survey 5 Data Used in Accelerated Participation and Performance Components



      • Weightings for Successful Completions in Performance Component
      • Industry Certification Outcomes that are reported with a “P” (passing) code on the Vocational Student Course Schedule may earn additional weighting depending on the minimum number of equivalent credit hours established for the program area by statewide articulation agreements.
      • The statewide articulation agreements for Industry Certification programs is available online at http://www.fldoe.org/workforce/dwdframe/artic_indcert2aas.asp
      • Weighting for Industry Certifications without articulation agreements (but on the funding list) = 1.
      • CAPE Industry Certification Funding List URL:

      • http://www.fldoe.org/workforce/fcpea/pdf/1011icfl.pdf

Performance in Accelerated Curriculum Successful Outcomes:




AP

Score of 3

1 Successful Outcome

Score of 4 or 5

1 or 2 Successful Outcomes (depending on ACC Credit-by-Exam Equivalencies)

IB

Score of 4

1 Successful Outcome

Score of 5, 6, or 7

1 or 2 Successful Outcomes (depending on ACC Credit-by-Exam Equivalencies)

AICE

Passing Score on an AS Level AICE Exam

1 Successful Outcome

Passing Score on an A Level AICE Exam

1 or 2 Successful Outcomes (depending on ACC Credit-by-Exam Equivalencies)

Dual Enrollment

Passing grade of “C” or higher in the course

1 Successful Outcome

Industry Certification

Earning an industry certification by exam

1 or multiple successful outcomes based on statewide articulation agreements (http://www.fldoe.org/workforce/dwdframe/artic_frame.asp)

Postsecondary Readiness Components




Numerator

Denominator

Number of students scoring “ready” on SAT, ACT, CPT and/or P.E.R.T. any time during their high school careers

On-time high school graduates who scored a Level 3 or higher on the 10th Grade FCAT in Reading or Mathematics (depending on component)
  • Calculated separately for reading and math.
  • Cut scores for readiness are provided online at http://www.fldoe.org/articulation/perfCPT/default.asp.

Postsecondary Readiness Cut Scores




http://www.fldoe.org/articulation/perfCPT/default.asp

SAT
    • Verbal: 440
    • Math: 440

    • ACT
    • Reading: 18
    • Math: 19

    • CPT
    • Reading: 83
    • Elementary Algebra (Math): 72

    • P.E.R.T. (2010-11 Interim Cut Scores)
    • Math: 113
    • Reading: 104

Additional Requirement for “A” High Schools



  • Law stipulates that in order for a school that earns enough points for an “A” to be awarded an “A”, the school’s at-risk graduation rate must meet a certain threshold to ensure “adequate progress.”
  • Threshold:
    • 75%; or
    • 1 percentage point improvement over the prior year if percentage is within 10 points of the target
    • 5 percentage point improvement over the prior year if percentage is beyond 10 points of the target
  • This requirement is akin to the current learning gains requirement for the Low 25%.

High School Grade Scale



Grading 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.
  • Combination schools that serve high school grades receive a grade that re-weights the FCAT measures and the new high school measures:
    • Grade K-12 schools are weighted 80% on the FCAT measures and 20% on the non-FCAT measures (vs. 50/50 for regular high schools).
    • Grade 6-12 schools are weighted 70% on the FCAT measures and 30% on the non-FCAT measures.

Data Sources for High School Grades


Accountability Research and Measurement

Base “Membership” Files used for the HS components:



INDV File
      • Acceleration Participation
      • Acceleration Performance

      • High School Graduation Cohort File
      • Graduation Rate
      • At-Risk Graduation Rate
      • Postsecondary Readiness

Data Reporting for High School Grading, Key Points


Accountability Research and Measurement


      • October 31, 2011 - Deadline for submission of amended/new Survey 5 records for use in the 2011 HS grades Non-appealable.
      • October 31, 2011 - Deadline for submission of corrected files for the cohort graduation rate for use in the 2011 HS grades. Non-appealable.
      • November ##, 2011 – Open period (deadline will be announced) for a separate corrections/review period for AP, IB, ACT, SAT, CPT/P.E.R.T. data to focus on maximizing records matching. This review period will also include the opportunity for districts to review and submit corrected information to enhance matching of Dual Enrollment, Industry Certification, and AICE records to student membership records. Note: This review period will not involve a reopening of the window to submit Survey 5 updates for use in accountability determinations.

Data Review and Corrections for High School Grades


Accountability Research and Measurement


      • Data formats for upload files have been revised to incorporate the latest versions of the files. Optional data elements added to formats last year are now regular elements for 2010-11.
      • The Department is working toward setting up resources for high school data review/corrections on the secure Web site: (https://app2.fldoe.org/arm_applications/arm_login).
      • The accountability bureau’s FTP server will augment the Web site, or, if the Web site is not operational, will be the vehicle for downloading and uploading files.

Data Review and Corrections for High School Grades: File Formats


Accountability Research and Measurement

Separate file formats:

Survey 5:

        • AICE*
        • Dual Enrollment*
        • Industry Certification*

        • Accountability Reporting Corrections Process:
        • AP
        • IB
        • SAT, ACT, CPT, FCAT, P.E.R.T.

        • *An asterisk indicates data submitted on Survey 5. Corrections are limited to records-matching processes (will not incorporate Survey 5 data submitted after October 31, 2011).

Data Sources for High School Grades


Accountability Research and Measurement

Accelerated Curriculum (Participation and Performance):


      • AP data: supplied by the College Board, compiled by the Florida Department of Education’s PK-20 Education Data Warehouse (EDW) URL: http://edwapp.doe.state.fl.us/doe/. See also www.collegeboard.com.
      • IB data: supplied by IBO, compiled by EDW. See also www.ibo.org.
      • AICE data: reported by Florida school districts on the Student Assessment record format, Survey 5.
      • Dual enrollment data: reported by Florida school districts on the Student Course Transcript Information record format, Survey 5.
      • Industry certification data: reported by Florida school districts on the Vocational Student Course Schedule record format, Survey 5.
      • Links to the record format descriptions for reporting AICE, dual enrollment, and industry certification data are accessible online at the following URL: www.fldoe.org/eias/dataweb/student_1011.asp#REPORTING%20FORMATS

Data Sources for High School Grades


Accountability Research and Measurement

Postsecondary Readiness:


      • SAT data: supplied by the College Board, compiled by EDW. See also www.collegeboard.com.
      • ACT data: supplied by ACT Education, compiled by EDW. See also www.act.org.
      • CPT and P.E.R.T. data: Results reported to the DOE by Florida colleges; data compiled by EDW.
      • In addition, for postsecondary readiness, the Department will be using high school transcript data to supplement matches with the vendor data (e.g., College Board, ACT).  The data on the transcript is reported to determine Bright Futures eligibility.

Data Sources for High School Grades


Accountability Research and Measurement

Graduation Rate (and At-Risk Graduation Rate):


      • Processes managed by Education Information and Accountability Services (Lavan Dukes’ office), including provisions for cohort data review (Cyndi Holleman).
      • Source data is all derived from data reporting formats and elements on the DOE student database.
      • Formats and data elements, as well as programming steps, are presented in the technical guide at http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/word/gradgde1011.doc.
      • EIAS contact information: askeias@fldoe.org

      • (850) 245-0400

        www.fldoe.org/eias

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Overview


Accountability Research and Measurement


  • 39 Components:

  • 4 measures x 9 subgroups = 36 subgroup-based components
    • percent-tested in math [95% required];
    • percent tested in reading [95% required];
    • percent proficient in math*;
    • percent proficient in reading*

    • * Must meet annual proficiency targets in each subject.

      Plus
  • 3 school-wide components:
    • graduation rate
    • writing proficiency
    • school grade

    • For a “Yes” on AYP, a school must meet the AYP criteria for all components.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Changes for 2010-11


Accountability Research and Measurement

Two changes:


    • Grade 9 FCAT Mathematics discontinued.
    • Increased annual proficiency targets in reading and mathematics consistent with the state’s accountability workbook.
  • Outcome: 10% of Florida’s schools made AYP in 2010-11.

Annual Proficiency Targets for Subgroups


Accountability Research and Measurement



Reading Target

Mathematics Target

2001-02

31%

38%

2002-03

31%

38%

2003-04

31%

38%

2004-05

37%

44%

2005-06

44%

50%

2006-07

51%

56%

2007-08

58%

62%

2008-09

65%

68%

2009-10

72%

74%

2010-11

79%

80%

2011-12

86%

86%

2012-13

93%

93%

2013-14

100%

100%

(AYP Percent-Proficient Targets)

AYP Subgroups, 2010-11 (unchanged)


Accountability Research and Measurement

American Indian*

Asian*

Black (African American)*



Hispanic*

White*


Economically Disadvantaged

English Language Learners

Students with Disabilities

Total (All Students)



* Current racial/ethnic group reporting categories.

Reporting Race and Ethnicity


Accountability Research and Measurement


  • No changes required for AYP subgroups in 2010-11.

  • Because states will be able to continue to use their current classifications for reporting on racial/ethnic groups for AYP*, students reported with a “Y” for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander will not be included as a separate subgroup but will have their scores included in the “Total” subgroup for AYP and other subgroups such as ELL, SWD, and “Economically Disadvantaged,” as applicable.

    *Per guidance from the Forum Guide to Implementing New Federal Race and Ethnicity Categories, p.41 (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008802.pdf).

School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools


Accountability Research and Measurement


  • Implemented with passage of Rule 6A-1.099822 in 2008 (required by s. 1008.341, Florida Statutes)
  • Provides Alternative Schools the option of receiving a traditional school grade or a school improvement rating.
  • If an alternative school chooses to receive a school improvement rating, the performance of the alternative school’s students will be included in the calculation of the rating and the school grade of the students’ home school.

School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools


Accountability Research and Measurement


    • The alternative school improvement rating is based on learning gains comparisons between the current and prior year in reading and math (FCAT).

    • The percentage of students making learning gains at the alternative school will be compared to the percentage of students (from the same population) making learning gains in the prior year.

School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools


Accountability Research and Measurement


    • The school improvement rating consists of one of the following ratings: “improving,” “maintaining,” “declining.”
    • For each subject in which learning gains are evaluated (reading, math), the following criteria apply:
      • “Improving” means at least a 5% increase in the percent making gains.
      • “Maintaining” means less than a 5% increase or decrease in the percent making gains.
      • “Declining” means at least a 5% decrease in the percent making gains.
    • A school’s rating can be no higher than the status of its lowest performing subject.

School Improvement Ratings for Alternative Schools


Accountability Research and Measurement

No changes to calculations for 2010-11 vs. 2009-10.


Changes Coming


Accountability Research and Measurement


  • FCAT 2.0 cut scores
  • Moving toward new assessments in 2014-15 (PARCC)
  • Climate of increasing standards so students are ready for college and work
  • Adding new measures to the middle school grades (HS EOCs and Industry Certifications)
  • Assimilating EOCs into the school grades model

Multi-Year School Grades Design Objective


Accountability Research and Measurement


  • Changes occurring for the next 4 years.
  • Design the system now to accommodate the changes that we know will occur in the future.
  • Develop a multi-year model that lays out the changes that will occur over time.
  • Work with districts in developing the model.

AYP and ESEA

  • Pursuing Flexibility with U.S. DOE
    • Revised criteria for DA Intervene entry and exit.
    • Use Florida’s accountability system for federal accountability reporting.
    • Advanced exams to substitute for state administered assessments (AP, IB, and Algebra 1 for MS students).
    • More to come . . .

School Grades in 2011-12 and Beyond Key Issues

  • Changes already written in rule for 2011-12 (HS grades)
  • Learning gains for EOCs (as required in statute); learning gains on the FAA
  • Learning gains: structure for FCAT 2.0 reading and math
  • Learning gains: balance of performance and learning gains in new model(s); distribution/weighting of points for school grade components
  • Addressing the statutory requirement for greater emphasis on reading performance
  • High school science performance in 2011-12; Biology 1 EOC
  • 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

School Grades in 2011-12 and Beyond Key Issues (continued)

  • Graduation rates – overall formula; SWDs; Adult Ed. Withdrawals; 5-year rates
  • NCLB Subgroups – Whether/how to incorporate in state models (for a consolidated rather than bifurcated accountability system)
  • School grade scales: Impact of new standards on existing school grade structure
  • School grade factors and Differentiated Accountability (flexibilities sought from USED)
  • Other …

Changes Already in Rule for 2011-12 (High School grades):

  • Numerator for Acceleration Participation covers all advanced course/exam takers in grades 9-12 (does not limit grade 9-10 participants to those who are successful on the exams/courses).
  • Acceleration Participation and Performance become equally weighted at 150 points each.
  • Postsecondary Readiness denominator changes from on-time graduates scoring at Level 3 on the Grade 10 FCAT (reading/math) to all on-time graduates.
  • Note that the graduation rate formula currently in rule (NGA rate) is specified for years 2009-10 and 2010-11, but a specific rate formula for 2011-12 is not currently specified in the rule. (However, the federal uniform rate will be used for AYP in 2011-12, per federal regulations.)

Learning Gains End-of-Course (EOC) Tests

Premises:

  • Challenges – differing test content/structure
  • Without content links (common items), statistical links can be used as an alternative, given similar content, similar distributional properties, and a strong positive relationship (correlation coefficient).
  • If students learn the content taught and assessed in two content areas equally well, they should attain a similar position in the distribution of scores.
  • Converting scores on two separate assessments to a common scale will permit a comparison of the amount of learning across the two assessments.
  • The scale used must be statistically sound and easily understood.
  • The result of comparing two scales also should be easy to understand.

Learning Gains End-of-Course (EOC) Tests

  • Could be applied from Grade 8 FCAT Mathematics (or other prior-year FCAT Mathematics Assessment) to Algebra 1 EOC.
  • Criteria for gains:
    • Based on changes in T- scores on common scale.

Proposed Learning Gains Model for FAA Scores

Proposed business rules for learning gains beginning in 2011-12:

 

  • Students in the first year who are proficient count as having exhibited growth in the second year if they either stay in the same performance level that they had in the first year or move up one or more performance levels as compared to the first year.
  • Students in the first year who are below-proficient count as having exhibited growth in the second year if their scores meet one of the two following criteria:
    • Their second-year score results in the student moving up one or more performance levels as compared to the first year.
    • Their second-year score increases relative to their first year score by more than the standard error of the difference of the two scores.

Newly proposed

Current Provisions


Proposed Learning Gains Model for FAA Scores

 

  • The Assessment and Accountability Advisory Committee (AAAC) recommends setting a fixed score differential (the amount needed to meet the criterion for learning gains) 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).

Learning Gains FCAT 2.0 in Reading and Mathematics

Area of Concern

  • Crediting a learning gain for maintaining a proficient achievement level (vs. increasing a level)
  • Suggestion from AAAC:

  • Provide more weight for students that move up more than one achievement level (e.g., weight a student moving up one level at 1.1 vs. 1.0 for a student maintaining a proficient achievement level, or 1.2 for a student moving up two achievement levels).
  • Issue:

  • We do not yet know the impact of new standards and how the new FCAT 2.0 vertical scale will function in measuring gains.

Balance of Performance, Learning Gains, Bonus, and Other Measures


Performance

Learning Gains

Learning Gains Lowest 25%

Other Criteria

Bonus Points

Elementary

50%

25%

25%

0

0

400 points

200 points

200 points

Middle

50%

25%

25%

0

0

400 points

200 points

200 points

High

25%

12.5%

12.5%

50%

400 points

200 points

200 points

800 points

10 points

Current Configurations

Balancing Learning Gains and Performance

Issues

  • Changes in school grading will have varying impact on elementary, middle, and high schools because of legislative requirements for school grading components unique to each level of instruction.
  • The school grade scales (total points) will vary at each level.
  • Should the state-assessment-based measures (FCAT 2.0, EOCs) for performance and learning gains have the same points/weightings across the performance and learning gains components at each level (elementary, middle, high)?
  • There has been discussion (LPAC meeting) of shifting points values among these components to achieve the following:
    • Increased emphasis on reading (as required in statute)
    • Compensating effect -- to increase learning gains points when performance-based components are added (e.g., HS-level EOCs in middle-school grades)
    • Compensating effect – to set points values initially lower (comparatively) for new EOCs that are added as performance components

Balance of Performance, Improvement, Bonus, and Other Measures

High Schools – LPAC Recommendation:

  • Weight Biology 1 EOC (for Science performance measure) at just 50 points in 2011-12 (baseline year).
  • Add 25 points to reading performance (weight at x 1.25)
  • Add 25 points to reading learning gains.
  • Issue:

  • Re-weighting points for years after 2011-12, when the Biology 1 EOC will have its own scale in place.
  • Keep in mind that the state-assessment-based measures must be equally weighted against the other HS components (at 50% each).

Balance of Performance, Improvement, Bonus, and Other Measures

High Schools – Biology 1 EOC in 2011-12:

Item:

  • Possibly use linking of 2011-12 Biology 1 EOC scores to 2010-11 Grade 11 FCAT Science scores to set proficiency cutoff only (not achievement levels).

Balance of Performance, Improvement, Bonus, and Other Measures

Middle Schools – AAAC Recommendation:

  • 1,000-point scale instead of 800 points.
  • Increases emphasis on reading (400 of 1,000 points) as 40% of available points (currently 37.5%, or 300 of 800 points)
  • Increase points for learning gains to 450
  • Increase points for performance to 450 (not counting HS EOCs)
  • Add 100 points for HS EOC participation and performance (50 points for participation and 50 points for performance)

Balance of Performance, Improvement, Bonus, and Other Measures

Middle School Grades – LPAC recommendation for 2011-12:

  • Participation Denominator = count of 8th graders scoring at FCAT level 3 or higher on the grade 7 FCAT Mathematics Assessment.
  • Participation Numerator = Algebra 1 EOC test takers among students in the denominator.
  • Performance Denominator = students from the numerator of the participation component.
  • Performance Numerator = students from the performance denominator who scored proficient on the Algebra 1 EOC.
  • Students from the participation denominator who passed the Algebra 1 EOC prior to grade 8 would have results banked for participation and performance.

Banking EOC Scores of Middle School Students for Use in High School Grades

  • Banking scores in HS proficiency calculations: Attributing scores of students tested at another school (in a previous year) to the student’s high school.
  • Not banking scores in HS proficiency calculation: Placing high schools at a disadvantage when many or most of their entering 9th graders have already taken/passed the Algebra 1 EOC.
  • Suitability of Algebra I EOC as high-school-level examination over time. (Replace/augment with Geometry EOC?)

Banking EOC Scores of Middle School Students for Use in High School Grades

AAAC Recommendations:

  • Include banked middle-school EOC scores in proficiency calculations for high schools (Alg. 1 EOC).
    • Denominator = count of entering 9th graders with passing (banked) middle-school EOC scores plus EOC test takers in grades 9-12.
    • Numerator = students from denominator with passing scores.
  • Alternative: Apply cohort calculation. For example, what percent of the previous year’s entering 9th grade cohort have passed Algebra 1 by the end of grade 10? (use records from current and prior years to locate passing scores).

Graduation Rates

Issues:

  • NGA rate specified in rule for 2009-10 and 2010-11 but not for years thereafter (high school grades).
  • NGA vs. federal uniform rate.
  • SWDs receiving a special diploma.
  • Adult education transfers (cohort adjustment).
  • Federal rate to be used for AYP in 2011-12.
  • Five-year graduation rates.

Five-Year Graduation Rates




2009-10 NGA

Five-Year Rate as Follow Up to 2008-09 Four-Year NGA Rate

2008-09 Four-Year NGA Rate

2009-10 Four-Year NGA Rate

State Average

85%*

82%*

86%*

For High Schools Receiving a Regular School Grade in 2009-10

* Based on the average rates for 448 schools receiving a high school grade in 2009-10 (including the graduation rate in the components for the grade).

Five-Year Graduation Rates




For High Schools Receiving a Regular School Grade in 2009-10

2009-10 Fifth-Year Graduates as a Percentage of Non-Grads (Not Including Dropouts) from the Prior Year’s 4-Year Cohort

2009-10 Fifth-Year Graduates as a Percentage of Non-Grads (Including Dropouts) from the Prior Year’s 4-Year Cohort

15.38% (avg.)

10.56% (avg.)

NCLB/ESEA Subgroups in State Accountability Model(s)

Items:

  • Florida is in position to request flexibilities from USED to revise criteria for Differentiated Accountability, but any granted flexibilities might require Florida to incorporate ESEA subgroups, or aspects of subgroup achievement analysis, into the state’s school grading system.
  • LPAC recommends limiting inclusion of subgroups to district-level calculations (district grade calculations).
  • Selective provision of subgroup-based data may be a possibility – for instance, achievement-gap analyses.

Differentiated Accountability (DA): Possible Revisions Involving School Grade Criteria

Items:

  • Florida is preparing to request federal approval to revised its DA Intervene entry and exit criteria.
  • Statutory and rule change will be needed, along with USED approval.
  • Sought revisions would effectively establish school grades as the sole criteria for DA Intervene entry.
  • Exit criteria for DA Intervene status would hinge on an improved school grade and yet-to-be quantified improvement in reading and math proficiency.
  • A “Hold” status – for up to two years - would be established for Intervene schools that improve their grade but do not meet requirements for improvement in reading or math proficiency.
  • A final model is not yet in place but there is support from DOE leadership to move forward with requested revisions. Provisions noted above are still subject to change.

Contact Information and Resources


Accountability Research and Measurement

Questions about Florida school grading or other accountability processes?

See information resources and guides at http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/ (be sure to scroll down).

Contact the Bureau of Accountability Reporting at



(850) 245-0411 or

evalnrpt@fldoe.org


Download 67.17 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©www.sckool.org 2022
send message

    Main page