Accountability Update for the Nassau BOCES Presented by Assistant - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Accountability Update for the Nassau BOCES Presented by Assistant Commissioner Ira Schwartz Office of Accountability June 7, 2013 Graduation Rate Over the Years* State 100% 76% 71% 72% 73% 90% 69% 76% 80% 73% 72% 71% 69% Graduation
Office of Accountability June 7, 2013
2
State 69% 71% 72% 73% 76% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Cohort Years Graduation Rate
State
* Four-year cohort outcomes through June. Source: NYSED Office of Information and Reporting Services
69% 71% 72% 73% 76%
3
* 2007 cohort, four-year outcomes through June. Source: NYSED Office of Information and Reporting Services ** Aspirational Performance Measures (APM) are based on quantitative analysis of college course placement and performance data, quantitative analysis of SAT data, and interviews with CUNY, SUNY and CICU institutions.
New York State Graduation Rates
74% 85% 58% 58% 82% 35% 48% 12% 15% 56% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All White Black Hispanic Asian Student Subgroup Graduation Rate
Graduation Rate ELA/Math Aspirational Performance Measure (APM) **
74% 85% 58% 12% 58% 15% 82% 56% 48% 35%
4
Source: NYSED June 17, 2012 Release of Data (Background Information: Slide Presentation). Available at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/pressRelease/20120717/2012- ELAandMathSlides-SHORTDECK-7-16-12.ppt. ELA data from slide 16; Math data from slide 31. Percentages represent students scoring a “3” or a “4 .”
NAEP 2007 NAEP 2009 NAEP 2011 Grade Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math 4 36 43 36 40 35 36 8 32 30 33 34 35 30
Source: NAEP Summary Report for New York State. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/Default.aspx Most recent year available for Reading and Mathematics is 2011.
2009 Grade ELA Math 3 76 93 4 77 87 5 82 88 6 81 83 7 80 87 8 69 80 2010 ELA Math 55 59 57 64 53 65 54 61 50 62 51 55 2012 ELA Math 56 61 59 69 58 67 56 65 52 65 50 61
5
The Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) allow states to share a common definition of college and career readiness. If students are to graduate high school fully prepared, they must meet the benchmarks set by the Common Core - at every grade, and in every classroom. July 2010 NYS Board of Regents adopted the CCLS for ELA and mathematics. December 2010 Board of Regents required newly certified New York State teachers to be ready to deliver instruction aligned to the Common Core. June 2013 Student progress on the CCLS will begin to be measured for Grades 3-8 starting with the 2012-2013 school year, and for high school.
6
Continued
7
8
9
Assessments – http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/home.html Transition to Common Core Regents Examinations in English Language Arts and Mathematics Field Memo (Attachment A) – http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/math/ccmath/transitioncc.pdf
10
Assessments – http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/home.html Transition to Common Core Regents Examinations in English Language Arts and Mathematics Field Memo (Attachment B) – http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/math/ccmath/transitioncc.pdf
11
know and can do relative to the grade-level Common Core Learning
the following:
– Increases in Rigor – The CCLS are back-mapped, grade-by-grade, for college and career
and complex than those found on prior assessments that measured prior grade-level standards. – Focus on Text – To answer ELA questions correctly, students will need to read and analyze each passage completely and closely, and be prepared to carefully consider responses to multiple-choice questions. For constructed response items, students will need to answer questions with evidence gathered from rigorous literature and informational texts. Some texts will express an author’s point of view, with which not all readers will agree. – Depth of Math – Students will be expected to understand math conceptually, use prerequisite skills with grade-level math facts, and solve math problems rooted in the real- world, deciding for themselves which formulas and tools (such as protractors or rulers) to use.
12
13
14
15
16
(AYP) determinations based on the state’s new annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for each public school.
accountability groups consisting of 40 or more students) will fail to make AYP.
– For elementary and middle-level students, participation rate means the “percentage of students enrolled on all days of test administration who did not have a significant medical emergency who received valid scores on the State assessments for elementary and middle-level grades...”
waiver period, SED will continue to use AYP for other purposes, including but not limited to, the identification of Local Assistance Plan (LAP) schools. All students are expected to participate in State assessments as part of the core academic program. For accountability and other statewide reporting purposes, students who do not participate in an assessment are reported to the State as “not tested.”
17
18
19
Measure Description Points Growth on State Assessments
Comparable Measures State-provided student scores comparing student growth to those with similar past test scores and which may include consideration of poverty, ELL, SWD status State-determined district-wide student growth goal-setting process (Student Learning Objectives) 20 points 25 points with approval
Locally Selected Measures of Student Achievement The same locally selected measures of student achievement
same grade/subject in District or
3rd party assessments. 20 points 15 points with approval
Other Measures of Teacher Effectiveness Classroom observations Review of lesson plans and other teaching artifacts 60 points
20
21
22
Proposal to adopt two student growth measures for grades 9-12 principals. These measure will be combined into one State-provided growth subcomponent rating for principals with grades 9-12.
growth percentile based on student scores on the Integrated Algebra and the ELA Regents exams compared to academically similar students using 7th and 8th grade tests, other Regents exams, and all other factors used in 4-8 principal models.
students pass compared to similar students, up to eight exams. The definition of similar students will be the same as MGP of ELA/Algebra measure above.
23
Test Score 8th grade test score Regents Exam score Student A SGP = 58 High SGPs Low SGPs
Comparing student A’s Regents Algebra Exam score to other students who had the same 8th grade math score (640), she earned a “student growth percentile” (SGP) of 58, meaning she performed the same or better in the current year than 58% of similar students. SGPs are averaged to get a school Mean Growth Percentile (MGP).
640
Simplified Illustrative Example
24
January, and June
the measure alone to encourage additional test-taking, which may not be necessary).
school using the SED rule for minimum enrollment.
school are NOT included in the MGP of a principal of grades 9-12.
MGP (as long as minimum N sizes are met for each subject area).
25
26
Student Number of Regents Passed This Year For This Student Number of Regents Passed This Year by Similar Students Difference
Jessica 1 1 Tyler 2 2 Ashley 1 2
Emily 3 2 1 Jacob 3 2 1 Total Difference (Sum of Differences) 1 Average Difference (Total Difference/Number of Students) 1/5 = .2
Principal’s score on this metric is 0.2. Students at this school on average are passing 0.2 Regents Exams more than similar students. Simplified Illustrative Example
27
tests
want the measure alone to encourage additional test-taking, which may not be necessary).
whether or not they take a Regents Exam during the year.
grades 9-12 principal’s results.
9th grade, starting with 12-13 school year.
28
22
29
*High-Empirical can be interpreted to mean the variable improved the model significantly across all or most grades and subjects; Low-Empirical means little to no significant improvement in model power Empirical Policy Included in Existing Growth Model Three Years of Same Subject Prior Achievement High High Poverty (Yes/No) High High Disability Status (Yes/No) High High English Language Learner Status (Yes/No) Medium – Low High Additional Factors to Consider Average Prior Achievement in Class/Course– Same Subject High High Prior Year of Different Subject Test Score High Med Least Restrictive Environment: Students spend <40% of more of time in general education (yes/no) Med High % Poverty, % ELL & % SWD in Class/Course Low Med Heterogeneity of Class/Course Incoming Achievement Low Low Class/Course Size Low Med New to School in Non-Articulation Year Med Low NYSESLAT Score (LS and RW) Med Med Over or Under Age Indicator
Not analyzed by AIR
Med Retained in Grade Indicator
Not analyzed by AIR
Med Not Recommended Ethnicity Low Negative Specific Disability Categories Low Negative Other LRE Categories (40-79% of time in general education setting, 80% or more in general education) Low Negative Female (Yes/No) Med Negative
30
and received:
Proficient
Centers program (optional)
each school and district (optional)
(optional)
for All Students and Develop and Administer Annual, Statewide, Aligned, High-Quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth.
Recognition, Accountability and Support.
Leadership, including the implementation
which student growth is a significant factor.
Burden.
31
to College and Career Readiness
Restructuring with Identification of Priority and Focus Schools
with Identification of Focus Districts
With Identification of Reward Schools
Determinations for Elementary and Middle Schools
District Effectiveness") to Drive Improvement
32
33
34
35
36
All SWD Am Ind Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mix Rac All SWD Am Ind Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mix Rac 2011-12 3-8 ELA 3-8 Math Made AYP 74 66 80 92 74 79 76 61 76 81 71 67 80 93 71 77 73 66 71 81 Failed AYP 26 34 20 8 26 21 24 39 24 19 29 33 20 7 29 23 27 34 29 19 2010-11 3-8 ELA 3-8 Math Made AYP 88 41 95 98 73 78 98 47 81 100 88 55 97 99 73 82 98 65 82 100 Failed AYP 12 59 5 2 27 22 2 53 19 12 45 3 1 27 18 2 35 18 2011-12 HS ELA HS Math Made AYP 77 80 100 81 80 76 82 65 76 64 67 100 79 70 64 66 70 64 Failed AYP 23 20 19 20 24 18 35 24 36 33 21 30 36 34 30 36 2010-11 HS ELA HS Math Made AYP 81 47 100 69 67 69 94 34 71 100 86 47 100 72 70 74 94 44 81 100 Failed AYP 19 53 31 33 31 6 66 29 14 53 28 30 26 6 56 19
37
All SWD Am Ind Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mix Rac All SWD Am Ind Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mix Rac 2011-12 3-8 Sci Grad Rate Made AYP 88 75 100 89 79 82 92 70 84 88 71 100 94 80 81 95 71 80 Failed AYP 13 25 11 21 18 8 30 16 12 29 6 20 19 5 29 20 2010-11 3-8 Sci Grad Rate Made AYP 99 98 100 100 97 97 100 96 98 77 72 79 58 63 88 51 68 Failed AYP 1 2 3 3 4 2 23 28 100 21 42 37 12 49 32
38
All SWD Am Ind Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mix Rac All SWD Am Ind Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mix Rac 2011-12 3-8 ELA 3-8 Math Made AYP 94 89 100 100 91 95 98 78 92 100 93 87 100 100 96 95 98 83 88 100 Failed AYP 6 11 9 5 2 22 8 7 13 4 5 2 17 12 2010-11 3-8 ELA 3-8 Math Made AYP 98 59 100 100 94 97 100 69 97 100 98 77 100 100 95 97 100 85 98 100 Failed AYP 2 41 6 3 31 3 2 23 5 3 15 2 2011-12 HS ELA HS Math Made AYP 95 92 100 100 89 96 100 75 89 100 89 92 100 100 94 92 92 50 93 100 Failed AYP 5 8 11 4 25 11 11 8 6 8 8 50 7 2010-11 HS ELA HS Math Made AYP 95 71 100 89 78 100 60 91 98 81 100 94 93 100 50 95 Failed AYP 5 29 11 22 40 9 2 19 6 7 50 5
39
All SWD Am Ind Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mix Rac All SWD Am Ind Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mix Rac 2011-12 3-8 Sci Grad Rate Made AYP 98 89 100 95 96 100 78 88 98 82 100 94 93 100 75 100 Failed AYP 2 11 5 4 22 12 2 18 6 7 25 2010-11 3-8 Sci Grad Rate Made AYP 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 94 100 88 92 100 50 90 Failed AYP 4 6 12 8 50 10
40
Priority Focus Reward Nassau 4 7 43 ROS 218 486 206 Charter 2 8 2 Total 224* 501 251
41
42
43
43
Designation Requirements Priority School Implement a whole school reform model such as the Turnaround Model, Restart Model, Transformation Model, or Closure Model funded by a 1003(g) School Improvement Grant; or submit a School Comprehensive Education Plan (SCEP) aligned to the USDE’s Turnaround Principles. Focus District District Comprehensive Improvement Plan: details how the district plans to improve instruction and address the identified needs of Focus and Priority
–Identifies the supports and interventions that will be provided; –Explicitly delineates plan for annually increasing student performance; –Addresses how the district will use its full range of resources; –Is developed in accordance with the requirements of Shared-Decision Making (CR 100.11). –Addresses all of the tenets outlined in the Diagnostic Tool for School and District Effectiveness. Focus School Submit a SCEP for each Focus school that addresses supports, use of resources, the tenets of the DTSDE, and explicitly delineates a plan for increased student performance.
44
– For a school with both Elementary/Middle and Secondary levels the PI will be combined across both levels.
45
46
47
48