SLIDE 1
- Identifying K
ey Differences
- Definition of S
mall vs T raditional
- P
- oling Methodology
- Impact of P
roposed C hanges
- Where small schools and pooling is used in AS
BC S Framework Overall R atings
- Impact results on AS
AS BC S AC ADE MIC PE R F OR MANC E F R AME WOR K: - - PDF document
AS BC S AC ADE MIC PE R F OR MANC E F R AME WOR K: - - PDF document
AS BC S AC ADE MIC PE R F OR MANC E F R AME WOR K: IMP AC T OF C HANGING S MALL S C HOOLS DE FINITION AND POOLING ME THODOL OG Y Over view Identifying K ey Differences Definition of S mall vs T raditional
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
DE F INITIONS AND DIF F E R E NC E S
Defining and Identifying K ey Differences Between the Original Approach and the Proposed Approach
SLIDE 4
Key Differenc es
2012 Method – Used in A- F Letter Grades & AS BC S F ramework Proposed Method – Used in 2013 A-F Letter Grades
What is a small school?
F ewer than 100 students
- F
A Y & non-F A Y
- in all grades (not just
tested grades)
- enrolled on the first day
- f the AIMS
elementary spring testing window F ewer than 30 test records
- in math or reading
- from current year F
A Y students
How are data pooled for small schools?
P
- oled data from students
who were F A Y in the current year, and pooled data from prior years when the student was enrolled in the same school P
- ol data on F
A Y students from each of the past 3 years
SLIDE 5
FAY 2010 FAY 2011 FAY 2012 Not FAY 2010 Not FAY 2011 Not FAY 2012
2012 Pooling Met hod
SLIDE 6
FAY 2010 FAY 2011 FAY 2012 Not FAY 2010 Not FAY 2011 Not FAY 2012
Proposed Pooling Met hod (2013 A-F Pooling)
SLIDE 7
AS BC S S mall S chools Model
Where is Data P
- oled in AS
BC S S mall S chools Academic Framework Methodology?
Indicator AS BCS S mall S chools (2012) 1: Growth P
- ol 3 years
1.a- S GP
- f All S
tudents 1.b- S GP
- f B
- ttom
25% 2: P roficiency P
- ol 3 years
2.a- P roficiency 2.b- Com pos ite S chool Com paris
- n
2.c- S ubgroup P roficiency 3: S tate Accountability Us es “s m all s chool” A-F L etter Grade 4: P
- s
t-S econdary R eadines s Not P
- oled
SLIDE 8
HOW WOULD THE S E C HANGE S AF F E C T S C HOOLS ’ R ATINGS ?
Measuring Impact on the F ramework
SLIDE 9
Impact Questions
Two Impacts
- 1. R
edefining “S mall S chool”
- 2. S
mall S chools stay small, but use different pooling
SLIDE 10
Im pac t of Redefining “ Sm all School”
- How many charter schools would change
school type, if we changed the definition of a small school?
- Out of 366 s
chools *
- 265 would s
tay T raditional
- 27 would s
tay S m all
- 73 were s
m all and would be T raditional
- 1 was
traditional and would be s m all
*This total does not include Arizona Online Instruction schools or Alternative schools
SLIDE 11
Change in Definit ion of Sm all Sc hool:
Im pac t on Overall Perfor m anc e Rat ing
Increased Maintained Decreased
17% 61% 21%
How would changing the Definition of Small Schools impact schools’ ASBCS Academic Framework Overall Rating?
SLIDE 12
Change in Pooling Met hod for Sm all Sc hools:
Im pac t on Overall Perfor m anc e Rat ing
- Approxim
ately 25% of s chools had at leas t
- ne rating affected (e.g. “1.b, Math”)
- E
ach m eas ure is weighted and s um m ed, s
- an
im pact on one m eas ure does not neces s arily affect the Overall R ating
SLIDE 13
Change in Pooling Met hod for Sm all Sc hools:
Im pac t on Overall Perfor m anc e Rat ing
Increased Maintained Decreased
38% 54% 8%
How would a change in the Pooling Method for Small Schools impact schools’ ASBCS Academic Framework Overall Rating?
SLIDE 14
ASBCS Subc om m it t ee Rec om m endat ions
- Definition of S
m all S chools
Adopt the 30 tes t records definition
- Maxim
izes the s tatis tical s tability while reducing confus ion
- Would align the data that charter s
chools receive from A-F and their academ ic perform ance fram ework
- P
- oling Method
Adopt the “3 years
- f F
AY s tudents ” m ethod
- Allows
s chools to know which s tudents will be included from each s chool year
- Captures
m
- re data, thus
m
- re s
chools in the perform ance fram ework
- Would align the data that charter s
chools receive from A-F and their academ ic perform ance fram ework
SLIDE 15
T hank you
- Dr. R
ebecca B
- lnick, Director of R
es earch Derek F ay, R es earch As s
- ciate