District Academic Goals BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTATION OCTOBER 22, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
2018 School Report Cards and District Academic Goals BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTATION OCTOBER 22, 2018 Purpose Our purpose is: To provide an overview of the School Report Card highlighting the changes Present the District and School
BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTATION OCTOBER 22, 2018
Our purpose is:
Board Policies – 2:20, 6:15, 6:340
2
Historically, accountability was based only on assessment proficiency.
3
IPSD Illinois Level 5 7.1% 4.6% Level 4 45.1% 32.5% Level 3 25.5% 26.5% Level 2 13.6% 19.9% Level 1 8.7% 16.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Elementary English Language Arts
52.2%
IPSD Illinois Level 5 14.6% 5.4% Level 4 40.6% 28.0% Level 3 23.5% 27.0% Level 2 14.4% 24.1% Level 1 6.9% 15.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Elementary Math
55.2% 37.1% 33.4%
Historically, accountability was based only on assessment proficiency.
4
IPSD Illinois Level 5 14.4% 7.2% Level 4 43.0% 29.5% Level 3 25.5% 27.1% Level 2 11.2% 20.4% Level 1 5.9% 15.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Middle School English Language Arts
57.4%
IPSD Illinois Level 5 14.2% 3.9% Level 4 39.4% 25.4% Level 3 24.6% 27.5% Level 2 15.6% 26.1% Level 1 6.2% 17.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Middle School Math
53.6% 36.7% 29.3%
School designations are now based on multiple indicators. Elementary/Middle School Indicators 10% ELA Proficiency 10% Math Proficiency 5% EL Progress 50% Growth 20% Chronic Absenteeism 5% Climate Survey Each indicator is assigned a score of 0 – 100 based on rules that are specific to each measure.
5
High School Indicators 10% ELA Proficiency 10% Math Proficiency 5% EL Progress 50% Graduation Rate 6.25% 9th Grade On-Track 7.5% Chronic Absenteeism 6.25% College and Career Readiness 5% Climate Survey Each indicator is assigned a score of 0 – 100 based on rules that are specific to each measure.
6
Exemplary Schools performing in the top 10 percent of schools statewide, with no underperforming student groups. Commendable A school that has no underperforming student groups and whose performance is not in the top 10 percent of schools statewide. Underperforming
(Targeted Support)
A school in which one or more student groups is performing at or below the level of the “all students” group in the lowest performing 5 percent of schools. Lowest Performing
(Comprehensive Support)
A school that is in the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools in Illinois and any high school with a graduation rate of 67 percent
7
Each school will receive one of the following summative designations:
8
Determining each school’s summative designation happens in three steps:
Compare against state-wide results to determine Summative Designation Use ISBE determined weightings to calculate school Index Score Calculate Indicator Scores for each measure
Under the new system, scoring is based on performance relative to yearly targets that increase to the state goal of 90% proficiency by 2032. For example: ELA Proficiency (PARCC levels 4 and 5 – DLM levels 3 and 4)
9
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 … 2031 2032 Target 39.67% 43.03% 46.38% 49.74% … 86.64% 90.00%
ELA Proficiency (PARCC levels 4 and 5 – DLM levels 3 and 4) School A: Students meeting proficiency = 48.21% 48.21% is above the target. School A is given an indicator score of 100.
10
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 … 2031 2032 Target 39.67% 43.03% 46.38% 49.74% … 86.64% 90.00%
ELA Proficiency (PARCC levels 4 and 5 – DLM levels 3 and 4) School B: Students meeting proficiency = 32.63% 32.63% is 75.83% of the target. School B is given an indicator score of 75.83
11
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 … 2031 2032 Target 39.67% 43.03% 46.38% 49.74% … 86.64% 90.00%
Results are 75.83% of the way to the target. 32.63% 43.03%
First a Weighted Graduation Rate is calculated as follows: 60% Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate 30% Five Year Cohort Graduation Rate 10% Six Year Cohort Graduation Rate Example:
12
Indicator Rate Weight Four Year Graduation Rate 93.5% 60% 56.10 Five Year Graduation Rate 94.8% 30% 28.44 Six Year Graduation Rate 95.1% 10% 9.51 Weighted Graduation Rate 94.05
The Weighted Graduation Rate is scored so that anything under 66.6% receives 0 points. Higher rates are prorated.
13
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 Indicator Score Weighted Graduation Rate
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 Indicator Score Graduation Rate
The Weighted Graduation Rate is scored so that anything under 66.6% receives 0 points. Higher rates are prorated. Example: Weighted Graduation Rate of 94.05% = 82.17
14
94.05 82.17
Growth is calculated using the average Student Growth Percentile on the PARCC assessment.
15
Anything below 28 is scored as 0 points Anything above 73 is scored as 100 points Between 28 and 73 scores are prorated
The final Index Score is calculated using the weights for each indicator.
16
Indicator Score Weight Earned Points ELA Proficiency 84 10% 8.4 Math Proficiency 92 10% 9.2 EL Progress 75.5 5% 3.8 Growth 84 50% 42 Chronic Absenteeism 75 20% 15 Climate Survey 100 5% 5 School Index Score 83.4
This process is repeated to create an Index Score for each subgroup.
17
All Asian Black Hispanic White IEP English Learners Low Income Index Score 83.4 85.7 81.2 82.4 83.1 68.4 72.8 76.4
All schools in the state are then ranked by the overall Index Score to find the top 10% and the bottom 5%.
18
School A 93.2 School B 92.1 School C 90.4 School D 88.2 School E 85.9 School F 81.7 School G 78.6 School H 71.2 School I 68.5 School J 64.5 School K 52.1 School L 48.3 School M 47.8 School N 41.5 School O 38.7 School P 35.6 School Q 33.2 School R 31.4 School S 28.7Top 10% Bottom 5%
All schools in the state are then ranked by the overall Index Score to find the top 10% and the bottom 5%.
19
School A 93.2 School B 92.1 School C 90.4 School D 88.2 School E 85.9 School F 81.7 School G 78.6 School H 71.2 School I 68.5 School J 64.5 School K 52.1 School L 48.3 School M 47.8 School N 41.5 School O 38.7 School P 35.6 School Q 33.2 School R 31.4 School S 28.7Top 10% Bottom 5% The lowest score for the top 10% sets the cut score for an Exemplary designation. The highest score for the bottom 5% sets the cut score for a Lowest Performing designation.
All schools in the state are then ranked by the overall Index Score to find the top 10% and the bottom 5%.
20
School A 93.2 School B 92.1 School C 90.4 School D 88.2 School E 85.9 School F 81.7 School G 78.6 School H 71.2 School I 68.5 School J 64.5 School K 52.1 School L 48.3 School M 47.8 School N 41.5 School O 38.7 School P 35.6 School Q 33.2 School R 31.4 School S 28.7Top 10% Bottom 5% The lowest score for the top 10% sets the cut score for an Exemplary designation. The highest score for the bottom 5% sets the cut score for a Lowest Performing designation. These cut scores will change from one year to the next. We will not know until they are announced by ISBE.
Exemplary Schools performing in the top 10 percent of schools statewide, with no underperforming student groups. Commendable A school that has no underperforming student groups and whose performance is not in the top 10 percent of schools statewide. Underperforming
(Targeted Support)
A school in which one or more student groups is performing at or below the level of the “all students” group in the lowest performing 5 percent of schools. Lowest Performing
(Comprehensive Support)
A school that is in the lowest-performing 5 percent
graduation rate of 67 percent or less.
21
Each school will receive one of the following summative designations:
School A 93.2 School B 92.1 School C 90.4 School D 88.2 School E 85.9 School F 81.7 School G 78.6 School H 71.2 School I 68.5 School J 64.5 School K 52.1 School L 48.3 School M 47.8 School N 41.5 School O 38.7 School P 35.6 School Q 33.2 School R 31.4 School S 28.7Top 10% Bottom 5%
22 6 25
5 10 15 20 25 30 Exemplary Commendable Under Performing Lowest Performing Number of Schools
IPSD 2018 Tentative School Designations
District Goal 1: Help all students grow socially, emotionally, and academically. By the end of the 2018-2019 school year,
be greater than the 60th percentile.
credit/credential) will be at least 92% with increased participation in each student group.
23
The average Aimsweb student growth percentile in reading and math will be greater than the 60th percentile.
24
59.4 59.0 58.4 57.4 20 40 60 80 100 1617 fa-sp 1718 fa-sp Average SGP
aimsweb Average Student Growth Percentile
Reading Math
25 59.0 62.4 70.4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Average National Percentile
Average National Percentile - Fall aimsweb Reading 2nd - 4th Grade Cohort (n=1540)
The district-wide average SAT score will be a composite score of 1180.
26 1166 1163 583 573 583 590
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 2016-2017 2017-2018 Average Score
Junior Year SAT
Composite EBRW Math
27 1163 1194 990 1185 901 1306 957 1016 1169
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 All Students Non Low Income Low Income Non IEP IEP Asian Black/African American Hispanic/ Latino White
2018 Average SAT Total Score
IPSD Illinois College Board Benchmark (1020)
State level data unavailable at this time
The percentage of seniors with a post-secondary experience (AP/dual credit/ credential) will be at least 92% with increased participation in each student group.
28
43.5% 42.2% 42.0% 24.3% 25.4% 31.9% 21.8% 23.5% 12.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Class of 16 Class of 17 Class of 18
Post Secondary Experiences by Type
Both AP and DC AP only DC only
89.6% 91.1% 87.1%
29
Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Low Income IEP 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Class of 16 Class of 17 Percent of Subgroup
Students with Post Secondary Experience by Subgroup
The percentage of seniors with a post-secondary experience (AP/dual credit/ credential) will be at least 92% with increased participation in each student group.
30 84% 84% 85% 69% 70%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Class of 2015 Class of 2016 Class of 2017
College Enrollment - Fall After Graduation
IPSD National
31 94% 94% 95% 79% 78% 77%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of 2016
College Persistence from Freshman to Sophomore Year
IPSD National
32 91% 86% 74% 69% 92% 70% 72% 57%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Asian White Hispanic African American
Fall Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity Class of 2016
IPSD National
33 99% 96% 92% 87% 85% 79% 71% 67%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Asian White Hispanic African American
Persistence by Race/Ethnicity Class of 2016
IPSD National
34 90% 78% 83% 55% 68% 51% 60% 38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% IPSD National IPSD National IPSD National IPSD National Asian White Hispanic African American
Impact of Enrollment and Persistence Rates
Persist Enroll/Don't Persist Don't Enroll
The percentage of students receiving out of school suspensions will be at or below 1.0%. Data related to this goal will be addressed at a forthcoming meeting.
35
Buildings Continue to Drill Down into the Data to Support Grade Levels, Small Groups and Individual Students District Supports this Process
Review at the District Level to Make Larger Scale Tweaks
36
PreK-12 Volume Reading Team Increase of High School Opportunities World of Work In depth updates will be provided later this year.
37
38