Highlights for School Performance

Report
Flexibility Amended in October, 2012
Louis Ferren, School Performance
Public School Accountability
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
 NCLB was passed in January of 2002. It had
proficiency targets for all schools based on state averages.
Targets in 2006 through 2011 increased about 9% each
year. The 2005-06 grade 6-8 math proficiency target was
29.10. The 2012-13 grade 6-8 math proficiency target was
91.14. The 2013-14 targets would have been 100%
proficient. If a school missed the targets for multiple
consecutive years, they would be in school improvement
and had to use 20% of Title I Part A for school choice and
supplemental educational services. They also had to use
10% of Title I Part A for professional development.
Arkansas ESEA Flexibility
 The Arkansas ESEA Flexibility was approved by the United
States Department of Education on June 29, 2012.
 The Arkansas ESEA Flexibility removed the requirements
to offer supplemental educational services (SES) or NCLB
public school choice.
 The ESEA Flexibility can be found at
http://www.arkansased.org/public/userfiles/ESEA/AR_E
SEA_Flexibility_Amended_10252012.pdf.
Arkansas Flexibility Amended
 The US Department of Education approved an amendment
to the Arkansas ESEA Flexibility in October, 2012.
 Schools were given credit for meeting AMOs for
performance, growth or graduation rate if they were at least
at the 90th percentile of the state distribution.
 For 2012, the 90th percentile was Performance of 91% in
literacy and 92% in math, growth of 93% in literacy and 81%
in math and 94% for graduation rate.
 The amendment allowed meeting graduation rate targets
using the better of the last graduation rate or a weighted
average of the previous three years of graduation rate data.
ESEA Flexibility Requirements
 To improve educational outcomes for all students, Arkansas
lowered its minimum N of 40 to 25 for all student groups.
 Establishes goals that are both ambitious and attainable.
 Supports continuous improvement in every school.
 Requires development of college and career-ready
assessments that measure student growth.
 Provides differentiated accountability, recognition and
support.
 Will support effective school instruction and school
leadership.
TAGG (Targeted Achievement Gap
Group)




Economically Disadvantaged Students
English Learners (EL)
Students with Disabilities (SWD)
A student is only counted once in the
TAGG even if he is in more than one
TAGG subgroup.
 Only 16% of schools were accountable for the Students with
Disabilities subgroup under NCLB AYP.
 TAGG causes more students to count in the accountability
model. Ninety-eight percent of the state's schools have a
TAGG that meets the minimum N of 25.
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
 School-based AMOs will provide achievable progress
targets based on the starting point (2011 for
performance and growth, 2010 for graduation rate).
 ADE was approved to credit schools/districts as
meeting AMOs when the performance, growth or
graduation rates are at least at the 90th percentile of the
All Students Group in the state distribution.
 Schools must test at least 95% for math and literacy in
the All Students group and the TAGG.
AMOs reduce by half the proficiency, growth,
and graduation gaps for schools within 6 years
If the percent proficient and advanced is 76%,
the proficiency gap will be 24% (100-76). The
proficiency gap must be cut in half in six years
- reduced by 12% (24/2) during the six years.
The yearly reduction would be 2% (12/6).
Therefore, the 2012 target would be 78%
proficient and advanced. The 2013 target
would be 80% proficient and advanced.
Sample Calculation of School or District AMOs
Sample school has to increase proficiency by two
percent each year. Starting point (2011) percent
proficient was 76. If sample school gets 82% in 2013,
the target will still be 82% in 2014.
2012 AMO = 76 + 2 = 78% Proficient
2013 AMO = 78 + 2 = 80% Proficient
2014 AMO = 80 + 2 = 82% Proficient
2015 AMO = 82 + 2 = 84% Proficient
2016 AMO = 84 + 2 = 86% Proficient
2017 AMO = 86 + 2 = 88% Proficient
AMOs for your school are at the following website:
https://adedata.arkansas.gov/arc
Differentiated Accountability, Recognition and
Tiered-Support System (DARTSS)
 Exemplary schools had high performance or growth, high
graduation rates (if high schools) and very small or no gaps
in subgroup performance or graduation rates.
 Achieving schools meet their AMOs and percent tested is at
least 95 percent.
 Needs Improvement schools did not meet their AMOs or
did not test at least 95 percent.
 Focus schools had large gaps between student subgroups.
 Priority schools were the lowest performing.
 ADE was only required to calculate Focus or
Priority for one year.
Non-Mobile and LEP
 Non-Mobile students are continuously enrolled October 1
through the test date.
 Mobile and non-mobile students are counted in percent tested.
 Non-mobile students are counted in percent proficient.
 Grade 11 Literacy Exam students who are Limited English
Proficient (LEP) in U.S. less than one year can be included in
ESEA data corrections if approved by the ADE.
 LEP in U.S. less than one year are required to complete
mathematics exams. They are included if they score proficient or
advanced.
Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
 2010-11 graduation rate = (Number of cohort
members who earned a regular diploma through
summer 2011) DIVIDED BY (Number of firsttime 9th graders in fall 2007 plus on-time students
who transfer in, minus on-time students who
transfer out, emigrate, or die during school years
2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and
through summer 2011).
 Graduation rates were re-calculated for 2010 and 2011 using
improved data quality rules which were able to better uniquely
identify students. The change was made because of a problem
with duplicate or incorrect student IDs and Social Security
Numbers.
Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
 The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for year 200910 was used to establish the AMOs from 2010-11 through
2017.
 Arkansas uses “Lag”. This includes students who graduate
by August 15.
 Students who repeat a grade are no longer on-time.
 Students with disabilities in high school who are following
an Individual Education Plan (IEP) may remain in school
for six years consistent with their IEP, but this will lower the
graduation rate for the school since the student did not
graduate in four years.
Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
 Students are removed from the cohort for the following:
1. Enrolled in another school in Arkansas – Pentamation
drop code 10.
2. Death - Pentamation drop code 30.
3. Enrolled in private school - Pentamation drop code 13.
4. Enrolled in home school - Pentamation drop code 11.
5. Enrolled in another school out of state - Pentamation 14.
 Guidance from the U. S. Department of Education on
graduation rate can be viewed at the following link:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf
Growth Used in ESEA Calculations
 Growth trajectories were calculated for students in Grades 3
through 7. The annual increments were proportional to the
annual growth in scale score points needed to have a
proficient score in Grade 8.
 Student identification numbers from the fourth grade are
used to match students with their scores from the third
grade. Students’ annual scale scores starting at grade four
were compared to the sum of their prior scale score and
their annual expected growth. Students in grades five
through eight are also matched to their scores from the
previous year.
Growth Uses Matching to Previous Year
 Students that could not be matched lowered the
number applicable for growth.
 Highly mobile students are not included in growth.
 To get the school percentage meeting growth, the
number of students that met growth in the school was
divided by the number applicable for growth.
Growth Including Proficient Students
Schools will be accountable for meeting AMOs for growth
based on the progress of all students on the continuum of
achievement – not just crediting below proficient students who
meet annual growth as proficient. This gives schools credit for
maintaining students’ pathways to proficiency by Grade 8,
including students who are proficient and advanced. The
percentages of students meeting growth for math and literacy
for grades 4 through 8 in 2011 was subtracted from 100 to get
the growth gap.
2012 ESEA Reports Contain:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Accountability Designation
Number of tests expected (includes highly mobile)
Percent not tested if percent tested is less than 95
Graduation rates (high schools) and Graduation rate Annual
Measurable Objective (AMO) or target
Number of non-mobile tests (# Attempted)
Percent proficient and advanced (Percentage Performance)
2012 AMO targets for performance and growth (if school has
at least one of the grades 4 through 8).
# applicable (records matched to previous year for growth)
9. Percent of students with growth (Percentage Growth)
ESEA Accountability Report
 2012 performance or growth was compared with the AMOs if
there were 25 or more students in the All Students group and the
Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG). If TAGG was less
than the minimum “N” of 25, the three year average performance
or growth had to be used.
 If a school did not meet AMOs using the one year calculation,
but met AMOs with the three year average, the three year average
was used.
 The number of math tests for a middle school could be greater
than the number of students since schools with grade eight can
include both Benchmark and Algebra I tests.
Achieving Schools
 Achieving schools meet proficiency or growth
AMOs for the All Students group and the TAGG.
 Schools must test at least 95% for math and
literacy in the All Students group and the TAGG.
 High schools must meet the graduation rate
AMOs for the All Students group and the TAGG.
 Schools will be given the “Needs Improvement”
label if they do not meet the AMOs or test less
than 95%.
Exemplary Performance
 Divide the number of non-mobile students who were at least
proficient for math and literacy for 2009 through 2011 by the
number of non-mobile students tested during the 3 years.
 Exemplary schools were at or above the 99th percentile
(grades K-5) or the 95th percentile (grades 6-8 and 9-12).
Schools were eliminated for significant gaps in subgroup
performance or graduation rates. Schools were not exemplary
if percent tested was less than 95 percent or graduation rates
were less than the state median graduation rate (83.78). In
2012, all subgroups with at least 25 students had to meet
growth and performance AMOs to remain exemplary.
Exemplary Progress
 Divide the number of non-mobile students who were at least
proficient for math and literacy for 2008 through 2010 by the
number of non-mobile students tested during the 3 years.
 For progress, subtract the 2008 through 2010 weighted average
percent proficient from the one for 2009 through 2011.
 Calculate the distribution of progress. Exemplary schools were at
or above the 99th percentile (grades K-5) or the 95th percentile
(grades 6-8 and 9-12).
 Schools were eliminated for significant gaps in subgroup
performance or graduation rates. Schools were not exemplary if
percent tested was less than 95 percent or graduation rates were
less than the state median graduation rate (83.78).
Exemplary Schools by Category
 There were eight schools designated High Performance
(three year proficiency ranged from 89.79 to 98.08).
 Six schools were designated High Performance High
TAGG (proficiency ranged from 75.86 to 91.94 and percent
TAGG was greater than 70.7).
 Two schools were designated High Progress (proficiency
gain ranged from 5.56 percent to 11.06 percent).
 Three schools were designated High Progress High TAGG
(proficiency gain ranged from 11.45 percent to 19.85 and
percent TAGG was greater than 98.7).
Priority - Five Percent of the State’s
Lowest-Performing Title I Schools
 Lowest performance was determined using 2009, 2010 and
2011 data with the Added Ranks method in A-15 of the SIG FY
2010 Guidance. This is described at the following webpage:
http://recovery.arkansas.gov/ade/pdf/lowest_achieving_061010.pdf
 Non-Title I schools with commensurate low performance are
Priority Schools.
 Tier I or Tier II schools using SIG funds for a school
intervention model are Priority Schools.
 To exit Priority, a school must meet AMOs for two consecutive
years for All Students and TAGG, have percent tested 95%
and make satisfactory progress on their Priority Improvement
Plan.
Added Ranks Using 2011 Percent Proficient
 a. Schools were sorted from highest to lowest for the
percentage of students proficient in mathematics in 2011.
Each school was assigned a rank based on this order with 1
representing the best.
 b. Schools were sorted from highest to lowest for the
percentage of students proficient in literacy in 2011. Each
school was assigned a rank based on this order with 1
representing the best.
 c. An overall rank for 2011 academic achievement was
obtained by summing the ranks for math and literacy.
Assigning Ranks for Priority
School Name
2011 Math
%Prof & Adv
Math Rank 2011
Literacy
%Prof &
Adv
Literacy Added
Rank
Ranks
School B
96.56
1
86.61
3
4
School A
92.12
2
95.45
1
3
School C
88.05
3
87.59
2
5
School D
65.52
4
67.87
4
8
Priority - Lowest 5% of Final Rank Score
 A 3-year progress ranking was obtained by summing
the 2009, 2010 and 2011 overall rank values.
 A final combined rank score was obtained by creating
a weighted sum that included overall rank for
performance in 2011 and the overall 3-year progress
rank. Three-year progress was weighted 1.0 and 2011
performance was weighted .80, thus giving slightly
more credit to schools that may have been low
performing, but demonstrated progress during the
three years.
Priority – Sample Calculation
 Three year total rank = 2011 math rank (914) +2011
literacy rank (963) + 2010 math rank (967) + 2010
literacy rank (957) + 2009 math rank (939) + 2009
literacy rank (922) = 5662.
 Weighted Rank Value (WRV) = 7164 = 3 Year
Total Rank (5662) + .80 * 2011 Total Rank (1502).
 Schools with a Weighted Rank Value greater than
7100 were identified as Priority Schools.
Identifying Focus Schools
 Students are in the Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG) if
they belong to one of the following subgroups: Economically
Disadvantaged, English Learners and Students with Disabilities.
 Three year percent proficient and advanced (prof) in Literacy and
Math are calculated both for TAGG and Non-TAGG.
 Three year TAGG percent proficient and advanced equals
number of TAGG students (#) prof in 2011 math plus # prof in
2011 literacy plus # prof in 2010 math plus # prof in 2010 literacy
plus # prof in 2009 math plus # prof in 2009 literacy divided by
the number of TAGG students tested in math and literacy in 2009,
2010 and 2011.
Focus School Achievement Gaps
 Achievement gaps were calculated by subtracting the three year
TAGG percent proficient and advanced in math and literacy from
the Non-TAGG three year percent proficient and advanced in
math and literacy within each school. If the school Non-TAGG
group was less than minimum N (25), the median of all schools’
Non-TAGG (88.8%) was compared to the school TAGG.
 Focus schools include 10% of Title I schools
with the largest TAGG/Non-TAGG gaps.
Non-Title I schools with same gaps were
also included. Three year gaps for Focus
were greater than or equal to 28.5.

similar documents