growth? - Data Center

Report
June 2012
1
Big Picture
• Continuous Improvement
• Aligned Improvement
June 2012
2
Goals of the day
• Data literacy
• Schoolwide Continuous Improvement Plan
Crafting
June 2012
3
Housekeeping
• What’s in the basket?
• Norms
• Parking lot
– Big
– little
June 2012
4
Multiple Measurement Rating
Overview
Benefits of the Waiver from
USED
• Ability to implement a potentially more sensitive mechanism for
federally mandated statewide accountability under ESEA – the
Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR)
• New statewide targets for AYP driven by actual performance
rather than a linear, time-delineated goal driven by NCLB’s 2014
deadline
• Elimination of prescriptive NCLB sanctions for all schools
regardless of performance context
• Elimination of many required set-asides tied to NCLB sanctions
at the school and district level, including ineffective
supplemental educational services
• Differentiated improvement planning requirements for schools
Foundation for Statewide
Accountability Remains the Same
• Minnesota’s Academic Standards
• Statewide Assessments in Reading,
Mathematics, and Science – MCA-IIIs moving
forward
• Public reporting
• Disaggregated data with an emphasis on
achievement gaps
• Adequate Yearly Progress determinations
(with new differentiated targets
Minnesota’s Multiple
Measurement Rating (MMR)
• New accountability system emphasizes
students growth and closing the achievement
gap in addition to proficiency
• Differentiates accountability for schools based
upon performance across multiple domains
included in MMR
• Adds recognition of high performance
• Returns primary responsibility for
improvement efforts to districts
• MDE will focus on the schools with the
greatest needs and lowest performance
Recognition, Accountability and Support
• MDE will assign Title I schools to three
federally required accountability categories:
– Reward Schools (Top 15% of Title I schools)
– Priority Schools (Bottom 5% of Title I schools; three year
designation)
– Focus Schools (10% of Title I schools contributing most to state’s
achievement gaps; three year designation)
• MDE has also created two additional
categories to recognize schools or promote
improvement:
– Celebration Schools (Title I schools between 60-85th percentile)
– Continuous Improvement Schools (Title I schools in the bottom
quartile not already identified as Focus or Priority Schools)
MMR’s Four Components
• All Minnesota schools will receive an annual
Multiple Measures Rating (MMR) comprised of
up to four components:
–
–
–
–
Proficiency
Student Growth
Achievement Gap Closure
Graduation Rate (for schools with graduating classes)
• Accountability designations only apply to schools
receiving federal Title I aid under NCLB (ESEA)
Schools are ranked in each domain by grade level cluster
Total MMR
• Each domain is worth 25 points.
• The MMR is generated by dividing the total number of points
earned by the total number of points possible.
• For most elementary and middle schools, 75 points possible.
For most high schools 100 points possible.
• The total MMR is a 0-100 percentage for all schools reflecting
the proportion of points.
Focus Rating
• In addition to an MMR, every school gets a Focus
Rating to identify Focus Schools.
• The Focus Rating measures proficiency and
growth of students of color and students
receiving special services (EL, Special Ed, Free and
Reduced Price Lunch)
• Focus Rating combines Achievement Gap
Reduction and Focused Proficiency
• Each domain is worth 25 points, for 50 possible
points
Proficiency
• Proficiency domain uses AYP index model.
• Schools earn points based on a weighted
percentage of subgroups making AYP.
• Weighting is based on the size of subgroups.
• Unlike in AYP calculation, in MMR Proficiency,
groups can’t make AYP through Safe Harbor.
Growth
• Growth measures ability of schools to get students to
exceed predicted growth.
• Growth predictions based on students’ last assessment
result.
• Predictions generated by looking at two cohorts of
students, where they scored one year and where they
scored the next year.
• Student growth score based on being above or below
prediction at each score point.
• School growth score is average of student growth
scores.
Achievement Gap Reduction
• Measures the ability of schools to get higher levels of
growth from lower-performing subgroups than
statewide average growth for higher-performing
subgroups.
• Growth of individual subgroups of students of color
compared to growth of white students, Els compared
to non-Els, FRPs compared to non-FRPs, SPED
compared to non-SPED.
• Subtract schools’ growth scores for lower-performing
groups from statewide averages of higher-performing
groups.
• Negative score indicates success.
Graduation Rate
• Uses same methodology as Proficiency
domain.
• Looks at the percentage of subgroups that
made AYP in graduation rate.
• Current AYP grad rate targets are 85%.
• Targets are changing next year.
• Groups can only get credit for meeting the
target, not through year-to-year
improvements.
Focused Proficiency
• Like Proficiency Domain, Focused Proficiency
uses AYP index model.
• Schools earn points based on a weighted
percentage of subgroups making AYP – but
excludes the All Students subgroup and the
White subgroup.
• Weighting is based on the size of subgroups.
Exit Criteria
• Priority Schools: Two consecutive years out of the
bottom 25 percent on the MMR (‘13 & ‘14).
• Focus Schools: Two consecutive years out of the
bottom 25 percent on the FR (‘13 & ‘14).
• SIG Schools: Opportunity to exit at end of grant (‘13)
if out of bottom 25 percent on MMR that year.
• Priority or Focus: Immediate exit if a Reward School
after any year starting in ‘13.
2011 25th Percentile
• Elementary Schools: MMR 33.81%; FR 42.55%;
Lowest Reward MMR 73.30%
• Middle Schools: MMR 18.68%; FR 42.96%; Lowest
Reward MMR 79.05%
• High Schools: MMR 22.05%; FR 31.99%; Lowest
Reward MMR 76.15%
• Numbers will be different every year.
Annual MMR and FR
• MDE must run AYP results based upon the newly
approved targets – Target Date July 18, 2012
• Test results will come out August 1, 2012
• MMR and FR results – August 27, 2012
• Media release – August 29, 2012
• MMR and FR Public Release – August 30, 2012
SCIP and MMR/FR identifications
• SPPS has received permission to use the SCIP
in lieu of the state’s improvement plan format
• Emphasis on a “proficient” SCIP allows us to
ensure a level of quality to the plan
• Continuous improvement schools will also
face the same
• Duration, intensity, frequency are key criteria
for supporting Focus Schools
Next Steps
• Plans will be submitted to MDE no later than
September 1, 2012
• Some form of parental communication has to
be sent but MDE has not yet indicated the
“WHAT”
• The 20% Title I set-aside has to be addressed
in the Title I section of your SCIP
– Expected alignment between goals, budget, and
action plan
Stars
in
the
Elevator
Protocol for Minnesota’s new
Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR)
and Focus Rating (FR)
Rashmi Vashisht, Data Coach, School & Program Improvement
Joe Munnich, Policy, Planning and Intergovernmental Relations
June 2012
23
Introduction
June 2012
24
Objectives
• I can name the 3-4
components of MMR
– Proficiency
– Gap reduction
– Growth
– Graduation rate
(HS only)
• I can name the 2
components of FR
– Focus proficiency
– Gap reduction
• I can report my school’s position relative to other schools
in the state based on the state’s Multiple Measurement
Rating (MMR) and Focus Rating (FR)
June 2012
25
Elevator
Worksheet
June 2012
26
Your Data: MMR/FR Score Sheets
BLUE
GREEN
PURPLE
RED
YELLOW
PURPLE
June 2012
27
Elevator
Worksheet
June 2012
28
RAFT
• R – Role:
School Leader
• A – Audience: Families, staff,
community members
• F – Form: Elevator Speech
• T – Topic: Multiple Measurement
Rating and Focus Rating
June 2012
29
Elevator Speech
Complete the writing prompt
• In MMR in 2011:
– We got the most points from…
– We got the fewest points from…
• In Focus Rating in 2011:
– We got more points from…
– We got less points from…
June 2012
30
Report out: Going up
• In MMR - Stand up if
your highest was:
–
–
–
–
Proficiency
Growth
Gap reduction
Graduation (HS only)
• In Focus Rating - Stand up if your highest was:
– Gap reduction
– Focus proficiency
June 2012
31
Reading between the dots:
MAP Progress Toward Proficiency
Objective:
A protocol to analyze data to determine the rate of progress
toward a target.
Framing Issues and Key Concepts
•Managing the gap between current levels of
proficiency and expectation is what our mission
is all about.
•The two critical pieces of information we need
are:
•How big is the gap?
•How much time do we have to close it?
•The answers to these questions define our
instructional mission.
Steps (a) and (b)
6
Step (a)
Grade Level: 6th
Content Area: Reading
June 2012
8
16
Step (b)
Grade
Fall
Spring
6
8
16
34
(C): Progress toward proficiency
8
16
June 2012
8
16
=8
35
(D): Average rate of increase
8÷
June 2012
8
1
36
Finding the Average Rate of Progress toward
Proficiency
MCA-II Reading / All Students
2011-12 District Target = 75%
Fall 2011
Winter
Spring 2012
2012
16.0
8.0
16.0 – 8.0 = 8.0
8.0% divided by 8 months =
1% rate of growth per month
(e) and (f): To Proficiency
June 2012
75
16
59
59
1
59
38
(g) and (h): Time to Proficiency
It would take 4 years 11 months to close the gap.
June 2012
39
Next Steps:
•Are you happy with:
–% of students on target for proficiency?
–Based on your calculations, is this rate of progress adequate or
acceptable? Why or why not?
• Implications for your SCIP:
•Given that we must increase the % of students who move to
proficiency at an accelerated pace, how have you done with
the rate over the past year and what does this information
mean to you for the next 5 years?
Use this protocol to analyze your own data.
Possible Conclusions
• What we have been doing has not been
predictably effective for ALL of our kids
• If we want to become more effective, we can’t
do the same things harder, faster or longer
• We need to do different things that are more
effective
So… how?
1. Decide what is important for students to know.
2. Teach what is important for students to know.
3. Keep track of how students are showing what
they know.
4. Make changes according to the data and
results you collect!
David Tilly, 2005
Problem Solving Process
Define the Problem
•Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior
Problem Analysis
•Validating Problem
•Identify Variables that
contribute to problem
•Develop Plan
Evaluate
•Response to
Instruction &
Intervention (RtI2)
Implement Plan
•Implement As Intended
•Progress Monitor
•Modify as Necessary
Slicing the Pie:
Analyzing the Viewpoint Growth vs.
Proficiency Report
Objectives:
• To access the Viewpoint Growth vs.
Proficiency Report
• To examine growth vs. proficiency by ethnicity
• To consider how this data might support the
SCIP
Inquiry Questions:
• What percentage of my students (overall) met
targeted growth and are proficient? Did not
meet growth and are not proficient?
• Which student group (ethnicity, grade level)
had the most students making targeted
growth?
• Which student group (ethnicity, grade level)
had the least number of students making
targeted growth?
• Who are they? How can we act?
MAP Growth vs Proficiency
School Name 2011 - 2012
Status: Active Students Only
Subject: Reading
Start Season: Fall 2011
Test Status: Tested (Both Seasons)
Scale: SPPS Targets - All Students
End Season: Spring 2012
Met
Growth
Proficient
Not
Proficient
Below
Growth
Met
Growth
Below
Growth
Proficient
36.4%
Not
Proficient
27.2%
9%
27.2%
State some:
Observations
1.
45.4% of All students in grades
3-6 are proficient (met target)
in MAP Reading by Spring 2012
2. 63.6% of our students made
growth!
3. 54.4% of All students in grades
3-6 are not proficient- this is
over half our students!
Inferences
1.
Last year, we had 36.6%
proficiency and
2. 58.4% growth- What was new
this in reading that made a
difference: Literacy PLCs with
Data Teams, literacy coach
3. Based on the Spring MAP, the
lowest strand is word
recognition/ vocabulary, same
as last year.
Questions that remain
• How did student groups by ethnicity do
compared to all in proficiency/ growth?
• Who are the individual students who were “in
the red slice”- not proficient/below growth?
Click
on the
filter
Choose
“Modify Filters”
Drop down
menu has
options
Choose 1
Click the
save icon
Close
the
window
Note: click to load the
report; click again to view
the report
MAP Growth vs Proficiency
School Name, 2011 - 2012
Status:
Active Students Only
Attribute:
Ethnicity-Hispanic
Click on the
slice of the pie
to get individual
student data
Below Growth; Not Proficient
Let’s bring it to the SCIP
Every system is perfectly
aligned for the results it gets.
*

similar documents