massp spring conference keep the destination in mind missouri department of elementary and secondary...
TRANSCRIPT
MASSP Spring Conference
Keep the Destination in Mind
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education –MSIP 5 Update
1
March 25, 2013
Why We’re Here2
Preparing Every Child for Success in School and in Life
How We Got Here
MSIP is the state’s school accountability system used to review and accredit public school districts in Missouri.
MSIP began in 1990 and is entering its 5th version.
3
How It Happens
Annual Performance Reports (APRs): generated each year to determine appropriate supports for each public school, district and charter school.
Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP): All districts must maintain and implement.
4
Articulate the State's Expectations
Distinguish Performance of Schools and Districts
Empower All Stakeholders
Promote Continuous Improvementand Innovation
MSIP 5 Policy Goals5
Transition4th Cycle MSIP 5
Cyclical Annual
Number of Mets/Not Mets Percent of Points Earned
5 years of data 3 years of data
Grade Span ELA and Math Subject Area ELA, Math, SS, Science
District/LEA Level APR District/LEA and School Level APR
Targets based on state norm Targets based on Top 10 by 20 goal
Status + Progress Status + Progress OR Growth (where app)
ACT ACT or SAT or COMPASS or ASVAB
Enrollment in Advanced Courses Successful Completion of Advanced Courses
K-8 GPA standard K-8 High School Readiness Standard
Aggregate Attendance Attendance of Individual Child
Cohort Graduation Rate Up to 7-year Adjusted Cohort Rate
Focus on Continuous Improvement Focus on Continuous Improvement
1. Academic Achievement
2. Subgroup Achievement
3. College and Career Readiness (K-12 only)
or
3. High School Readiness (K-8 only)
4. Attendance Rate
5. Graduation Rate (K-12 only)
Performance Standards7
Academic Achievement
ELA, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies Multiple Measures
Status ProgressOr Growth
Goal Be in the top 10 performing states by 2020
8
Academic Achievement K-12
9
Academic Achievement ELA Mathematics Science Social Studies Total
Status 2020 Target= 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0
2020 Target = 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0
2020 Target = 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0
2020 Target = 8On Track = 6 Approach =5Floor =0
Progress Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0
Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0
Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0
Exceeds = 6On Target =3Approach =1.5Floor =0
Growth Exceeds = 12On Target =6Floor =0
Exceeds = 12On Target =6Floor =0
PointsPossible
16 16 16 8 56
Academic Achievement K-8
10
Academic Achievement ELA Mathematics Science Social
Studies Total
Status 2020 Target = 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0
2020 Target = 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0
2020 Target = 16On Track =12Approach =9Floor =0
Progress Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0
Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0
Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0
Growth Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach =3Floor =0
Exceeds = 12On Target =6Approach=3Floor =0
PointsPossible 16 16 16 48
11
EX Status Prog Grow Points Earned
A 16 12 12 16
B 16 12 6 16
C 16 12 3 16
D 16 12 0 16
E 16 6 12 16
F 16 6 6 16
G 16 6 3 16
H 16 6 0 16
I 16 3 12 16
J 16 3 6 16
K 16 3 3 16
L 16 3 0 16
M 16 0 12 16
N 16 0 6 16
O 16 0 3 16
P 16 0 0 16
EX Status Prog Grow Points Earned
Q 12 12 12 16
R 12 12 6 16
S 12 12 3 16
T 12 12 0 16
U 12 6 12 16
V 12 6 6 16
W 12 6 3 16
X 12 6 0 16
Y 12 3 12 16
Z 12 3 6 16AA 12 3 3 15BB 12 3 0 15CC 12 0 12 16DD 12 0 6 16EE 12 0 3 15FF 12 0 0 12
EX Status Prog Grow Points Earned
GG 9 12 12 16HH 9 12 6 16II 9 12 3 16JJ 9 12 0 16KK 9 6 12 16LL 9 6 6 15MM 9 6 3 15NN 9 6 0 15OO 9 3 12 16PP 9 3 6 15QQ 9 3 3 12RR 9 3 0 12SS 9 0 12 16TT 9 0 6 15UU 9 0 3 12VV 9 0 0 9
EX Status Prog Grow Points Earned
WW 0 12 12 12XX 0 12 6 12YY 0 12 3 12ZZ 0 12 0 12a 0 6 12 12B 0 6 6 6c 0 6 3 6d 0 6 0 6e 0 3 12 12f 0 3 6 6g 0 3 3 3h 0 3 0 3i 0 0 12 12j 0 0 6 6k 0 0 3 3l 0 0 0 0
Subject Areas
ELA Mathematics Science Social Studies
GLA 3-8MAP-A 3-8, 11English IEnglish II
GLA 3-8MAP-A 3-8, 10Algebra IAlgebra IIGeometry
GLA 5 and 8MAP-A 5,8,11Biology
GovernmentAmerican History
12
Additional EOCs TBD Grade 11 End-of-high-school operational in 2014-2015 (potential CCR
measure)
Status Targets 2020 Target – represents a level of performance approximately equivalent
to the projected 2020 performance of the top 10 states on the corresponding NAEP exam OR, in subjects for which state-by-state NAEP data are unavailable, an equally rigorous target.
On Track —represents a level of performance about equal to 75% proficient by year 2020. Current performance is compared to this target, then a linear trajectory is created that requires equal annual progress increments to reach the 2020 target.
Approaching—represents a level of performance about equal to 100% Basic if each
Floor—represents a level of performance less than 100% Basic
13
Progress Targets Promote continuous improvement
Are customized for each LEA and school
Use Rolling Average Multiple Years of Data Less Volatility
14
Growth Targets Missouri Growth Model
Uses three years of outcome data Outcome year is defined as a valid score pair Pairs include 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011 -
2012 A valid MAP score pair is a score from grades 4
through 8 with a score from the prior year and grade level
Growth data applies to grade level assessments
15
15
Growth Points Earned
Growth
Growth Measures
Growth Points Earned
Growth Measure Description
Exceeding 12a statistically
significant score>50
On Track 6not statistically
significant growth estimates
Floor 0a statistically
significant score <50
16
16
2. Subgroup Achievement— The district demonstrates required improvement in student performance for its subgroups.
1. English Language Arts
2. Mathematics
3. Science
4. Social Studies
MSIP 5 Performance Standards 2
17
Proficiency Rates by Subgroup
Subgroup % Of State
Population
CA 2009
CA 2010
CA 2011
Math 2009
Math 2010
Math 2011
Total 100% 51.2 53.6 54.6 47.6 52.7 54.2
Asian/Pacific Is 1.9% 61.7 65.6 65.0 64.8 70.5 72.0
Black 16.3% 29.7 32.0 32.7 21.2 23.0 29.0
Hispanic 4.3% 37.7 40.6 41.6 34.4 35.8 41.4
American In 0.5% 51.1 51.1 51.2 41.8 44.0 48.6
White 75.6% 56.6 59.0 60.1 52.8 53.6 58.3
Multi-Racial 1.3% 60.3 53.7 53.5 58.9 65.1 53.1
FRL 46.6% 36.3 39.4 40.5 31.8 33.3 38.9
IEP 12.5% 23.6 26.2 27.0 22.7 25.8 29.2
LEP 2.6% 24.7 25.2 23.2 28.4 28.6 31.4
18
Subgroup Achievement
Multiple Measures Status ProgressOR Growth
Goal Cut Gap in Half by 2020
19
Algebra I EOC / GLA Policy
Choose one test Algebra I in middle school + Algebra II in high
school Algebra I and Geometry in middle school +
Algebra II in high school Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II in middle
school + plan from district
20
EOC Retest Policy
LEAs are required to ensure students participate in the required end-of-course tests prior to graduation
LEAs may not assess a student who previously scored proficient or advanced on the SAME end-of-course (EOC) assessment multiple times.
LEAs may submit an appeal for a student who previously scored basic or below basic and is retaking the test for A+ eligibility
21
College and Career Readiness *1-6
22
Academic Achievement
CCR *1-3 CCR *4 CCR *5-6 Total
Status 2020 Target = 10On Track = 7.5Approaching = 6Floor = 0
2020 Target = 10On Track = 7.5Approaching = 6Floor = 0
2020 Target = 10On Track = 7.5Approaching = 6Floor = 0
Progress Exceeding = 7.5On Track = 4Approaching = 2Floor = 0
Exceeding = 7.5On Track = 4Approaching = 2Floor = 0
Exceeding = 7.5On Track = 4Approaching = 2Floor = 0
PointsPossible 10 10 10 30
Standard 3 CCR *1- 623
Graduate File Unduplicated Count Highest Score where applicable No Full Academic Year (FAY)
Standard 3 CCR *1- 6 Updates
Standard 3 *1-3 2020 Trajectory Increased Participation
Standard 3 *4 2020 Trajectory TSA data not yet included
Standard 3*5 National Student Clearinghouse
24
HSR
June Enrollment and Attendance- 8th Grade Exiters
Unduplicated Count A qualifying score of Proficient or Advanced No Full Academic Year (FAY)
25
Attendance 90% of the students in attendance 90% of the time
Proportional Attendance Rate Hours of attendance + Hours of absence School calendar hours
Use of Stopout Code
26
Graduation Rate Five-Year Adjusted Cohort Rate for accountability A Six- and Seven- Year adjusted cohort rate will be
used for accountability as the data become available
Four-Year Adjusted Cohort for reporting
27
4 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate
5 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate
6 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate
7 Year Adjusted Cohort Rate
2011
2012 2012
2013 2013 2013
2014 2014 2014 2014
Changes to March 2012 Draft APR
Terminology and Reports Status and Progress Titles LEAs and School Titles LEP to ELL Performance Indicators (Remove risk factor language)
Weighted Proportional Attendance Rate
6-Year & 7-Year Graduation Rate
Revised Cut Scores CCR Indicators
28
Guidance Document
Appendix Matrix of Approximately Equivalent CCR *1-3
Assessment Scores Missouri institutions complying with the
Coordinating Board for Higher Education’s Dual Credit Policy and Principles of Good Practice for Dual Credit Courses
Approved Technical Skills Attainment (TSA) Assessments
29
Accreditation Levels
Accredited with Distinction >90% of points + other criteria as determined
Accredited >70% of points
Provisional >50% to 69.9% of points
Unaccredited < 50% of points
30
Transition into MSIP 5
Assessment Data
APR release Classification
2011-2012 4th Cycle MSIP - 2012 APR (summer 2012)
Board Classification for all remaining 4th Cycle districts
2011-2012 MSIP 5 - 2012 APR(fall 2012)
Draft MSIP 5
2012-2013 MSIP 5 - 2013 APR (summer 2013)
Year 1 MSIP 5 Year 1 APR
2013-2014 MSIP 5 - 2014 APR (summer 2014)
Year 2 MSIP 5 Year 2 APR
2014-2015 MSIP 5 - 2015 APR (summer 2015)
Year 3 MSIP 5Board Classification for all districts based on MSIP 5
Year 3APR
31
Other Things to Consider Test Participation
EOC MAP-A
Data Corrections Historical and current data clean up through 6/30/2013 Historical Supporting APR data frozen 7/1/2013
Look Ahead Plan for transition to new assessments Pay attention to all three years of data when projecting Focus on each student’s learning
32
Resource Standards
Elementary
High School
Class Size and Assigned Enrollments
Guidance and Counseling Staff
Certification and Licensure
Principals/Building Administrators
333333
33
Process Standards
34
Teacher/Leader Standards (2)
Instruction Standards (11)
Governance Standards (11)
34
High expectations for each child
More comprehensive reports
Multiple ways to meet measures
Greater flexibility in how the individual child demonstrates achievement
MSIP 5 Benefits35
36
Office of Quality Schools
Jocelyn Strand, Coordinator [email protected]
Melissa Hensley, Director [email protected]
Cathi Rust, Supervisor [email protected]
Office of Data Systems Management
Jason Young, Coordinator [email protected]
Janet Duncan, Assistant Director [email protected]
36
Characteristics of Proficiency-based Learning (PBL)
Students advance upon demonstrated mastery.
Learning objectives are explicit, measurable, transferable and empower students.
Assessment is meaningful and a positive learning experience for students.
Students receive timely, differentiated support.
Emphasis on application and creation of knowledge, and the development of important skills and dispositions.
Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013
37
Conceptual Framework
Beliefs All students can learn. Students learn at different rates.
Traditional structures hold time constant. Learning becomes the variable.
Goal: Free the learning process from time constraints.
Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013
38
PBL Task Force Recommendations
1. Revise the Graduation Handbook
2. Modify MOSIS to support PBL implementation
3. Establish minimum standards by which PBL Credit can be earned (ensure rigor and transferability of credit)
4. Increase the availability of EOCs, and possibly TSAs
5. Develop a standard statewide transcript
39
Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013
PBL Task Force Recommendations6. Develop an assessment system for primary and intermediate
grades/ages that supports PBL
7. Develop an assessment reporting system that supports PBL
8. Develop an accountability plan for PBL and Credit
9. Advocate for legislative action which supports funding for PBL in a manner similar to Virtual Education
10. Advocate for statutory change which provides economically efficient advantages to fund college credit
40
Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013
Further Study
Changes needed in the accreditation system. Implications for support of the delayed learner. Best transcription practices:
Incomplete mastery, Weighted Grades.
Funding for non-time-based learning structures, including ADA-based payments made upon course completion.
Proficiency-Based Learning Task Force 3/11/2013
41
Common Core State Standards
• Define the knowledge and skills students need for college and career
• Developed voluntarily and cooperatively by states; more than 40 states have adopted
• Provide clear, consistent standards in English language arts/literacy and mathematics
Source: www.corestandards.org
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
A Balanced Assessment System
Common Core State Standards
specify K-12
expectations for college and career readiness
Common Core State Standards
specify K-12
expectations for college and career readiness
All students leave
high school college
and career ready
All students leave
high school college
and career ready
Teachers and schools have
information and tools they need
to improve teaching and
learning
Interim assessments
Flexible, open, used for actionable
feedback
Summative assessments
Benchmarked to college and career
readiness
Teacher resources for formative
assessment practices
to improve instruction
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
Educator Preparation
New Teacher – Principal Survey MEGA Surveys
44
Frames of Reference
The Right People Profile
Content Knowledge General Education - Entry Content and Pedagogy– Exit
Field & Clinical Performance Standards Based Performance
43
Questions???46
THANK YOU!!!47