1 2013 A-F LETTER GRADE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM RESEARCH & EVALUATION DIVISION ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MAY 2013
2 Purpose for Today s Discussion Components of A-F Letter Grade Models Traditional Small Alternative K-2 Changes to A-F Letter Grades Technical Policy Important details regarding 2013 letter grade determinations Substantive appeals Data corrections Preliminary letter grades Final letter grades Please hold all questions until the conclusion of each section.
3 Accountability Requirements A.R.S Student-level performance indicators Models based on statutory requirements of half growth and half academic outcomes Includes other indicators of school performance Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) Test 95% of all students Academic outcomes of subgroups Annual increase in proficiency for all AZ students
4 Which students count where? Component FAY Grades Growth All Students 3-8, 10 Growth Bottom , 10 AIMS Percent Passing 3-8, AIMS A Percent Passing 3-8, ELL reclassification ALL ELL 95% tested ALL ELL n-count ALL Graduation rate 12 DO rate 9-12 Falls Far Below reduction 3 or 8 Alt schools pooled SGP 3-8, 10 Alt schools improvement ALL Alt schools Persistence points ALL Percent tested 3-8, 10 Stanford 10 On-target 2 Stanford 10 Percent passing 2
5 Full Academic Year Student Traditional Enrolled within first 10 days of school start date. Continuously enrolled until the first date of the testing window or test date. Alternative Enrolled on October 1, Continuously enrolled until the first date of the testing window or test date. AOI Enrolled in an Arizona Online Instruction (AOI) school. A full-time funded student with at least 75% minutes accrued by test date.
6 NEW Online FAY Definition Details In March 2013, the AZ State Board of Education approved a new FAY definition for all Arizona Online Instruction (AOI) schools. All online schools will use the AOI FAY definition regardless of status. For 2013, any AOI school with less than 100 FAY students enrolled will receive a Not Rated label. Definition AOI FAY: An AOI FAY student is a fulltime funded (FTF = 1.0) student who is continuously enrolled in the fiscal year up until test date (or first day of the test window) with at least 75% of the minimum number of minutes required in statute A.R.S per grade level.
7 AOI FAY: Minimum Instructional Time 75% of Annual Hours/Minutes per Grade Level Grade Span Hours Minutes KG , , , , ,500
8 2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System 95% TESTED POLICY
9 95% Tested Policy 95% Tested Policy implemented in 2012 will carry over for 2013 letter grades. A single, schoolwide measure based on: AIMS & AIMS A for students in tested Grades 3-8 and Grade 10 Stanford 10 for students in tested Grade 2 (K-2 schools only) ALL students enrolled (FAY & non-fay) are included No. of Students Tested Percent Tested = No. of Students Enrolled Tested = Students with a valid test record AND an enrollment record showing enrollment on test date for high schools or the first day of the testing window for elementary schools. Enrolled = Students enrolled in the school on test date or the first day of the testing window
10 Less Than 95% Tested Penalty This penalty applies to ALL A-F Accountability Models. Penalty implemented after total points calculated. Schools or districts may submit an appeal for students who were not tested for reasons outside of the school or district s control which will be evaluated by the Appeals committee. For 2013, Any school which tested less than 95% will be considered: not met for AMOs. ineligible for Reward status. Percentage of Students Tested 95% or higher Maximum Letter Grade Allowed Eligible Points A % B % C 119 Less than 75% D 99
11 2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System ELL CRITERIA
12 ELL Points Criteria 1. Only LEAs with 10 or more ELL students are eligible for ELL additional points. Schools must test all students with an ELL need regardless of N-count. 2. LEAs must have tested 95% of students with an ELL need on the new AZELLA. A.R.S (B) mandates the assessment of English language proficiency of all students with a primary or home language other than English % or more of FAY ELL students across all grades must be reclassified as proficient on the new AZELLA. The Arizona State Board of Education adjusted ELL reclassification rate criteria on May 20, 2013.
13 How to Calculate Percent Tested on AZELLA = No. of students tested on Spring 2013 AZELLA No. of students with ELL need enrolled on first day of Spring AZELLA ELL Reclassification Rate = No. of FAY ELL students tested as Proficient on Spring 2013 AZELLA Total No. of FAY ELL students
14 How to Get ELL Points Example Minimum N- count of 10 ELL students Tested at least 95% of ELL students At least 23% of students reclassified Points School A 0 School B 0 School D 0 School E 0 School F 0 School G 0 SCHOOL H 3 In order to receive points, schools must meet all 3 criteria. Schools may receive 0 or 3 points. Partial points not awarded. ELL additional points apply to all models.
15 2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System TRADITIONAL MODEL
16 2013 Traditional Model Growth Score 50% Composite Score 50% Growth ALL Students Growth Lowest Performing Students (Bottom 25%) Academic Outcomes Percent passing AIMS & AIMS A Percent ELL students reclassified Graduation rate* Dropout rate* FFB Reduction** * High School only ** K-8 Only Growth Score + Composite Score = A-F Letter Grade (100 points possible) + ( points possible) = 200+ points possible
17 GROWTH SCORE
18 Purpose of the Growth Model Measure how much a student grows in Reading & Mathematics from one year to the next compared to their peers with similar academic ability. Better understand how well a school/lea is growing its students. Measure how well a school s lowest achieving students are progressing academically. Demonstrate school s contributions to a student s learning alongside academic outcomes.
19 Purpose of the Growth Model Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) & Median SGP help answer questions such as: How well are our students scoring in relation to the performance of other students in the state with similar academic achievement history? How have our lowest performing students improved over the past school year?
20 Data Used to Measure Growth Grade 2 Stanford 10 Grade 3 Growth Grades 3-7 AIMS Grades 4-8 Growth Grade 9 Stanford10 Grade 10 Growth
21 Growth Scores Because there are only 99 points possible for Growth, all schools will receive one (1) additional point to their growth calculation for a total of 100 points possible on the growth portion of the model. Every student with a valid test score in 2012 and 2013 receives a SGP. Only FAY students count toward a school s growth score. Up to five years of data may be included in the calculation of SGP.
22 Growth Model: Conceptual Illustration Betebenner, D. W. (2011). A technical overview of the student growth percentile methodology: Student growth percentiles and percentile growth projections/trajectorie s. Retrieved from cation/njsmart/perform ance/sgp_technical_ Overview.pdf
23 Calculating Growth Score: All Students For each grade, a median growth percentile was calculated for all FAY students who were tested. This is done separately by subject. The grade-specific median SGPs for Reading and for Mathematics were averaged as the median growth for that grade. The school-wide median for Reading and that for Mathematics were averaged as the median growth of all FAY students within that school.
24 The Bottom 25% The growth of the Bottom 25% (or BQ) is half of a school s growth score. BQ is determined by prior year test scores. However, schools only accountable for growth of FAY BQ students. For grades 3 &10, prior year Stanford 10 is used. Students may be in BQ based on Reading and/or Mathematics performance. Adjusted difference score calculated for AIMS.
25 Identifying the Bottom 25% For grades 4-8, ADE calculates the difference between each student s prior year AIMS scale score and prior year AIMS grade level pass score in Mathematics & Reading separately. Each score is adjusted for negative values by adding it to the product of their respective performance level and Numeric Performance Level AIMS Proficiency Level 1 Falls Far Below 2 Approaches 3 Meets 4 Exceeds
26 Steps to Identify BQ Step 1 Calculate Difference (PY Scale Score PY Pass Score) Step 2 Adjust Difference (Difference *FAME level) Step 3 Rank Order For each subject, rank order students in all tested grades and identify quartiles.
27 Identifying the Bottom 25% For Grades 3 & 10, student performance on Grade 2 & 9 Stanford 10 is used to determine BQ based on percentile scores. Stanford 10 is a norm-referenced test so nature of scores are rank-ordered. The corresponding SGPs of Grade 3 BQ & Grade 10 BQ students are included in calculation of Median Student Growth for each school.
28 Identifying the Bottom 25% BQ 75th percentile Reading 50th percentile 100th percentile Math For each subject, the median SGP for the BQ subgroup is determined. The average of Reading and Math median SGP is used to represent the typical growth of the school s lowest achieving subgroup. Every school has a BQ.
29 Identifying the Bottom 25% DATA ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY 2012 Pass SAIS ID 2013 Grade 2012 Scale Score 2012 FAME Level (1-4) Score per Grade Difference Adj. Difference Bottom Quartile? SGP NULL N/A NULL N/A NULL N/A NULL N/A NULL N/A NULL N/A NULL N/A NULL N/A NULL N/A Only SGP of FAY students identified in BQ apply to a school s median growth score. Grades 3 & 10 based on Stanford 10 percentile rank.
30 Total Growth Points Growth Component Example: Median Student Growth Percentile Total Growth Points Possible Median Growth Percentile All Students Median Growth Percentile Bottom 25% 47 OUT OF OUT OF 99 Additional Point 1 1 Overall Growth Score - (the average of the medians for All Students and Bottom 25% +1)
31 COMPOSITE SCORE
32 Data Used in Composite Score Percent Passing ELL Reclassification Graduation Rate Dropout Rate FFB Rate Spring 2013 AIMS & AIMS A FY 2013 new AZELLA test scores Average of 2012, 2011, & year rate 2013 improvement over 2012 Grade 3 Reading Fall 2012 (FY 2013) AIMS & AIMS A FY2013 rate 2013 improvement over 2012 Grade 8 Math Reading & Math only Students in any grade who test Proficient OR Cohort year rate Average of 2013, 2012, & 2011 FFB Rate
33 Percent Passing Reading & Math achievement only o Writing & Science results are not used in accountability Percentage of students passing AIMS & AIMS A in current year o FAY students who Meet and Exceed the standards on AIMS & AIMS A o For high school students who test in both Fall 2012 & Spring 2013, the better score is retained o Grade 9 students excluded Total points worth points to represent the total proportion of students school wide o Example: School X s overall percentage of students passing (Reading & Mathematics) is 75%. The school earns 75 points.
34 How to Calculate Percent passing points = 100 x No. of FAY Students Passing AIMS Math No. of FAY Students Passing AIMS Reading No. of FAY Students Passing AIMS A Math No. of FAY Students Passing AIMS A Reading No. of FAY Students Tested in AIMS Math No. of FAY Students Tested in AIMS Reading No. of FAY Students Tested in AIMS A Math No. of FAY Students Tested in AIMS A Reading
35 Composite Score - Additional Points 5-Year Graduation Rate Baseline Year is 2006 (or the school s first year serving grade 12 when necessary). The graduation rate from the year prior is used in the letter grade (i.e., Cohort 2012 grad rate will be used for 2013 A-F profile). Requires at least 15 students in the previous 3 cohort years to be eligible for grad rate points. Unlike ELL point requirements, a school s graduation rate can meet any of the three criteria in order to receive 3 additional points. Graduation Rate Criteria Target Points Earned 3-Year Average of 5-Year Grad Rate 90% 3 Current Year 5-Year Grad Rate 74% 1% Increase 3 Current Year 5-Year Grad Rate < 74% 2% Increase 3
36 Composite Score - Additional Points Dropout Rate Baseline Year is 2006 (or the school s first year serving grade 12 when necessary). A school will not be evaluated on dropout rate if it has less than 15 students in the school in the prior three years. Unlike ELL point requirements, a school s dropout rate can meet any of the three criteria in order to receive 3 additional points. Dropout Rate Criteria Target Points Earned 3-Year Average Dropout Rate 6% 3 Current Year Dropout Rate 9% 1% Decrease 3 Current Year Dropout Rate > 9% 2% Decrease 3
37 Purpose of FFB Reduction Points Attempt to balance points possible for K-8 schools by recognizing Falls Far Below reduction in Grade 3 Reading or Grade 8 Mathematics
38 Composite Score - Additional Points Falls Far Below Reduction Approved by the State Board of Education in March 2013 to begin in 2013 accountability letter grades. Any LEA or school which is ineligible for dropout points may receive 3 additional points for meeting FFB rate targets. All high schools and schools with alternative status are ineligible for FFB rate reduction points. Any LEA or school serving high school grades as well as elementary are eligible for dropout points only. Schools and LEAs may receive 0 or 3 points for meeting any of the FFB targets in either grade 3 or grade 8. Any school which meets multiple targets on math and/or reading will receive only 3 points maximum. For 2013, only Grade 3 Reading and Grade 8 Mathematics are included.
39 FFB Reduction points Maximum of 3 points possible regardless of meeting multiple criteria Uses previous year as baseline for CY criteria ELIGIBLE Traditional model Schools with Grade 3 Schools with Grade 8 Elementary districts or LEAs NOT ELIGIBLE Alternative schools Unified, High school districts Schools eligible for dropout reduction points High schools K-12 schools
40 Criteria to receive FFB points 3 points awarded for meeting any ONE of these criteria. Average of three years includes current year and two prior years. For 2013, FFB rate calculation includes 2013, 2012, and Grade 3 Reading Grade 8 Mathematics Falls Far Below Criteria to Meet the Target Falls Far Below Criteria to Meet the Target 3-Year Average 3% Points 3-Year Average 25% Points Current Year 5% 1% Point Annual Decrease Current Year 30% 1% Point Annual Decrease Current Year > 5% 2% Point Annual Decrease Current Year > 30% 2% Point Annual Decrease
41 Total Score Point Values Component Total Possible Points Growth 1 to 100 Percent Passing - AIMS & AIMS A 1 to 100 ELL Reclassification 0 OR 3 Graduation Rate Points 0 OR 3 Dropout Rate Points 0 OR 3 FFB Reduction Points 0 OR 3 TOTAL HIGH SCHOOL POINTS POSSIBLE Up to 209 TOTAL ELEMENTARY/MIDDLE POINTS POSSIBLE Up to 206
42 A-F Point Scale Points Letter Grade Description 140+ A Excellent level of performance B Above average level of performance C Average level of performance Less than 100 D Below average level of performance N/A F Failing level of performance & persistently low-achieving Grade descriptors defined by A.R.S Applies to traditional, small schools, K-2 model only
43 Calculating a Final Letter Grade Example A-F Component Total Points Example 1 Total Points Example 2 Total Points Example 3 Percent Passing Points: Additional Points: ELL Reclassification Graduation Rate Dropout Rate FFB Rate Total Composite Points: Total Growth Points: Total A-F Points: Percent Tested: 79% 93% 97% Final Letter Grade: C B B
44 2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System K-2 MODEL
45 2013 A-F Letter Grades The K-2 Model On-Target Score 50% Composite Score 50% On-Target Percentage of Grade 2 students who are on-target for proficiency on Grade 3 AIMS Academic Outcomes Percentage of Grade 2 students at or above 5th stanine on Stanford 10 Percent ELL students reclassified On-Target Score + Composite Score = A-F Letter Grade (100 points possible) + ( points possible) = 200+ points possible
46 K-2 Model Components: Composite Percent at or above the 5 th stanine o Stanines 4, 5, & 6 considered median performance band. o A student who is at or above the 5 th stanine is included in the numerator. o All FAY students with a valid test score included in the denominator. o Reading and Mathematics are calculated separately, averaged, and used as a point value between ELL Reclassification Points o Identical to calculation described in Traditional Model. Percent Passing Stanford 10 = No. of FAY students 5th stanine in Math No. of FAY students tested on Stanford 10 Math No. of FAY students 5th stanine in Reading No. of FAY students tested on Stanford 10 Reading
47 K-2 Model Components: On-Target Indicates the degree to which students in Grade 2 are on-track to proficiency on AIMS Reading and Mathematics in Grade 3. Total points assigned by the average percentage of FAY students ontarget in Reading and on-target in Mathematics. Benchmark scores identified in 2012 based on 2011 data. MATH On-Target Scale Score: 577 READING On-Target Scale Score: 580 On-Target Points 100 X No. of FAY students SS 577 in Math No. of FAY students tested on Stanford 10 Math No. of FAY students SS 580 in Reading No. of FAY students tested on Stanford 10 Reading
48 K-2 Model: Total Points Component Points Possible On-Target Percent at or above 5 th stanine Additional ELL Reclassification Points OR 3 TOTAL Up to 203 Traditional point scale applies to K-2 schools. All schools with only grades K-2 evaluated under K-2 model. K-2 schools only eligible for ELL Reclassification points at this time.
49 2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System SMALL SCHOOLS MODEL
50 2013 A-F Letter Grades Small School Model Growth Score 100 points possible Composite Score 100+ points possible Growth ALL Students Pooled 3-Year Median SGP Bottom 25% Pooled 3-Year Median SGP Academic Outcomes 3-yr Pooled Avg. Percent Passing AIMS & AIMS A ELL Reclassification Graduation Rate * Dropout Rate * FFB Rate** *High School only **K-8 only Growth Score + Composite Score = A-F Letter Grade (100 points possible) + ( points possible) = 200+ points possible
51 2013 A-F Letter Grades State Board Approved Changes State Board of Education recently approved three changes affecting small schools: 1. Use only a maximum of three years of data in pooling; all schools requiring greater than three years will be labeled NR. 2. New pooling method only includes students who are FAY in each of the three years regardless of whether a student is enrolled in the current year. 3. Any school with less than 30 test records from FAY students in the current year will be considered a small school. Math and/or Reading records Fall and Spring test dates
52 The Small School Model Schools which were previously evaluated as a small school but have more than 30 test records from FAY students in 2013 will use only 2013 data under the Traditional Model. Mirrors traditional model but pools all components. Additional points calculation not pooled. All grade configurations eligible for pooled data. Schools with alternative status held accountable to alternative model. Traditional A-F letter grade scale used to determine letter grade.
53 2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL MODEL
54 The Alternative Schools Model Growth ALL Students Pooled 3-yr Median SGP (Grades 3-8 & 10) Composite Score 30% weight Academic Outcomes Percent Passing AIMS & AIMS A ELL Reclassification Graduation Rate * Academic Persistence Growth Score 70% weight Growth - Improvement Increase in AIMS Performance Level *High school only Composite Score + Growth Score = A-F ALT Letter Grade
55 Alternative Schools Model Alternative School Status Granted by ADE Research & Evaluation Division by May Schools identified as alternative in 2012 need not reapply except to remove a school s alternative status. School s report card and other public documents must reflect mission to serve a qualified population. Qualified populations approved by State Board in FAY Student A Full Academic Year (FAY) for alternative schools based on students enrolled up to October 1st in current year and continuously enrolled through AIMS testing. Day of test for high school grades. First day of testing window for elementary grades.
56 Alternative Schools Composite Points Percent Passing Reading & Mathematics on AIMS & AIMS A in current year Grades 3-8, 10 as well as better of Fall/Spring for grades 11 & 12 Up to three years of data may be pooled if less than 30 test records in current year Additional Points ELL Reclassification Rate Points (0 or 3 pts.) Identical to calculation described in Traditional Model. Academic Persistence Points (0 or 3 pts.) An academically persistent student is one who returns to any public school the following school year (includes retained students & excludes graduates). Schools must meet an annual persistence rate of 70%. Graduation Rate (0 or 3 pts.) Criteria relative to alternative schools only. Schools within the alternative model are not eligible for drop out rate or FFB reduction points.
57 Alternative Schools Graduation Rate Points Schools may receive 0 or 3 points for meeting any one of the three grad rate criteria in table below. In 2013, the Baseline Year will be 2006 or the school s first year serving grade 12, whichever is the latest. Cohort 2012 used in current year graduation rate criteria. Graduation Rates Target Points Earned 3-Year Average of 5-Year Grad Rate 48% 0 or 3 Current Year 5-Year Grad Rate 52% Current Year 5-Year Grad Rate < 52% 1% Point Increase 2% Point Increase 0 or 3 0 or 3
58 Alternative School Model Calculating Growth Growth All students Pooled 3-Year Median Student Growth Percentile Grades 3-8 & 10 only Average of median SGP s for Reading & Mathematics taken Growth Bottom 25% is NOT included in growth component Growth Improvement Captures the academic improvement of students who increase in AIMS performance bands Eligible students have test scores in current & prior year Grade 11 & 12 students who retake test in spring & fall or fall & spring eligible for improvement
59 Alternative Schools Calculating a Final Letter Grade Letter Grade labels for Alternative Schools unique to model and distinct from traditional A-F letter grade labels. Weighting at 70% places greater emphasis on the growth component of the model. Distribution scale determines letter grade thresholds based upon the mean and standard deviations of all alternative schools total points. A-Alt. B-Alt. C-Alt. D-Alt.
60 Alternative School Letter Grade Distribution-Based Scale 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% A-Alt B-Alt + 1 ½ SD + ½ SD A 2013 mean and standard deviation based on alternative schools total points will be calculated. 50% 40% 30% 20% C-Alt Mean -1/2 SD All alternative schools letter grades determined by corresponding cut points. 10% D-Alt 0%
61 Calculating Alternative Schools Total Points Component Points Possible Percent Passing 1-60 Additional ELL Reclassification Points 0 OR 3 Additional Graduation Rate Points 0 OR 3 Additional Persistence Points 0 OR 3 Growth - All Students & Improvement TOTAL Up to 209 (Growth All students + Improvement) x 1.40] Percent Passing x.60 Additional Points Total Points
62 Calculating Alternative Schools Letter Grades - Example Calculate ALL alt. schools mean total points Determine standard deviation (SD) Determine SD from mean ± 1 2 Determine individual schools total points Label A-Alt. through D- Alt. EXAMPLE Current year mean total points = 100 EXAMPLE Current year SD = 10 EXAMPLE ± 1 2 SD =5pts. EXAMPLE Alternative School ABC scored total of 108 points EXAMPLE Alternative School ABC earns B-Alt.
63 2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System LEA LETTER GRADES
64 LEA Letter Grades Growth Score 50% Composite Score 50% Growth ALL Students Growth Lowest Performing Students (Bottom 25%) Academic Outcomes Percent passing AIMS & AIMS A Percent ELL students reclassified Graduation rate* Dropout rate* FFB Reduction** * High School only ** K-8 Only Growth Score + Composite Score = A-F Letter Grade (100 points possible) + ( points possible) = 200+ points possible
65 LEA Letter Grades Composite Percent passing + Additional Points Student achievement within district or charter holder aggregated to LEA level. AIMS A results capped at 1% of LEA percent passing. Additional points eligibility based on district configuration (Unified vs. Elementary) and student enrollment (ELL). Growth All students + Bottom 25% Student-level SGPs within district or charter holder aggregated to LEA level. Calculation identical to Traditional Model. Grading Uses the standard A-F point scale. For LEAs with one school, the school grade becomes the LEA grade. LEAs with only alt. schools will receive the average grade of all its alt. schools.
66 2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY DETAILS
67 Not Rated Label for schools with insufficient data. Any school with less than 30 test records from FAY students over a three year period labeled NR. Applies to all models Any school with a major component missing labeled NR. Percent Passing Growth - All Students To reduce necessity of NR label, model components with insufficient data may be pooled.
68 Common Logon Appeals Application Only for substantive appeals of preliminary A-F Letter Grades. Substantive reasons for an appeal involve circumstances outside of an entity s control that adversely affect student performance on test date. Entities may not appeal the A-F formulae. Substantive appeals submitted via will not be considered. An appeals committee made up of representatives from the field will convene to review all appeals. Appeals will be public record. Appeals must be submitted for LEA and school separately. All appeals should be submitted with only SAIS ID numbers if student identification is necessary.
69 Data Corrections Data can only be corrected, not appealed. LEAs and schools must use the SAIS Corrections application for AIMS SAIS ID corrections only. LEAs and schools must use the new AZELLA Corrections application for AZELLA SAIS ID corrections only. Schools and LEAs should correct data ASAP. ADE Research & Evaluation does not need notice of data corrections via or substantive appeal. Fall 2013 AIMS data is currently available. AZELLA corrections application only applies to new AZELLA, not AIMS. Data corrections made after June 30, 2013 will NOT be included in FINAL A-F letter grades.
70 Substantive Appeal or Data Corrections? Parents refused to allow student to test SAIS ID incorrectly bubbled Someone mislabeled test header sheets Student was on medication day of testing Substantive Appeal? Data Corrections Data Corrections Substantive Appeal?
71 2013 Accountability: Important Dates Event Date Preliminary A-F Release on Common Logon June 26, 2013 Substantive Appeals Window Opens June 26, 2013 Substantive Appeals Window Closes July 3, 2013 Program Membership Data Corrections Close June 30, 2013 Grad Rate/Dropout Rate Data Corrections Close June 30, 2013 Embargoed Release of Final A-F Letter Grades July 30, 2013 Public Release August 1, 2013 Full timeline memo can be found here:
72 New for 2013 Summary 95% Tested added to AMOs AOI FAY definition A full-time funded (FTF = 1.0) student who is continuously enrolled in the fiscal year up until test date (or first day of the test window) with at least 75% of the minimum number of minutes required in statute A.R.S per grade level AOI Inclusion Policy Any AOI school with less than 100 FAY students enrolled on test date will receive an NR label. Small School Model Inclusion criteria based on 30 test records for small schools Pooling method to include FAY students only for a maximum of three years FFB additional points for K-8 schools & LEAs Additional Data provided to schools New A-F ELL Reclassification rate of 23% reflects AMAO 2 New AZELLA corrections application on Common Logon
73 Questions? Research & Evaluation Division Arizona Department of Education (602)
2014 A-F LETTER GRADE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MAY 2014 Purpose for Today s Discussion Components of Models Traditional Small Alternative K-2 Changes to A-F Letter Grades Graduation
2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System TECHNICAL MANUAL Arizona Department of Education John Huppenthal, Superintendent For more information, please contact: Research & Evaluation Section (602) 542-5151
Arizona AYP Terms Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) In accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) has established the following intermediate goals:
Understanding School Finance Arizona Charter Schools Association Goldwater Institute Office of the Governor Understanding Arizona s School Finance Classrooms First Initiative Council June 26, 2015 Equalization
Top-to-Bottom Ranking, Priority, Focus and Rewards Schools Identification Business Rules Overview Top-to-Bottom Ranking: List of schools and ranked by their performance. The ranking is based on student
Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking 2014-2015 UNDERSTANDING HOW THE RANKING IS CALCULATED Introduction Presentation Roadmap What changed vs what stayed the same Brief z-score refresher Top-to-Bottom (TTB) ranking
School Performance Framework: Technical Guide Version 1.6 August 2010 This technical guide provides information about the following topics as they related to interpreting the school performance framework
Top-to-Bottom Ranking, Priority, Focus and Reward Schools Identification Business Rules Overview Top-to-Bottom Ranking: List of schools, rank ordered by their performance. The ranking is based on student
FY 2010 Arizona Online Instruction (AOI) Business Rules Purpose Version 57 The purpose of this document is to describe the business rules for Arizona Online Instruction (AOI) formerly known as Technology
TITLE III FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Frequently asked questions (FAQs) are listed below covering: Funding: For English Language Learners (ELLs) and Immigrant Children and Youth Accountability measures(annual
School Ranking Business Rules Short Narrative Version Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools for MCL 380.1280c, SFSFII and SIG Applications To identify the persistently lowest performing schools the Michigan
Arizona Department of Education The Audit Unit 1535 W. Jefferson St., Bin 19 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 602-364-4061 Average Daily Membership Audit Report Primavera Technical Learning Center Arizona Online
1 OVERVIEW GRADE SPAN 912 395262 SCOTCH PLAINS, NEW JERSEY 776 1. This school's academic performance is very high when compared to schools across the state. Additionally, its academic performance is very
South Dakota s Growth Model From Student Growth Percentiles to School Accountability Scores Background History Points Contact How did South Dakota arrive at an Academic Growth model? Background History
1 OVERVIEW 21314 GRADE SPAN 912 31411 15 PARK AVENUE PATERSON, NJ 751 1. This school's academic performance significantly lags in comparison to schools across the state. Additionally, its academic performance
New Jersey Department of Education Office of Title I Understanding Your Annual Progress Targets As approved in New Jersey s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver Application,
P. O. Box 68 Littleton, CO 80160-0068 Technical Processes used to Develop Colorado School Grades for Alternative Education Campuses Robert Reichardt R-Square Research, LLC December 5, 2012 This memo describes
Chandler Unified School District Teacher Performance Evaluation System Revised 2015-16 Purpose The purpose of this guide is to outline Chandler Unified School District s teacher evaluation process. The
Accountability Update School Grades Technical Assistance Meeting April 8 and 9, 2015 Orlando, Florida Tallahassee, Florida Today s Topics Part 1: Accountability Changes for 2014 15 School Grades School
2010 AMAOs Guide Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) Title III, Part A Accountability System Texas Education Agency Department of School Improvement and Support Division of NCLB Program Coordination
ASCUS Presentation: Reporting Reconciliation and 915 Processing School Finance Arizona Department of Education New Changes For FY 2014 Report Reconciliation for Student Detail and Student Counts Reports
Connecticut The Policy Context High School Graduation and the No Child Left Behind Act The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), enacted in 2002, holds states and the schools under their jurisdictions
Page 1 of 22 OVERVIEW COUNTY VOCATIONAL GRADE SPAN 0912 1.00 313995050 WAYNE, NJ 074702210 The New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) is pleased to present these annual reports of Performance. These
Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction ARIZONA SCHOOL REPORT CARD ACADEMIC YEAR 26-7 AZ LEARNS1 High School Achievement Profile 25-6 24-5 23-4 Performing Performing Performing 329 N. Alma School
CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA credo.stanford.edu April 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA... 7 CHARTER SCHOOL IMPACT BY DELIVERY
IDAHO CONNECTS ONLINE SCHOOL ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 213-214 Idaho Public Charter School Commission 34 North 8 th Street, Room 242 Boise, Idaho 8372 Phone: (28) 332-1561 chartercommission.idaho.gov Alan
District: Albuquerque Public s Grade Range: 0912 Code: 1576 Grade Report Card 20112012 inal Grade D Performance in ath and Reading Current Standing How did your students perform in the most recent school
1 OVERVIEW GRADE SPAN 912 2152151 TRENTON CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL WEST CAMPUS 11 WEST STATE ST TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 8618 1. This school's academic performance lags in comparison to schools across the state.
1 31412 OVERVIEW 15 PARK AVENUE GRADE SPAN 912 PATERSON, NJ 751 1. This school's academic performance significantly lags in comparison to schools across the state. Additionally, its academic performance
District Accountability Handbook Version 3.0 September 2012 Colorado Department of Education Page 1 The purpose of this handbook is to provide an outline of the requirements and responsibilities for state,
Accountability and Virginia Public Schools 2008-2009 School Year irginia s accountability system supports teaching and learning by setting rigorous academic standards, known as the Standards of Learning
Louisiana Special Education Guidance This document outlines how special education policies impact students with disabilities and serves as a reference guide for LEA administrators and high school staff
Arizona Department of Education Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction Document Number 20 January 2008 System Training and Response (STaR) Team Submitting and Verifying Early Childhood Preschool
Spring 2015 ELA and Math Assessment Results Agenda 2014 2015 Assessment Overview 2014 2015 Statewide Results 2014 2015 District Results Comparability Accountability Decisions and Calculations 2 Timeline
1 OVERVIEW This school's academic performance significantly lags in comparison to schools across the state. Additionally, its academic performance lags in comparison to its peers. This school's college
February 2011 Chaffey College Performance Outcome Data Online to College () vs. non- Students Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 Cohorts Overview: In support of the Online to College () Program, the Chaffey College
1 31412 OVERVIEW 15 PARK AVENUE GRADE SPAN 912 PATERSON, NEW JERSEY 751 1. This school's academic performance significantly lags in comparison to schools across the state. Additionally, its academic performance
The New York State District Report Card Accountability and Overview Report 200 District CORTLAND CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT District ID -02-00-0-0000 Superintendent LAURENCE SPRING Telephone (607) 758-400 Grades
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Horne School Finance Superintendent of 1535 West Jefferson Public Instruction Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-5695 (602) 542-3099 fax To: STATE OF ARIZONA SCHOOL FINANCE
OVERVIEW SWEDESBOROWOOLWICH 21213 GRADE SPAN 6 Student Growth 83 85 1% Very High Performance is defined as being equal to or above the 8th percentile. High Performance is defined as being between the 6th
YEAR 3 REPORT: EVOLUTION OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN NEW YORK CITY IN credo.stanford.edu ALBANY NY CHARTER SCHOO January 2010 SUMMARY This report supplements the CREDO National
. Don Nelson, Superintendent Drawer H, 4739 Ragus Road Miami, AZ 85539 Office: 928-425-3271 Fax: 928-425-7419 Miami Area Unified School Dist. #40 November 3, 2008 Debra Davenport Auditor General 2910 North
Redesigning Accountability in Juvenile Court and Alternative Schools in California Brian Uslan California Department of Education Educational Options Office email@example.com 916-323-2562 1 Redesigning
2015 NWEA Measures of Academic Progress Normative Data Looking for context to Measures of Academic Progress (MAP ) normative percentiles? The 2015 NWEA Comparative Data One Sheet includes multiple College
Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2014-15 Organization Code: 0480 District Name: BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 Official 2014 SPF: 3 Year Section I: Summary Information about the School Directions:
CPM High California Standards Test (CST) Results for 2004-2010 The tables below show a comparison between CPM high schools and all high schools in California based on the percentage of students who scored
2014-2015 Educator Requirements for Highly Qualified Effective Teachers and Leaders Unit Eric Brooks, Director (602) 364-1842 John Huppenthal, Superintendent of Public Instruction 1 Administrator Section
Charter School Performance in Massachusetts 2/28/2013 CREDO at Stanford University 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6010 CREDO, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford
Unified Improvement Planning Implications and Guidance for the UIP during the State Assessment Transition Introduction This document provides schools and districts with the most current information about
Frequently Asked Questions Contact us: RAC@doe.state.nj.us 1 P a g e Contents Identification of a Priority, Focus, or Reward School... 4 Is a list of all Priority, Focus, and Reward Schools available to
Charter School Performance in California 2/27/2014 Table of Contents Introduction... 5 Study Approach... 7 California Charter School Demographics... 11 Overall Charter School Impact... 14 Charter School
1 OVERVIEW Graduation and PostSecondary 18 27 1% Very High Performance is defined as being equal to or above the 8th percentile. High Performance is defined as being between the 6th and 79.9th percentiles.
Technical Appendix 2009 CREDO Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) Stanford University Stanford, CA http://credo.stanford.edu June 2009 CREDO gratefully acknowledges the support of the State
K12 Virtual Academies February 4, 2014 2 Map of enrollment 3 K12 Profile Provide curriculum and administrative services to 48 full time online partner schools in 38 states and 5 blended, or flex, sites
Proposed Florida School Accountability Plan State Board of Education Meeting February 18, 2014 Pam Stewart Commissioner of Education School Accountability Governor s Executive Order and Associated Documents
JUST THE FACTS Phoenix, Arizona The Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ICW promotes the rigorous educational standards
OVERVIEW 21314 Student Growth 63 64 % Very High Performance is defined as being equal to or above the 8th percentile. High Performance is defined as being between the 6th and 79.9th percentiles. Average
Arizona Department of Education Standards for Effective LEAs and Continuous Improvement Plans for LEAs and Schools ALEAT Arizona Department of Education - August 2014 1 Contents Overview Page 3 Standards
Major Provisions of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Related to the Education of English Learners February 2016 Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe the major provisions of the recently
GRANDVIEW INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE POLICY AND PROCEDURES ESL PROGRAM GOAL and MISSION The goal of the English as a Second Language (ESL) program in Grandview ISD is to enable
PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL PERFORMANCE PROFILE Frequently Asked Questions Introduction The Pennsylvania School Performance Profile (SPP) is an integral part of the Educator Effectiveness System (teacher and principal
Part I: Student Achievement by Proficiency Level Texas Education Agency 2014 15 Federal Report Card for Texas Public Schools Campus Name: AIKIN EL Campus ID: 057916135 District Name: RICHARDSON ISD This
Pennsylvania School Performance Profile The PA School Performance Profile serves several purposes: Provide a building level score for educators as part of the Educator Effectiveness System Provide parents
Performance Framework Delaware Department of Education Charter School Office September 2012 Prepared for the Delaware Department of Education by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers Acknowledgments
2014-15 Student Learning Objective (SLO) Template Example Elementary Literacy (TRC) Principal Jane Smith Date: Principal Name: Jane Smith Employee ID#: 55555 School Name: Charles Elementary/Middle School
Charter School Performance in Ohio 12/18/2014 CREDO at Stanford University 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6010 CREDO, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University,
Potential Impact of Changes in MN Math Grad Testing for Students in Bloomington Public Schools David Heistad, Executive Director Research, Evaluation and Assessment Bloomington Public Schools December,
Evaluating the Impact of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Look at the Great Lakes States Appendix B June 27 EPRU EDUCATION POLICY RESEARCH UNIT Education Policy Research Unit Division
Preschool Development Grant Planning Meeting Administered by the Arizona Department of Education Early Childhood Education Section Agenda Welcome and Introductions Overview of School Readiness Overview
Pennsylvania Value Added Assessment System (PVAAS) SY13-14 Teacher Specific Reporting Frequently Asked Questions April 2014 Table of Contents Purpose, Intent, and Use... 3 Definition of PVAAS Teacher-Specific
ADE - State/Federal Reporting Overview An overview of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) State and Federal Reporting efforts using the Statewide Information System (SIS) data as the authoritative
Public Schools May 2014 CURRENT SDP PARTNERS THE STRATEGIC DATA PROJECT (SDP) Since 2008, SDP has partnered with 75 school districts, charter school networks, state agencies, and nonprofit organizations
Charter School Performance in Indiana 12/12/2012 CREDO at Stanford University 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6010 CREDO, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford
February 27, 2015 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Members of the Charter Schools Committee of the SUNY Board of Trustees Susan Miller Barker, Executive Director, SUNY Charter Schools Institute UFT Charter
Minnesota s New Accountability System Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one. What Stays the Same? Academic Standards Assessments Public Reporting Calculating AYP Disaggregating
Are Alternative Growth Goals Warranted for Colorado s Alternative Education Schools and Students? Jody L. Ernst, Ph.D. Director of Research & Evaluation Colorado League of Charter Schools This work was
Ohio Legislative Service Commission Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement Jason Phillips and other LSC staff Bill: Am. H.B. 555 of the 129th G.A. Date: December 13, 2012 Status: As Enacted Sponsor: Reps.
Charter School Performance in Ohio 12/9/2014 CREDO at Stanford University 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6010 CREDO, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A bill to be entitled An act relating to education technology; amending s. 1011.62, F.S.; providing the purpose for the Florida
Transitioning English Language Learners in Massachusetts: An Exploratory Data Review March 2012 i This document was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell