Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking 2014-2015



Similar documents
Top-to-Bottom Ranking, Priority, Focus and Rewards Schools Identification Business Rules. Overview

Top-to-Bottom Ranking, Priority, Focus and Reward Schools Identification Business Rules. Overview

RESOURCES. What is provided in this packet? TTB Individual School. Lookup Tools. Worksheet. Worksheet

2013 A-F LETTER GRADE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM

Michigan School Accountability Scorecards Business Rules

School Ranking Business Rules. Short Narrative Version

2014 A-F LETTER GRADE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM

2013 A-F Letter Grade Accountability System TECHNICAL MANUAL

MCA Data Discoveries

South Dakota s Growth Model. From Student Growth Percentiles to School Accountability Scores

Allen Elementary School

School Leader s Guide to the 2015 Accountability Determinations

ACCOUNTABILITY DETERMINATIONS FOR ARIZONA ONLINE INSTRUCTION SCHOOLS

School Performance Framework: Technical Guide

Milton Public Schools PARCC Update

Minnesota s New Accountability System. Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.

Field Guide for the Principal Performance Review. A Guide for Principals and Evaluators

Annual Report on Curriculum Instruction and Student. Achievement

6.2 Normal distribution. Standard Normal Distribution:

2014 Michigan School Accountability Scorecards: Summary Characteristics

UPDATE! Spring 2015 Testing Schedule

DLM Administration Calendar with Science

Approval of Revised Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System (MI-SAAS)

Bangor Central Elementary School Annual Education Report

How To Improve Your School

Latinos in Massachusetts Public Schools: Holyoke

IDAHO CONNECTS ONLINE SCHOOL

Incident Reporting. Division of Accountability Services

STATE of the SCHOOLS May 4,

JUST THE FACTS. Memphis, Tennessee

BEATING THE ODDS. Overview. September 23, Richard Woods, Georgia s School Superintendent. Educating Georgia s Future gadoe.

Student Mobility and the Impact on Student Assessment Scores

collegereadiness.collegeboard.org 2014 The College Board

Student Activity: To investigate an ESB bill

Arizona AYP Terms. Arizona AMOs. Math AMO (percent passing) Reading AMO

SCHOOL PROGRESS INDEX Data Release

Overview of NYS Annual Professional Performance Review (aka APPR) LCSD Board of Education Meeting November 26, 2012

Advanced Analytics Leading to New Insights into College Readiness in Fort Worth ISD

Accountability Brief

Louisiana Special Education Guidance

Spring 2015 ELA and Math Assessment Results

Supporting the ARRA-RFA Grant Program

CPM High Schools California Standards Test (CST) Results for

General Overview Key Features Things to Remember

This document is intended to clarify the specifics of those proposals and to answer common questions received thus far.

Do charter schools cream skim students and increase racial-ethnic segregation?

Charter School Performance in Massachusetts 2/28/2013

Identified Needs Based on Data

Exploring Post-Secondary Attainment: The SDP College-going Diagnostic

Charter School Performance in Ohio 12/9/2014

Comal ISD Bilingual & ESL Program Evaluation. Where Excellence is an Attitude!

THE COLLEGE READY PROMISE ADVISORY PANEL MEETING

Charter School Performance in Ohio 12/18/2014

Stability of School Building Accountability Scores and Gains. CSE Technical Report 561. Robert L. Linn CRESST/University of Colorado at Boulder

z-scores AND THE NORMAL CURVE MODEL

62 EDUCATION NEXT / WINTER 2013 educationnext.org

TESTING AND THE NEW FLORIDA STANDARDS

Higher Performing High Schools

MAP Reports. Teacher Report (by Goal Descriptors) Displays teachers class data for current testing term sorted by RIT score.

Chaffey College Performance Outcome Data Online to College (OTC) vs. non-otc Students Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 Cohorts

Frequently Asked Questions: Performance Management Framework

NWEA. and the Common Core. Presenter: Laura Riley NWEA

Texas Education Agency Federal Report Card for Texas Public Schools

State of New Jersey

Technical Processes used to Develop Colorado School Grades for Alternative Education Campuses

Why Pursue a BSN? More hospitals are making it a job requirement. More knowledge & education means better patient care

A Study of the Efficacy of Apex Learning Digital Curriculum Sarasota County Schools

State Assessments 2015: MCAS or PARCC? William H. Lupini Superintendent of Schools Thursday, May 22, 2014

High-Quality Research on School Effectiveness in New Orleans Tells the Real Story

Admissions Institution: Missouri University of Science and Technology (178411) Overview

ExCEL After School Programs Evaluation Plan

The Greenville County Schools homepage provides five goals for the school system (

Charter School Performance in Texas authoriz

Strategic Plan

A Study of Efficacy of Apex Learning Cherokee County School District

Leader Keys Effectiveness System Implementation Handbook

consider the number of math classes taken by math 150 students. how can we represent the results in one number?

ANNUAL REPORT ON CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Are Alternative Growth Goals Warranted for Colorado s Alternative Education Schools and Students?

Tennessee s Academic Standards in Math and English

Technical Appendices. Are California s Schools Ready for Online Testing and Learning? Contents. Niu Gao

Latinos in Massachusetts Public Schools Springfield

UWL. The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Fact Book of Online Education June 5, Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research

BEST PRACTICES IN INTERVENTION & REMEDIATION

The Impact of Bilingual Education on English Language Acquisition Rates for English Language Learners, Including Exceptionalities. Dr.

JUST THE FACTS. El Paso, Texas

Fact Sheet UPDATED January 2016

Secure Site Procedure and User Manual

Ira Schwartz, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Accountability Bill Clarke, Director, Charter School Office

Statistical Data analysis With Excel For HSMG.632 students

State of New Jersey OVERVIEW WARREN COUNTY VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL WARREN 1500 ROUTE 57 WARREN COUNTY VOCATIONAL

Strategic Plan: Reporting Dashboard

P-20 in Action Michigan s Focus on Career and College Ready Students: Student Success through Collaborative Efforts Pk-20

MEMORANDUM. Members of the Charter Schools Committee of the SUNY Board of Trustees

Wisconsin Information System for Education Data Dashboard. Spring 2013 Melissa Straw DPI Data Warehouse and Decision Support Team

School Progress Report

Churchill County School District Numa Elementary School 601 Discovery Drive Fallon, NV SAGE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE TITLE I - NRS 385

Valley Center Public Schools Counseling Calendar for High School Grades 9 & 10

89 Washington Avenue, Room 111 Tel: (518) Albany, New York Fax: (518)

Chapter 10 Federal Accountability

Transcription:

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 description Achievement Gap ranking description Update on Labels *Most of the content in today s presentation details what will apply in 15-16 and forward as there will not be a 14-15 ranking.*

Logistics Draft Top-to-Bottom (TTB) for 2014-15 will reside within the Secure Site (anticipate November). Users will have to be authorized and login to the site using their MEIS account. Permissions to view Top-to-Bottom through Secure Site are handled by districts. Limited to student-level z-scores, and rough (wide) ranges of ranks Public TTB will not exist for 2014-15 2015-16 Public Scorecards will reside on MISchoolData.org

What is New for 2014-15? Priority & Focus will not be named again until 2016-17 Reward will not be named again until 2015-16 Achievement Gap removed from TTB and formally made a separate ranking Component weighting will change to 50% Achievement and 50% improvement Content areas weighting will change to be weighted by number of FAY students assessed Improvement will use Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) in place of Performance Level Change (PLC) and slopes ELA replaces reading and writing Full Academic Year (FAY) definition unified across all grades

What Stayed the Same? Only FAY students are included Use of Achievement, Improvement, and Graduation components Achievement Graduation Still uses best of 4-, 5-, or 6-year cohort Still counts for 10% of overall ranking

Full Academic Year (FAY) Students present in the school for (current year): Fall count day, Spring count day, and the assessment window enrollment snapshot Only FAY students will be included in TTB/Gap rankings. Limits the impact of student transiency on accountability. Ensures only students educated by the school count for TTB/Gap rankings.

z-score Refresher

What are z-scores and why do we use them? z-scores describe how much a value is above or below the average score of the comparable group Each z-score corresponds to a value in a normal distribution and describes how much a value deviates from the mean. z-scores level the playing field across grades, subjects, and components By first standardizing scores (placing them in context of comparable scores) we can then combine across previously non-comparable scores (e.g., across grades, subjects, TTB components, etc.)

z-score Formulas Student z-score = Student scale score (Statewide average of scale scores) Standard Deviation of Scale Scores School z-score = School value (Statewide average of that value) Standard Deviation of that value

z-score Tip Sheet z-scores are centered around zero (i.e., zero is average) Positive z-scores mean the score is above average Negative z-scores mean the score is below average -3-2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Below state average State Average Above state average

z-score Example 1 A school with a z-score of +1.5 would be above the state average z-score of +1.5-3 -2-1 0 +1 +2 +3 Below state average State Average Above state average

z-score Example 2 A school with a z-score of +0.2 would also be above the state average, but only by a small margin. z-score of +0.2 z-score of +1.5-3 -2-1 0 +1 +2 +3 Below state average State Average Above state average

z-score Example 3 A school with a z-score of -2.0 would be far below the state average. z-score of -2.0 z-score of +0.2 z-score of +1.5-3 -2-1 0 +1 +2 +3 Below state average State Average Above state average

Top-to-Bottom Ranking

Top-to-Bottom Overview Statewide percentile ranking of most schools Includes all state assessed content areas (ELA, Math, Science, and Social Studies) and weights them by the number of FAY students assessed Uses only Full Academic Year (FAY) students Uses two-year averaging for increased stability Used to determine Priority and Reward labels New Priority labels will not be given until 2016-17 New annual Reward labels given in 2015-16 Bottom 5% overall are Priority schools Top 5% overall and top 5% improvement are Reward schools

Which schools receive a ranking? Schools with 30 or more full academic year (FAY) students in the two most recent years in at least two state-tested content areas Some schools do not receive a ranking if they have: Too few FAY students Only one year of data

Components of TTB Each component applies to each subject for a school: Achievement (aggregated student z-scores) Improvement [aggregated Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)] Graduation rate (grad rate and trend of grad rate) Achievement gap will no longer be part of TTB ranking but will be a separate ranking to determine Focus Schools Individual components tell schools nuances about their overall performance and can be used diagnostically

More about Graduation Rate Applies only to schools that graduate students (i.e., 9-12, 7-12, k-12, etc.) Included in two ways: Graduation rate AND trend in graduation rate over time Uses the best of 4-, 5-, or 6-year cohort rate

Achievement Component Step1: For the current and previous year, create a student-level z-score for each student in each content area by comparing: M-STEP to M-STEP MI-Access to MI-Access Participation to Participation Supported Independence to Supported Independence Functional Independence to Functional Independence Step 2: Take the average z-score of the pooled current year and previous year z-scores. This is the school s Two-Year Average Student Z-score.

Improvement Component Step1: For the current and previous year, calculate Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) for each student in each content area. For more information on SGPs please review the SGP supports posted on www.mi.gov/baa-accountability Step 2: Take the average SGP of the pooled current year and previous year z-scores. This is the school s Two-Year Average SGP.

Graduation Rate Component Two-Year Average Graduation Rate Step 1: Use the current and previous year to calculate 2-year average 4-, 5-, and 6-year grad rates for the school Step 2: The best 2-year average will be used as the school s Two-Year Average Graduation Rate Graduation Rate Trend Slope Step 3: Use the same cohort used for graduation rate Step 4: Calculate the slope for the selected cohort using up to 4 years of data.

How are Content Area z-scores Calculated? Schools/subjects with Student Growth Percentile (SGP) data Two-Year Average Student z-score Two-Year Average SGP School Achievement z-score School Improvement z-score 1/2 1/2 School Content Area Index School Content Area z-score

How are Content Area z-scores Calculated? Schools/subjects without Student Growth Percentile (SGP) data Math and ELA for schools with a max grade of 3 Science for schools with grade 4 but not grades 7 or 11 Social studies for schools with grade 5 but not grades 8 or 11 Too few students to calculate a stable aggregate SGP Two-Year Average Student z-score School Achievement z-score School Content Area Index School Content Area z-score

How are Graduation z-scores Calculated? Schools with at least 2 years of graduation data Two-Year Average Graduation Rate Graduation Rate Trend Slope School Graduation Rate z-score School Graduation Rate Trend Slope z-score 2/3 1/3 School Graduation Rate Index School Grad Rate Index z-score

How are Graduation z-scores Calculated? Schools with only 1 year of graduation rate data Graduation Rate School Graduation Rate z-score School Graduation Rate Index School Grad Rate Index z-score

Weighting Subjects by FAY Counts Content areas will be weighted by the number of FAY students tested in that content area rather than all content areas being weighted equally. This change was made because MDE repeatedly heard from the field that subjects which are tested more should be weighted more in the rankings.

Weighting Subjects by FAY Counts: Example Happy Valley School has: 600 total tests given across all grades/subjects ELA: 200 students were tested Math: 200 students were tested Science: 150 students were tested Social Studies: 50 students were tested Relative weights for FAY tested are: ELA: 33.3% (200/600) Math: 33.3% (200/600) Science 25.0% (150/600) Social Studies 8.3% (50/600)

How are Components Combined? Elementary/Middle schools E/M ELA z-score FAY tested E/M Math z-score E/M Science z-score FAY tested FAY tested Overall Index Overall Percentile Rank E/M Social Studies z-score FAY tested

How are Components Combined? High schools HS ELA z-score FAY tested HS Math z-score FAY tested HS Science z-score FAY tested Overall Index Overall Percentile Rank HS Social Studies z-score FAY tested Grad Rate Index z-score 10%

How are Components Combined? Schools serving both Elem./Middle and High E/M ELA z-score E/M Math z-score E/M Science z-score E/M Social Studies z-score HS ELA z-score HS Math z-score FAY tested Overall Index Overall Percentile Rank HS Science z-score HS Social Studies z-score Grad Rate Index z-score 10%

Achievement Gap Ranking

Reasons for A Separate Gap Ranking Already producing a separate gap ranking used to identify Focus Schools. This will formalize the process and convert the composite index to a percentile rank. Schools where nearly all students had low achievement and low improvement were sometimes not identified as Priority schools because since nearly all students had low achievement and low improvement their gap was small and their TTB rank was artificially inflated.

Achievement Gap Ranking Overview Statewide percentile ranking of most schools Includes content areas of ELA and Math Uses only Full Academic Year (FAY) students Uses two-year averaging for increased stability Used to determine Focus labels New labels will not be given until 2016-17 Schools with gaps larger than the bottom 10% of Title I schools

Which schools receive a ranking? Schools with 30 or more full academic year (FAY) students in the two most recent years in at least two state-tested content areas Some schools do not receive a ranking if they have: Too few FAY students Only one year of data

Achievement Gap Components Achievement Gap ranking has only one component: Within-School Achievement Gap This is a measure of the average gap between the schools Bottom 30% and Top 30% of students

How are Content Area Gap z-scores Calculated? Current and previous year student z-scores are pooled and then rank ordered within each content area Identify the Bottom 30% and Top 30% Calculate 2-year average z-score for Bottom 30% and Top 30% The gap index is the difference between the Bottom 30% 2-year average z-score and Top 30% 2-year average z-score Content area z-scores are is calculated by comparing the content area gap index to the statewide mean of gap indices for that content area.

How are Content Area Gap z-scores Calculated? Student z-score Tommy 2.0 Sally 2.0 Maura 1.9 Fred 1.5 Elias 1.0 Bickford -0.5 Silas -0.7 Francine -1.2 Joey -1.9 William -2.0 Top 30% Average: +1.97 Bottom 30% Average: -1.70 Gap Index = -1.70 1.97 = -3.67 Content Area z-score

How are Content Area z-scores Combined? E/MS ELA z-score FAY tested E/MS Math z-score HS ELA z-score FAY tested FAY tested Gap Index Gap Percentile Rank HS Math z-score FAY tested

Update on Labels

PLA/Priority School Exits Cohort TENTATIVE Timeline for Review and Possible Exit 2010 Spring 2015 2011 Summer 2015 2012 After Spring 2016 results 2013 After Spring 2017 results 2014 After Spring 2018 results

Focus School Exits Cohort TENTATIVE Timeline for Review and Possible Exit 2012 Fall 2015 2013 Fall 2015/Winter 2016 2014 Fall 2016

Change in Frequency of Naming New Priority and Focus labels will only be named every 3rd year rather than annually 2016-17 would be the next naming year New Reward labels will continue annually 2015-16 would be the next naming year TTB rankings, Gap rankings, and Scorecards will continue annually

Successor Codes Priority and Focus supports follow students If BOTH of the following conditions are met: 50% or more of enrolled students at an existing school ( sending school) transfer to a different school ( receiving school) 50% or more than the total number of students at the receiving school (after the transfer of students) come from the sending school THEN the receiving school will be designated as a successor school to the sending school.

Helpful Links www.mi.gov/ttb - Historical lists/data, presentations, and documentation for TTB, Priority, Focus, Reward. www.mi.gov/baa-accountability - Student Growth Percentile (SGP) and general accountability supports.. www.mi.gov/schoolscorecard - Scorecard guide, FAQs, proficiency targets, and historical lists/data. https://baa.state.mi.us/baasecure - New Secure Site. Available to authorized users only. https://www.mischooldata.org - Public portal.

Questions? Comments? We re here to help! Ask us today or contact: MDE-Accountability@Michigan.gov -OR- (877) 560-8378