2013-14 Wyoming School Accountability WYOMING SCHOOL LEADERS (10/15/14) MICHAEL FLI CEK, ED.D. E D U C AT I O N A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y C O N S U LT A N T Reminder: Authority Select Committee on School Accountability Advisory Committee to Select Committee Nationally recognized experts Wyoming Statutes January 2012 Wyoming Accountability Report PJP/SBE Established Cut Scores WAEA School Performance Levels Unchanged from Wyoming 2012-13 school accountability pilot
3 Exceeding Expectations Meeting Expectations Partially Meeting Expectations Not Meeting Expectations Indicators used to Identify School Performance Level Unchanged from Wyoming 2012-13 school accountability pilot Schools with grades 3 through 8 Schools with grades 9 through 12
4 Achievement Growth Equity Achievement Readiness Equity Indicator Performance for Schools Targets set by professional judgment panel (PJP) There is a target for meets and a target for exceeds A schools pattern of indicator performance is used (via a decision table) to identify a schools overall performance level
Achievement Measures Grades 3-8 Unchanged from Wyoming 2012-13 school accountability pilot PAWS Reading (grades 3-8) Mathematics (grades 3-8) Science (grades 4 & 8) New for 2013-14 SAWS (grades 5 & 7) 6 Achievement Measures High School Unchanged from Wyoming 2012-13 school accountability pilot ACT
Subject Area Tests in grade 11 Reading Mathematics Science New for 2013-14 ACT Subject Area Test in English/writing 7 Illustration: Computation of a School Achievement Score Content Count of Test Scores Count of Proficient Scores
Math 80 65 Reading 80 60 Writing (English/writin g in Grade 11) 40 25 Science 20
12 Column Totals 220 162 School Achievement Score 162/220 = 73.6% Note. For grades 3 through 8 and for grade 11. Note 2. Targets for meets and exceeds for this school achievement score were established by the PJP. 8 Achievement Cut Scores Grade 3-8 Schools Meeting Target Cut Point = 53
Exceeding Target Cut Point = 70 High Schools Meeting Target Cut Point =32 Exceeding Target Cut Point =45 Equity Indicator How did the lowest performing students at the school score in reading and math combined? When a schools lowest performing students have higher scores, the students are closer to proficient and are more likely to get there in a reasonable time frame A guiding question for understanding equity, are the lowest performing students on-track to become proficient within a reasonable time? Consolidated Subgroup for Grades 4-8 Unchanged from the Wyoming 2012-
13 pilot 11 The lowest performing students were students with below proficient performance on the previous years reading and/or math test In 2014-15 the consolidated subgroup for these grades will be below basic performance on the 2014 PAWS test in math and/or reading Equity Score Changing for Grades 4 through 8 Reason for the change: No AGP in 2014 because PAWS test changed 2014 School Equity Score The scale
A score of 100 = statewide average performance The standard deviation is 20 Average PAWS reading and math score for consolidated subgroup at the school Meeting Target Cut-Score = 80 Exceeding Target Cut-Score = 85 Equity High School Criteria for consolidated subgroup membership Current grade 11 students with Prior year grade 10 PLAN scores on 2013 subject area tests Below 17 on the math test (bottom 37% of scores) and/or Below 16 on the reading test (bottom 33% of scores) This definition will be the same for 2014-15
School Equity Score = Average Wyoming ACT Scale Score for Reading and Math combined for Consolidated Subgroup Students 13 Meets Target Cut Point = 120 Exceeds Target Cut Point = 127 Student Growth Grades 4-8 This indicator is unchanged from the Wyoming 2012-13 Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) were computed for 2014 in math and reading The model fit was similar to 2013 even though the 2014 test had a new scale
14 SGPs are norm referenced scores Academic peer norms for each student SGPs are whole numbers from 1 to 99 For example, a student with a SGP of 65 in math grew as much or more in math than 65% of her Wyoming academic peers School Growth Grades 4-8 Unchanged from the Wyoming 2012-13 pilot The school score for growth is the median (i.e., MGP) of all SGPs at the school in both reading and math combined School targets were unchanged from last year target cut score = 45 Exceeding target cut score = 60 Meeting
15 High School Readiness Indicator HIGH SCHOOL READINESS IS THE MOST C H A N G E D O F A L L I N D I C AT O R S F R O M T H E WYOMING 2013 PILOT High School Graduation Goal of WAEA: Wyoming to become an education leader among states The 2009-10 four year on-time graduation rate for Wyoming was 80% 61% of states had higher four year on-time graduation rates School Year Four Year On-Time Graduation Rate 2012-13 77.5
2011-12 78.9 2010-11 79.7 2009-10 80.4 Graduation Rate Targets The graduation index used in the 2012-13 pilot will not be used in 2013-14 The PJP established targets for meeting or exceeding on graduation rate Each school had three different ways to meet or exceed the targets
Four year on-time graduation rate Extended graduation rate (includes 5, 6 & 7 year graduates) Improvement (i.e., being on track to reach the meet or exceed target) The highest graduation rate category from the three methods was applied Four Year On-Time Graduation 4 year adjusted cohort graduation rate = Number of four year on-time cohort
members who earned a regular high school diploma by the end of the cohort graduation year. Number of first-time 9th graders in the fall of the school year 4 years prior to the graduation year (starting year) plus students who transfer in, minus students who transfer out, emigrate, or die prior to the graduation year. Extended Graduation Rate This is identical to the four year on-time graduation rate except five, six and seven year graduates are added to both the numerator and the denominator Improvement Graduation Rate Improvement is measured using the four year on-time graduation rate (i.e., the extended rate is not considered) After four year on-time graduation rate and extended
graduation rate have been applied, schools in the not meet target category have the opportunity to show improvement toward the meet target category Schools in the meet target category have the opportunity to show improvement toward the exceeds target category To increase one category the eligible school must be one third of the way closer to the target in the current year compared to where they were in the prior year Graduation Rate Cut Points The same targets are used for the four year on-time rate and the extended rate Meets Target Cut-Point = 80 Exceeds Target Cut-Point = 90
For improvement, school specific targets are computed for the four year on-time rate ((Target cut-point) (prior year, 4 year rate) / (3)) + (prior year, 4 year rate Additional Readiness Performance on the 3 remaining sub- indicators are combined into one score Tested readiness (i.e., composite scores) EXPLORE grade 9
PLAN grade 10 ACT grade 11 Grade 9 credits earned Hathaway eligibility The PJP identified a meets and an exceeds target for the combined score Tested Readiness Unchanged from the Wyoming 2013 pilot The school score is the mean tested readiness index score for all tested students at the school across the tested grades Composite Score Ranges Wyoming ACT ACT Explore ACT Plan Readiness Levels Grade 9 Grade 10 ACT Test Grade 11
Level 3 18-20 19-21 21-24 80 Level 4 21-25 22-32 25-36 100 Grade 9 Credits Earned Lagged indicator that includes credits earned during the summer
The percent of first year grade 9 students who completed grade 9 with one fourth of the credits required to receive a diploma Full academic year students only Credits must be from student transcripts 25 Hathaway Scholarship Eligibility Lagged indicator that includes all students who graduated from the school during the prior school year Proxy for 2013-14 school accountability Includes the unweighted grade point average (GPA) Includes the best ACT composite score from transcript or the WDE census administration
Does not include success curriculum performance (i.e., transcript collection should capture this in 201415) Hathaway Scholarship Eligibility Index Student Eligibility Level Points Honors 100 Performance 90 Opportunity 80 Provisional 70
Not Eligible 40 The school receives an index score for each graduate The schools score will be the mean of the student index points for the graduating class at the school 27 Illustration of the Additional Readiness Score Hypothetical Score for a School Example Subindicator Weight (School Score * Weight)
ACT Suite Index 55 .30 16.5 Grade 9 Credits 72 .30 21.6 Hathaway Eligibility 80 .40
32.0 Subindicator School Readiness Score (Sum of Subindicator Weighted Scores) = Note. The PJP determined the weights. 28 70.1 Additional Readiness Targets Meets Target Cut-Point = 70 Exceeds Target Cut-Point = 80 Using Indicator Scores to Derive School Performance Levels FOR SCHOOLS WITH GRADES 3-8
Decision Table for Schools with Three Indicators for Grades 3-8 Growth Below Growth Equity Below Meeting Growth Exceeding Growth Below Growth Equity Meeting Meeting Growth Exceeding Growth Below Equity Growth Exceeding Meeting Growth Exceeding Achievement
31 Performance Level Descriptions (For Schools with Grades 3-8) Exceeding Expectations This category is reserved for schools considered models of performance. These schools typically exceeded target for achievement and for at least one other performance indicator - equity or growth while meeting target on the other indicator. Meeting Expectations Schools in this category demonstrated performance that met or exceeded target on multiple performance indicators. These schools typically had levels of achievement meeting or exceeding state targets, and met or exceeded targets on student growth and promotion of equity for students with below-Proficient achievement or fell below target on growth or equity while exceeding target on achievement.
Partially Meeting Expectations Schools in this category performed below target on multiple performance indicators or were below target in achievement. Many schools in this category showed acceptable or higher performance in student growth and/or promoting equity for below-Proficient students. Not Meeting Expectations Schools in this category had unacceptable performance on all indicators. For schools in this category, improvement is an urgent priority. These schools had below-target levels of achievement and student growth and showed insufficient improvement for below-Proficient achievers. PJP 2014 Version 32 Decision Table for Schools with Two Indicators for Grades 3-8 33 Achievement Below Achievement Meeting
MEETING EXCEEDING Using Indicator Scores to Derive School Performance Levels FOR HIGH SCHOOLS Achievement & Equity Decision Table Achievement Equity Below Meeting Exceeding Below BELOW
BELOW MEETING Meeting MEETING MEETING EXCEEDING Exceeding MEETING MEETING EXCEEDING Note. Each cell will represent one of three categories (i.e., not meeting target, meeting target & exceeding target) Overall Readiness Decision Table
Graduation Rate Additional Readiness Not Meeting Meeting Exceeding Not Meeting BELOW BELOW MEETING Meeting MEETING MEETING
EXCEEDING Exceeding MEETING EXCEEDING EXCEEDING Note. Each cell will represent one of three categories (i.e., not meeting target, meeting target & exceeding target) High School Performance Level Decision Table Achievement & Equity Overall Readiness Not Meeting Meeting
Exceeding Not Meeting NOT PARTIALLY MEETING Meeting PARTIALLY MEETING MEETING Exceeding PARTIALLY MEETING
EXCEEDING Note. Each cell will represent one of four performance level categories (i.e., not meeting expectations, partially meeting expectations, meeting expectations & exceeding expectations) Performance Level Descriptions (For High Schools) Exceeding Expectations This category is reserved for schools considered models of performance. These schools exceeded state target for overall readiness for college and careers and for the performance indicator combining the schools achievement and equity. Meeting Expectations Schools in this category demonstrated performance that met or exceeded target on multiple performance indicators. All of these schools performed at levels that met or exceeded target on the combined indicator for achievement and equity. Their performance met or exceeded target in overall readiness or exceeded target in the achievement/equity indicator while being below target in overall readiness. Partially Meeting Expectations Schools in this category typically performed below target on the indicator combining achievement and equity. Some schools met state target for achievement/equity, but were below target in overall readiness for college and careers.
Not Meeting Expectations Schools in this category had unacceptable performance on all indicators. For schools in this category, improvement is an urgent priority. These schools typically had low levels of achievement, showed below-target levels of change in the performance of below-Proficient students, and fell short of targets in overall readiness for college and careers. PJP 2014 Version Minimum n Size Changed from the Wyoming 2012-13 school accountability pilot to increase consistency across indicators Minimum n size for all indicators is 10 in 2013-14 The goal was to maximize the number of schools that will receive a school performance level and, thereby, not need a small school review Analyses showed that minimum n of 10 worked well in Wyoming with all of the small schools to accomplish the goal
When possible, look backs are used to achieve the minimum n of 10 When fewer than 10 students look back is applied Look back 1 year first, then a 2nd year when needed Small school review when fewer than 2 indicators meet minimum n Full Academic Year Full academic year students are included in a schools ratings October 1st through midpoint of testing window for assessments October 1st through 10 days prior to the end of the school year for grade 9 credits earned
Participation Rate Computed for all students (i.e., not just full academic year students) Computed for the all students group and the consolidated subgroups When less than 95% on any participation rate member at the school but 90% or above the school is docked one performance level When less than 90% the school is considered not scorable and the school is assigned the lowest performance level For high schools, participation rate is computed for achievement and tested readiness 2014 Preliminary Results Not Meeting Partially Meeting Meeting Exceeding 3-8 schools
7% high schools 33% all schools 14% 33% 35% 18% 20% 27% 14% 30% 33% 17% Comparison with Pilot Current Year Not
Meetin Partially Exceedin Prior Year g Meeting Meeting g Not Meeting 25 26 4 0 Partially Meeting 13 44 20 5 Meeting 9 31 81 29 Exceeding 0 4
8 25 Exact Agreement = 54% Exact plus Adjacent Agreement = 93% Technical Details Available WYOMING SCHOOL PERFORMANCE RATING MODEL 2014 IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK On WDE website: http://edu.wyoming.gov/download/ accountability/SCHOOL%20PERFORMANCE %20RATING%20MODEL%20FOR %202014_100914.pdf Working Lunch Questions for consideration Which indicator(s) was/were a strength?
Which indicator(s) was/were most in need of improvement? How close were you to the cut-point? How did your score compare with the state score? Which content area(s) was/were the strongest? Which grade level(s) was/were the strongest? How close were you to the cut-point? How did your score compare with the state score? Which content area(s) was/were most in need of improvement? Which grade level(s) was/were most in need of improvement? Write one high priority school improvement goal. Contact Information Michael Flicek [email protected] 307-259-3963
Professional development opportunities, ranging from free lunchtime webinars to immersive fellowship training programs.IONL opens up career opportunities.Find your next position on IONL's Career Center, exclusive to members. Earn Education Contact Hours through IONL's educational programs. IONL connects you to fellow...
Wisconsin Rapids, WI. Why I needed to change: Teaching 6 out of 7 (up from 5 out of 7) Bigger class sizes. New School-wide Grading Policy: 80% Summative, 20% Formative. New intervention period at the end of the day cut...
You must submit your thesis to SGS in one week. Minor Corrections: minor corrections are required. ... TSpace is a free and secure open access research repository established by University of Toronto Libraries to disseminate and preserve the scholarly record...
The point of attachment of the muscle to the stationary bone called . ORIGIN (Beginning) of the muscle. God The Father . is responsible for these functions: The Legs, Arms, Abdomen, Chest, Neck, Face. These Muscle contract from the weakest...
Caste systems were probably created because of skin color. Aryans had lighter skin than the native Indians (darker skin). Caste systems were probably created to keep the Aryans in power(1500-500 bce). Because the Aryans had more people, they made the...
Biogeographical seminar Habitats Directive: Art. 4 (1) and Annex III Stage 1- National list (pSCIs) Art. 4 (2) and Annex III Stage 2 - Assessment by the Commission in agreement with Member State (biogeographic seminars followed by bilateral negotiations) Formal...
RISK ASSESSMENT TRAINING By Faculty of Engineering, Safety Unit * * * 13 * There are many different hazards in a laboratory. Examples include Chemicals Radioisotopes Lasers Flammable materials Electrical sources Biological agents Physical hazards Slips and trips Falling hazard...
Led wire to wire, fastest swim and bike. 2nd UWC Bahamas Invitational. First out of the water. 3rd Challenge Half Rancho Cordova. First out of the water. ... 3rd Hy-Vee Ironman 5i50 U.S. Championship. 4thUSAT National Championship. 1stIronman 5i50 Boulder.
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!