The Missouri School Improvement program

1. The Missouri School Improvement program Missouri Departmentof Elementary and Secondary Education September 28, 2012

2. Overview • MSIP 5 Resource and Process Standards • MSIP 5 Performance Standards and Scoring Guide • Question and Answer

3. Why we’re here!

4. MSIP 5 Policy Goals • Promote Continuous Improvement and Innovation • Establish the State's Expectations • Distinguish Performance of Schools and Districts • Empower All Stakeholders

5. School District Classification Third Cycle Fourth Cycle Annual Performance Report Performance ↓ Determines Review Types + ↓ Resource Review (resource and process) ↓ + School Improvement Team Process (review) ↓ = Performance = Accreditation Accreditation

6. School District Classification Fourth Cycle MSIP 5 Annual Performance Report Annual Performance Report ↓ ↓ Determines Review Type Determines Interventions and Supports ↓ ↓ Review (resource and process) Review (resource and process) ↓ ↓ School Improvement Team School Improvement Team ↓ ↓ Performance Performance = = Accreditation Accreditation

7. Resource Standards • Elementary • High School • Class Size and Assigned Enrollments • Guidance and Counseling Staff • Certification and Licensure • Principals/Building Administrators

8. Process Standards • Teacher/Leader Standards (2) • Instruction Standards (11) • Governance Standards (11)

9. Performance Standards • Academic Achievement • Subgroup Achievement • College and Career Readiness (K-12 only) • High School Readiness (K-8 only) • Attendance Rate • Graduation Rate (K-12 only)

10. Percent Districts Meeting 4th Cycle Standard

11. 2012 Fourth Cycle Results

12. MSIP 5 Targets • Exceeds – 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 Target —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. Transition

14. Academic Achievement • Multiple Measures • Status + Progress OR Growth (where applicable) • Apply Full Academic Year (FAY) for accountability; report all students • Eliminate “grade span” and report at school/LEA configuration

15. Academic Achievement - Status • Set Standardized Status Expectation for all districts • Use 3 most recent years to calculate status • Use an Index to calculate and add percent proficient for reporting

16. Academic Achievement - Status

17. Academic Achievement - Status

18. MAP Performance Index

19. Proposed Status Targets - Mathematics

20. Academic Achievement - Progress • Promote continuous improvement • Allow for differentiated improvement targets • Use percentage gap reduction

21. Academic Achievement - Growth • Student Growth Pilot Concluded • Missouri Growth Model • Statistical Significance • Exceeding • On Target • Below Target

22. Subgroup Achievement • Challenges Associated with NCLB Implementation • “All or nothing” approach • Distribution of subgroups among LEAs • Number of subgroups vary LEA to LEA • Minimum “n” • Duplicated Count

23. Subgroup Achievement • Report all subgroups individually • Maintains focus on the performance of each child • Apply accountability to a super subgroup • Allows for inclusion of students otherwise missed due to small “n” size • Eliminates duplicated count • Levels playing field among districts – accountability measured using one subgroup in each district

24. Proficiency Rates by Subgroup

25. Subgroup Achievement • Multiple Measures • Status • Progress • Growth • Goal • Cut Gap in Half by 2020

26. Super Subgroup Example Sample of population. Minimum n must meet 30 for accountability determinations.

27. Algebra I EOC / Grade Level • Choose one test for middle school student EOC or grade level • Proficient Algebra I in middle school + Algebra II in high school • Proficient Algebra I and Geometry in middle school + Algebra II in high school • Proficient Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II in middle school + plan from district

28. CCR *1-3

29. CCR *4

30. CCR *5-6 Status

31. HSR *1 Status

32. Attendance Status • STEP 1- Determine the number of students with qualifying attendance and multiply by associated point value. • STEP 2- Divide the number of points earned by the number of students and multiply by 100.

33. Graduation Rate • Five Year Adjusted Cohort Rate for accountability • Four Year Adjusted Cohort for reporting • Will run both and use best

34. DRAFT

35. DRAFT

36. DRAFT

37. 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

38. Transition

39. Aligned System of Accountability

40. Data Corrections • Historical and current data clean up through 6/30/2013 • Historical Supporting APR data frozen 7/1/2013

41. Class of 2016 • Required Additional End-of-Course Assessments • English I • American History • Administered online • No cost to LEAs/districts • Sample tests and achievement level descriptors may be found at http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/eoc_resources.html.

42. Next Steps • Terminology • Public Relations • Scoring Guide Webinars/Tutorials • APR release - schedule

43. THANK YOU!!!