2006 Assessment and Accountability Annual Meeting

1. 2006 Assessment and Accountability Annual Meeting Evaluation and Reporting Office Florida Department of Education September 7, 2006

2. Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • 2005-06 School Grades and AYP Results • 2006-07 School Grade Changes • 2006-07 AYP Changes • 2007 and Beyond • New Website • Existing Websites’ Improvements • SV23 Matching/Updating Process • Round Table Discussions (Two Sessions) • Summary of Round Table Discussions • Reminders • Questions and Answers

3. Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • School Grades Under A+ Plan • School grades were first issued in 1999. • In 2002, learning gains were first included in the calculation. • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • The federal accountability indicator in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. • AYP has been calculated since 2003.

4. Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • Schools in Need of Improvement • Required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). • Evaluation and Reporting is working with the K-12 Division to determine Schools in Need of Improvement. • Only Title I schools that miss AYP two consecutive years are subject to sanctions. • School Recognition • In 2006, $157,587,811 was distributed to 1,799 schools for earning an A or improving at least one school letter grade. • The total amount awarded over the eight years has been $852,688,204.

5. Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • Alternative Schools Accountability • The 2006 legislature passed House Bill 7087, commonly known as A++, which was signed into law on June 5, 2006, by Governor Jeb Bush. • Provides alternative schools the option of earning a school grade or a school-improvement rating. • If an alternative school chooses not to be graded, those students’ performance data will be included in the calculation of the alternative school’s improvement rating and the “home school’s” school grade. • Further discussion of the implementation of this law will occur during the roundtable discussions this afternoon.

6. Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten (VPK) Accountability • VPK providers are responsible for ensuring their children are ready for kindergarten. • Evaluation and Reporting will be working with the Office of Early Learning to develop this accountability calculation. • Every child enrolled in the VPK Program is screened using a statewide kindergarten screening.  These screenings provide objective data for readiness for kindergarten.  • Screenings that will be used: • ECHOS (Early Childhood Observation System) is a continuous observational assessment system to determine if the child is on track to meeting expectations. • DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is a series of short probes to measure progress of foundational reading skills.

7. Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • STAR Evaluation, Teacher Effectiveness • Evaluation and Reporting is developing a fair and equitable way to determine teacher effectiveness by enacting value tables to identify the top 25% of effective teachers. • A value table is a valid and reliable way to measure improved student achievement and identify effective teachers.

8. Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • STAR Evaluation, Teacher Effectiveness • In proviso language contained in the 2006 General Appropriations Act, $147.5 million is provided for the Special Teachers Are Rewarded performance pay plan (STAR Plan). • Districts are responsible for selecting an instructional personnel evaluation instrument for purposes of STAR, half of which must be based on student performance on the Sunshine State Standards. • Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Accountability • Evaluation and Reporting is working with the K-12 division to develop an accountability calculation for effectiveness of SES providers.

9. Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Office • Evaluation and Reporting acts as a clearing house for all NCLB processes and reporting. • Research, Analysis, and Evaluation • Evaluation and Reporting is tasked with a number of ad-hoc analyses examining the impact of programs and policies on student achievement. • Charter schools • Class size • Course-taking patterns • Research Alerts

10. Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting • SAT/ ACT/ PSAT/ PLAN and Teacher Projections • Multiple results and trends are published on our website. • Teacher Projections • Multiple trends and statistical reports pertaining to teacher data are on our website. • New hires • Critical teacher shortage areas • Florida teacher retention • Supply of New Teachers • Projected High School Graduates

11. 2005-2006 School Grades And AYP Results

12. School Grades - 1999-2006

13. School Grades - 1999-2006 2,077 249 173

14. School Grades by Type 2006

15. 2006 School GradesCompared to 2005

16. Schools Maintaining an “A” or Improving Grades

17. 2006 Grades for 2005 “F” Schools

18. Raising the Bar Improved Student Performance

19. History of School Grades Blueprint 2000 Include all students in School Grades FCAT in Grades 4, 8, and 10 FCAT Expanded to Grades 3-10 2007 1999 2002 1996 2005 2001 1991 1998 A+ School Grades Issued Include Science, Math Low 25 percent, and Retakes Learning Gains Added to School Grades Sunshine State Standards Adopted

20. School Grade Points by Component

21. Reading - Students in the Lowest 25% Component

22. Reading - Students in the Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains

23. No Child Left BehindAdequate Yearly Progress 1,161

24. 2006 School Grades Compared to AYP

25. 2006-07 School Grade Changes • Writing • Remain at 3.5, no increase to 4.0. • Science • Add as a seventh component. • Math Lowest 25 Percent • Add as an eighth component. • Revised School Grading Scale • 800 point scale change from current 600 point scale. • Retakes of Grade 11 and 12 • Earn ten bonus points when half of all 11th and 12th graders retaking the FCAT meet the graduation requirement.

26. Writing • The Writing component of the school grade will remain at 3.5 rather than increasing to 4.0 for determining the percent meeting high standards. • This change was implemented because including the multiple choice items in Writing is an option in 2007-08 and Writing will become a graduation requirement in 2009-10. • Based on feedback received, the department is making all changes regarding Writing at the same time.

27. Florida’s School Grading System 50% based on Performance

28. Florida’s School Grading System 50% based on Learning Gains

29. Science • Science added as a seventh component. • One point will be awarded for each percent meeting high standards, achievement level 3 or above, on FCAT. • The Science component was adopted in November 2003 by the State Board of Education.

30. Math Lowest 25 Percent • Learning gains among students in the Math Lowest 25 Percent will be added as an eighth component. • One point will be awarded for each percent making learning gains. • This calculation will mirror the current Reading Lowest 25 Percent calculation. • This maintains the balance of half meeting high standards and half learning gains in the school grade calculation.

31. Florida’s School Grading System 50% based on Performance

32. Florida’s School Grading System 50% based on Learning Gains

33. Revised School Grading Scale • The school grading scale will be adjusted in 2006-07 to account for the addition of the Science and Math Lowest 25 Percent components, adding 200 points to the scale and requiring 115 more points to earn an A-F.

34. Adequate Progress of Low 25% in Reading and Math • A school with enough points to earn an “A” must show adequate progress of the low 25% in both reading and math for the current year or the grade will be lowered to a “B”. • A school with enough points to earn a “B” must show adequate progress of the low 25% in both reading and math for either the current or previous year or the grade will be lowered to a “C”. • A “Yes” in Reading in the current or previous year and a “Yes” in Math in the current or previous year = grade is not lowered • A school with enough points to earn a “C” must show adequate progress of the low 25% in both reading and math for either the current or previous year or the grade will be lowered to a “D”. • A “Yes” in Reading in the current or previous year and a “Yes” in Math in the current or previous year = grade is not lowered

35. Adequate Progress of Low 25% in Reading and Math Some possible scenarios for schools with points equivalent to “B” or “C”

36. Bonus Points - Retakes of 11th and 12th Graders • High schools will be able to earn ten bonus points toward their school grades when 50 percent of all 11th and 12th graders retaking the FCAT Reading and Mathematics meet the graduation requirement. • Further discussion of the implementation of this law will occur during the roundtable discussions this afternoon.

37. Adequate Yearly Progress • Changes for 2007 • Benchmarks Increase • Long Term Students with Disabilities Flexibility • Safe Harbor

38. 2006 Changes • AYP Benchmarks change

39. SWD Flexibility The flexible reporting standards are: • SWD 1% Policy:Proficiency through alternative assessment standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities (maximum of 1% of total tested population). • Long Term SWD 2% Policy:Proficiency through modified achievement standards, benchmarks, or another alternate assessment for students who may not be able to meet grade-level standards but are not part of the 1% (maximum of 2% of total tested population). • Short Term: SWD mathematical adjustment.

40. SWD 1% Policy: Summary • Students with significant cognitive disabilities may be assessed using an alternative assessment. • The percent of students reported as proficient on an SWD alternate assessment may not exceed 1% of the total assessed population. • The 1% proficient limit is calculated at both the state and district levels and applied to state, district, and school levels.

41. SWD Long Term 2% Policy: Summary • USED offers additional flexibility modified achievement standards, benchmarks, or another alternate assessment. • This 2% group of students is separate from the 1% of significant cognitive disabilities students.

42. Short Term Mathematical Adjustment for SWD • Applies to schools/districts that did not make AYP based solely on the performance of the SWD subgroup. • Starting in 2004-05, the mathematical adjustment was added to the percent of students with disabilities who are proficient for a revised AYP calculation.

43. Safe Harbor – Adequate Yearly Progress • Safe Harbor is a second way for schools/districts to satisfy Math/Reading AYP criteria. • To be eligible for Safe Harbor, a school must: • test at least 95% of students in total and in each subgroup. • meet writing criteria for the total. • meet graduation rate criteria for the total. • have a school grade that is not D or F.

44. Safe Harbor – Adequate Yearly Progress • To meet Safe Harbor, each subgroup being evaluated must: • decrease the percent of non-proficient students by at least 10% from the preceding year. • meet the writing criteria. • meet the graduation rate criteria.

45. School Grades Beyond 2007 • Writing multiple choice, rather than just the essay component. • State Board is always open to discussions on raising the bar.

46. Membership Matching • Membership Matching with EIAS • Matching Process • Data Update Process • Education Information & Accountability Services Contact Information • Ruth Jones: Ruth.jones@fldoe.org • Tsung-Yuan Lin: Tsung-Yuan.Lin@fldoe.org • Phone: 850-245-0400 • Suncom: 205-0400

47. Membership MatchingSurveys 2 and 3 • Purpose of Membership Matching • Features • Matching Process • Timeline for 2006-07 • What Works • Need for Improvement • To Remember

48. Purpose of Membership Matching • For AYP and School Grading Process: • Identify students meeting the requirement of being in school all year. • Identify students needing updates to data.

49. Features • Timing • During survey 3 data base processing rather than after. • Responsibility • Shared by many, not just Accountability Coordinator. • Data Source • One integrated, consolidated data source (Student Data Base) rather than a separate system.

50. Data Matching Process • Start with all Survey 3 Student Demographic Records. (1) • Remove McKay, Home Ed, & Private School students. (School of Enrollment = 3518, N998 & N999) (1) • Remove students if District of Instruction is not equal to District of Enrollment. (1) • Remove students with no matching course record. (2)