1 / 39

NY’s Growth and Differentiated Accountability Proposals

NY’s Growth and Differentiated Accountability Proposals. Ira Schwartz Coordinator, Accountability, Policy, & Administration. Purpose of No Child Left Behind.

ryder-hardin
Download Presentation

NY’s Growth and Differentiated Accountability Proposals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NY’s Growth and Differentiated Accountability Proposals Ira Schwartz Coordinator,Accountability, Policy, & Administration

  2. Purpose of No Child LeftBehind “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.”

  3. Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007: Growth Model “By the start of the 2008-2009 school year, the Regents shall establish, using existing state assessments, an interim, modified accountability system for schools and districts that is based on a growth model, subject to approval of the United States department of education where required under federal law.”

  4. Accountability: Status vs. Growth • Status Models: take a snapshot of a subgroup’s or school’s level of student proficiency at one point in time and often compare that proficiency level with an established target. • Growth Models: measure progress by tracking the achievement scores of the same students from one year to the next to determine student progress.

  5. Why Growth? Types of Performance Status/Growth Combinations Status Change High Status Achieve-ment Improve-ment Status High/Low High/High Effective-ness Growth Acceleration Low/Low Low/High Low Status Low Growth High Growth

  6. Betebenner, Jan. 2008, for RI project

  7. New York State’s Proposal • Use growth in two different ways: • To make more refined AYP determinations (must be approved by USED) • To supplement AYP and make a more comprehensive system, attending in particular to growth of students who are proficient or higher (not necessary to be approved by USED)

  8. Constraints • Using growth in AYP is highly constrained: • Focused on reaching proficiency and reducing the achievement gap • Specifics dictated by USED • Proposal must be submitted by Oct. 15 to USED; if approved, would apply to 2008-09 data • Using growth outside of AYP is less constrained, but there is less agreement on approaches: • NYSED will work with partners to create this growth proposal • Regents would like proposal by end of this school year

  9. SED Draft Proposal • For grades 3-8, utilize a “proficiency plus” growth model for grades 3-8 similar to North Carolina’s approved model. • For high school, utilize a “value tables” model similar to Delaware’s approved grades 3-8 model. • Include an enhanced middle level and high school component in the proposal. • Build a “growth for all” State component that sets growth targets for all students, including those who are already proficient.

  10. NCLB Growth Model: General Approach • If a student scores proficient or above (Level 3/4) in the current year, include that student’s results in the Performance Index as is done under the present status model. • Use growth to check whether students who did not yet score proficient (Level 2) have grown enough that it is likely they will become proficient within a designated amount of time. • For purposes of calculating the Performance Index, give schools and districts “full credit” for any student who either scores proficient or above or who is deemed to be on track for proficiency.

  11. “On-Track” Growth to ProficiencyExample Prof. 8 Prof. 7 Prof. 6 Observed growth Gr. 3-4 projected to Gr. 8 Proficient Prof. 5 Proficient or Prof. 4 On track to be proficient Prof. 3 3 4 5 6 7 8

  12. 3-8 Growth Model: Simplified Example • Level 3 Scale Score = 650. • Billy scores a 614 in Grade 3 ELA. • Billy is 36 points below proficiency (650- 614). • Billy has four years to become proficient. • Billy must close the gap by ¼ (9 points) in Grade 4. • Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 4 is 623 (614 + 9). • Billy scores 635 in Grade 4. • Billy now has three years to become proficient. • Billy must close the gap by 1/3 (5 points) in Grade 5. • Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 5 is 640 (635 + 5).

  13. Growth Model: Middle School Extension • Students in middle school would be evaluated on whether they made sufficient growth to become proficient by the designated high school Regents examination. • The designated high school target is proficient on the Regents Examination in Integrated Algebra and proficient on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English. • Students in middle school would have until the target assessment to be projected proficient; the number of years permitted would be based upon the grade the student entered middle school. • This middle school extension will only apply to schools (and their subgroups), not to district AYP decisions in instances where students transfer among schools within a district.

  14. Middle Level Extension: Simplified Example • Level 3 Math Regents Exam is equated to scale score of 663*. • Billy scores a 623 in Grade 5 Math. • Billy enrolls in a new middle school in Grade 6. • Billy is 40 points below proficiency (663-623). • Billy has four years to become proficient. • Billy must close the gap by 1/4 (10 points) in Grade 6. • Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 6 is 633 (623 + 10). • If Billy remained in his original school in Grade 6, then his proficiency target would have been 637. (650**-623= 27/2 years = 13.5 + 623 = 637.) *Actual equated score not yet determined **Represents Grade 7 Level 3 Scale Score

  15. 3-8 Growth Model: Implications for Schools

  16. Timeline for NCLB Growth Models • July/September 2008 : Proposed model submitted to Board of Regents for Review. • September/October, 2008: Discussion with the Field of the Model. • October, 2008: Submission to USED. • Fall 2008: Approval of model by USED. • September 2009: Use of model to make AYP decisions based on 2008-09 school year data, subject to availability of resources.

  17. Building a “Growth for All” Model • Regents have directed SED to provide recommendations for how to hold schools and districts accountable for growth of students beyond proficiency as part of the process of moving towards creation of a value-added accountability model. • This “growth for all” model can be separate from NY’s NCLB accountability system and need not be constrained by NCLB growth model rules. • The Regents will need to decide what rewards and/or consequences should be based upon a “growth for all” model.

  18. Building a “Growth for All” Model • One possibility would be to modify the current process for designation of High Performing and Rapidly Improving schools to include a “growth for all” component: other possibilities include rewards, regulatory relief, and differentiated consequences.

  19. Approaches to “Growth for All” Models • Student growth in terms of what other reference schools or reference groups have achieved (e.g. “peer schools,” “low-income Hispanic students”). • Growth of students compared to other students who started with similar growth histories. • Student growth in relation to statistical expectations for what the student would have learned with a typical teacher/school.

  20. Define “Value-added” • Increase over previous score or performance • Increase over what was expected • Attribution of performance changes (increases/decreases) to agents/conditions

  21. What do we value? • “A Year’s Worth of Growth” • More than “A Year’s Worth of Growth” • Not Going Backwards • Relative Growth • Absolute Growth • Growth to Proficiency • Growth to a Point Beyond Proficiency

  22. Differentiated Accountability Proposal

  23. Why differentiation for New York State? Data shows that a large majority of schools in New York that are identified on a single accountability measure for a single subgroup are able to make AYP. However, the longer a school is in the process and the more groups for which it is identified, the less likely that the school will make AYP. Differentiation allows for “right sizing” of intervention strategies, giving districts greater responsibility and latitude to work with schools with lesser needs and creating State/local partnerships to address schools with greater needs. Draft: September 24, 2008 23

  24. Schools in the Improvement Phase Make the Most Improvement Early On Draft: September 24, 2008 24

  25. How it Works Accountability designations based on both the number and type of student groups failing to make AYP and the length of time such failure has persisted. Three distinct, two-year, phases of intervention: Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring. Three distinct categories within phases: Basic, Focused and Comprehensive. Draft: September 24, 2008 25

  26. Criteria for Placement in Categories Basic (Improvement Phase Only): Identified for the performance of a single student group on a single accountability measure. Focused: Not identified for the performance of an “all student” group. Comprehensive: Identified for the performance of an “all student” group. Draft: September 24, 2008 26

  27. DifferentiatedAccountability Model Phase FAILED AYP 2 YEARS FAILED AYP 2 YEARS Category Diagnostic Plan/Intervention Oversight & Support Intensity of Intervention Draft: September 24, 2008 27

  28. Improvement Phase School Quality Review: Completion of Quality Indicators Document. District/External review by SQR team of documentation for Basic Schools. On-site external review by SQR team for Focused and Comprehensive Schools. School Improvement Plan: Basic and Focused Schools: More latitude than current law. Comprehensive: Same as Current Law. SES instead of Choice. Districts have primary oversight responsibility. Reasonable and necessary costs of SQR team are a district expense, per Chapter 57. Draft: September 24, 2008 28

  29. Corrective Action Phase Curriculum Audit: external review of curriculum as written and taught, with focus on alignment with State standards. Corrective Action Plan to Implement Curriculum Audit. One additional, appropriate corrective action. SED supports districts, which have greater latitude and more responsibility for addressing school needs. Reasonable and necessary costs of SQR team and Distinguished Educator, if assigned, are a district expense, per Chapter 57. Draft: September 24, 2008 29

  30. Restructuring Phase Assignment of Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators. Development of restructuring or phase out/closure plan. SED and its agents work in direct partnership with the district. Reasonable and necessary costs of JIT and DE are a district expense, per Chapter 57. Draft: September 24, 2008 30

  31. Public School Choice (PSC) and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) for Title I Schools Draft: September 24, 2008 31

  32. Transition Rules for 2009-2010 Schools that have made AYP or are entering the second year of a phase continue to implement their previous plans, with modifications if necessary. Newly identified improvement schools and schools new to corrective action and restructuring follow new process. Draft: September 24, 2008 32

  33. Transition Rules: Examples School A in 2008-2009 is a SINI 1 for Grade 3-8 ELA for SWDs. In 2008-2009, School A fails to make AYP in Grade 3-8 ELA for SWDs and LEPs. The school in 2009-2010 will be in Year 2 of the Improvement Phase. The school will modify its CEP to address both SWDs and LEPs. School B in 2008-2009 is a SINI 2 for Grade 3-8 Math for low-income students. The school in 2008-2009 again fails to make AYP For Grade 3-8 Math for low-income students. The school will enter the Corrective Action Phase in 2009-2010 and conduct a curriculum audit. School C in 2008-2009 is a Corrective Action school for HS math for Black students. The school in 2008-09 makes AYP on all accountability measures. The school will remain in Corrective Action and will continue to implement its approved Corrective Action plan. Draft: September 24, 2008 33

  34. Linkage to Chapter 57 SQR teams assigned to Improvement Schools and Corrective Action Schools. Curriculum Audits conducted in Corrective Action Schools. Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators Assigned to Restructuring Schools. Draft: September 24, 2008 34

  35. Linkage to Growth Model Schools that would have been in the Focused or Comprehensive categories without the growth model may be assigned to the Basic or Focused categories instead. Plans will not need to address groups of students with low status but good growth. SED could, with Regents and USED approval, at a later date revise the definition of categories to more explicitly incorporate growth or value-added components. Draft: September 24, 2008 35

  36. Current System Draft: September 24, 2008 36

  37. Phases and Categories Allow Further Differentiation Draft: September 24, 2008 37

  38. Timeline Preliminary Draft Plan submitted to USED on September 17. Discussions with key groups occurring during September and October. Peer review conference to be held in November. Revised Plan to be submitted to Regents at October Regents meeting. With Regents approval, final plan submitted to USED. If approved by USED, implementation begins in 2009-2010 using 2008-2009 test results. Draft: September 24, 2008 38

  39. More Information Ira Schwartz, Coordinator Accountability, Policy, and Administration New York State Education Department Office of School Improvement and Community Services ischwart@mail.nysed.gov Draft: September 24, 2008 39

More Related