1 / 56

Florida’s School Accountability System Overview and Updates

Edward Croft, Florida Department of Education Bureau Chief, Accountability Reporting Accountability, Research and Measurement Florida Charter School Conference, November 15, 2011. Florida’s School Accountability System Overview and Updates. Florida’s School Grading System. Purpose and Aims

ulf
Download Presentation

Florida’s School Accountability System Overview and Updates

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. Edward Croft, Florida Department of EducationBureau Chief, Accountability ReportingAccountability, Research and MeasurementFlorida Charter School Conference, November 15, 2011 Florida’s School Accountability System Overview and Updates

  2. Florida’s School Grading System Purpose and Aims • Making school performance clear to the public • Universally understood metric (A-F) • Performance is based upon student outcomes. • System of rewards and supports • Primary and lasting goals: raising student achievement and success, bringing more opportunities to students, opening doors Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  3. Context • Accountability systems in transition • FCAT cut scores increasing – raising standards • School Grades – Changes to add new statutorily required elements and new tests • End of Course (EOC) assessments • Middle school – acceleration measures • high school EOCs and industry certifications • Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  4. Transition in School Grades System • Transition to new tests occurring over the next 4 years • Designing the system now to accommodate the changes • Rule revision to lay out changes for 2011-12 and beyond • Develop a multi-year model to: • Implement statutory changes • Include new tests as they are available • Review and set school grading scale • Working closely with stakeholders Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  5. School Grade Distribution – Graded Schools (2011 does not include high schools.) 5 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  6. Elementary School Grade Distribution (A-F) 2002 to 2011 6 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  7. Middle School Grade Distribution (A-F) 2002 to 2011 7 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  8. High School Grade Distribution (A-F) 2002 to 2010 8 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  9. Charter School Grade Distribution (A-F)by Percent, 2004 to 2011* * Results for 2011 do not include high school grades. 9 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  10. Charter Schools, Reading PerformanceElementary School Grades 10 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  11. Charter Schools, Reading PerformanceMiddle School Grades 11 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  12. Charter Schools, Reading PerformanceHigh School Grades 38.3 12 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  13. Reading Outcomes for Schools Graded “A” in 2010 *Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades. 13 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  14. Reading Outcomes for Schools Graded “B” in 2010 *Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades. 14 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  15. Reading Outcomes for Schools Graded “C” in 2010 *Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades. 15 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  16. Overview of School Grading: Assessment Components (Comprising 100% of Elementary and Middle School Grades, and 50% of High School Grades) 16 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  17. Current Elementary and Middle School Grades Model Performance Learning Gains: All Students Low 25% Learning Gains 17 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  18. Current High School Grades Model Performance Learning Gains: All Students Low 25% Learning Gains Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  19. Points for Performance (Four Components) One point for each percent of students meeting performance standards on the FCAT, as follows: • FCAT reading, math, and science = score at FCAT Level 3 or higher. • FCAT Writing = a score of 4 or higher on the essay component. (Increased from “3.5 or higher” in 2009-10). Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  20. Defining Learning Gains Three Ways to Make Learning Gains: • Move up by one or more achievement levels. • Maintain a satisfactory achievement level. • For students who remain at FCAT Level 1 or 2, demonstrate more than one year’s worth of growth on the FCAT vertical scale. Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  21. Additional Requirements Adequate Progress of Lowest Performing 25% in Reading and Mathematics • At least 50% of the low performers in a school must show learning gains in reading or math, or the school must show annual improvement in that percentage. • The school grade is lowered one letter grade if the requirement is not met - for schools that would otherwise be graded “C” or higher “Percent Tested” Requirement • 90% must be tested to receive a regular grade in lieu of an “I”. • 95% must be tested for a school to be eligible for an “A.” Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  22. Current Grading ScaleFor Elementary and Middle Schools 800 possible points: A = ≥ 525 points B = 495-524 points C = 435-494 points D = 395-434 points F = < 395 points 22 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  23. Students Included in the Calculation • Performance Components • Students must be enrolled for the full year (present in Survey 2 and Survey 3) • Standard curriculum, Gifted, Speech Impaired, Hospital Homebound, English language learners with > 2 yrs. in ESOL • Current-year FCAT score in content area. • Learning Gains • Students must enrolled for the full year. • Must have current and prior-year test scores (FCAT or Florida Alternate Assessment) in content area. 23

  24. Reasons Why Some Schools Are Not Graded • Statute provides conditions under which a school may not receive a school grade (Section 1008.34, F.S.) • Insufficient number of students tested (cell size requirements) • Alternative schools may elect to receive a school improvement rating instead • DJJ centers are not assigned school grades. • ESE centers – not enough standard curriculum students with FCAT scores (reading, math, writing, science). • Certain other types of schools that serve populations outside the tested grades. 24 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  25. Reasons Why Some Schools Are Not Graded,and Cell-Size Issues • School grades includes only standard curriculum students in the performance components. AYP includes all students. This reduces the number of students counted for school grades • To receive a school grade schools must have a sufficient number of students tested in each “cell” of the formula • Cell sizes required for school grades are 30 for reading and math and 10 for other areas where only 1 grade is tested • Under AYP, minimum cell-size for the school = 11. • Cell-size criteria for AYP reporting are established in states’ federally approved accountability plans and may vary from state to state. • Cell-size criteria for school grades are established in the implementing rule (6A-1.09981). 25 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  26. Cell Size Issues • Some competing factors considered when establishing cell size are: • sample size and reliability of measures • the desire to have uniform criteria for inclusion • the desire to include as many students and schools as possible in accountability determinations • the appropriateness of assessments for specific populations • characteristics of special populations. • Many schools do not receive a school grade because they do not meet the cell size requirements

  27. Number of Florida Schools Receiving an AYP Rating vs. Number Receiving a School Grade *Though complete high school grades for 2011 have not yet been issued, there is data available to determine the number of schools that will receive a grade. 27 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  28. High School Grades 28

  29. High School Grades • State Assessment Based Components = 50% of the school grade for high schools (800 points). 29

  30. HS Components Outside State Assessments = 50% of High School Grade (800 points) 30 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  31. High School Grades: Changes in 2010-11 • More emphasis on acceleration performance (125 points in 2011 vs. 100 points in 2010) • Less emphasis on acceleration participation (175 points in 2011 vs. 200 points in 2010) • P.E.R.T. scores (as available) now included for Postsecondary Readiness. 31

  32. Graduation Rate For 2009-10 and 2010-11, Florida is using the National Governors’ Association four-year graduation rate. Which students are included in the cohort (denominator)? • Entering 9th graders in Year 1 of the 4-year cohort plus incoming transfers, minus exiting transfers and deceased students • Who counts as a graduate? • Standard diploma recipients and special diploma recipients • Who counts as a non-graduate? • Students in the adjusted cohort who did not receive a standard diploma or special diploma (i.e., dropouts, certificate of completion recipients, GED diploma recipients, other non-graduates) 32 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  33. Graduation Rate Summary Information 33 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  34. Accelerated Participation • Based on AP, IB, AICE exams; Dual Enrollment courses; Industry Certification programs • Denominator = count of 11th and 12th grade students. • Students in grades 9 and 10 are included in the numerator if they have successful completions • Extra weighting for more than one exam/course. Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  35. Accelerated Performance • Included students = Participants from the acceleration participation calculation. • Performance = Successful completions (i.e., credit-earning scores on AP, AICE, IB, Industry Certification; and, grade of “C” or higher in dual enrollment courses). • Extra weighting for highest scores on AP, IB, AICE, and for certain Industry Certification programs. 35 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  36. Postsecondary Readiness - Reading, Math • Calculated separately for reading and mathematics with max of 100 points each. • Beginning in 2011-12, by rule, the measure will apply to all on-time graduates. Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  37. High School Grade Scale Grade Scale for High Schools = 1600 point scale: • A = At least 1,050 points, • B = 990 to 1,049 points, • C = 870 to 989 points, • D = 790 to 869 points, • F = Fewer than 790 points. 37 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  38. Changes Coming for School Grades • FCAT 2.0 cut scores: increased rigor of test and achievement expectations. • Moving toward new assessments of reading and mathematics in 2014-15: PARCC • Adding new measures to the middle school grades (HS EOCs and Industry Certifications) • Assimilating EOCs into the school grades model as they are implemented 38 Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  39. Multi-year School Grades System • Transition to new tests occurring over the next 4 years • Designing the system now to accommodate the changes • Develop a multi-year model to: • Implement statutory changes • Include new tests as they are available • Review and set school grading scale Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  40. Each time standards are raised, the number of lower performing schools has decreased in the following year. Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  41. School Grades in 2011-12 and Beyond – Key Issues • Changes already written in rule for 2011-12 to increase rigor for high school grades • Include learning gains for EOCs as required in statute • Learning gains on the Florida Alternate Assessment for students scoring at the lowest levels • Learning gains: structure for FCAT 2.0 reading and mathematics • Balance of performance and learning gains in new model(s); distribution/weighting of points for school grade components Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  42. School Grades in 2011-12 and Beyond - Key Issues (continued) • Address the statutory requirement for greater emphasis on reading performance • High school science performance in 2011-12, Biology 1 EOC in its baseline year • Middle school grades – include high-school level EOCs and Industry Certifications (as available) • Banking middle school performance on HS level EOCs (Algebra 1 for 2011-12) for high school grades Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  43. School Grades in 2011-12 and Beyond - Key Issues (continued) • Criteria for setting school grading scale • Review cell size requirements • Possibly include exceptional education students in proficiency calculations • Accountability for ESE centers • Accountability for DJJ Centers Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  44. Impact of FCAT 2.0 Cut Scores on School Grades • Won’t know the impact until: • Cut scores are finalized • School Grades model for next year is finalized • Working on simulations to determine the impact of the raised scores on school grades Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  45. AAAC Recommendation Learning Gains for FCAT 2.0 • Students who increase an achievement level • Students who maintain a Level 3 or higher achievement level • Students at achievement levels 1 and 2 must: • Demonstrate more than 1 year’s expected growth on the new FCAT 2.0 scale. • Under this model, Level 1 students would be expected to show more growth than Level 2 students. • Model still being reviewed, subject to change. • The requirements will be included in the revised school grades rule (6A-1.09981) • Review value added model at the school level next summer Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  46. Scale Scores – Reading, Draft Proposed Rule Not determined Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  47. Differences in Cut Scores Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  48. AAAC Proposed Learning Gains Model for Florida Alternate Assessment Scores (for Students with Disabilities) • Students’ second-year score must increase relative to their first year score by more than the standard error of the difference of the two scores. • AAAC recommends setting a fixed score differential for the calculation to make it more understandable to stakeholders. • The fixed score differential would be derived from analysis of all state scores. • This provision is supported by the Leadership Policy Advisory Council (LPAC). • Task - Determine whether the value of the fixed score differential fluctuates among grade levels or achievement levels. Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  49. AAAC Recommendation* Learning Gains for Algebra 1 • If a student scores at level 3 or higher on Algebra 1, the student is credited with a learning gain. • For levels 1 and 2, compare the t-score for FCAT 2.0 Mathematics in the prior year with the t-score for Algebra 1. The t-scores are scores set on a common scale between the two assessments. • Next summer, review the value added model for EOC learning gains at the school level. * Keep in mind that these are just recommendations and may (or may not) be adopted by the State Board. Accountability, Research, and Measurement

  50. New Middle School Grades Component – AAAC Recommendation Middle School acceleration measure – 100 points • Structured similar to the high school measure • Participation in high school end-of-course assessments (50 points) Denominator = • Grade 8 students scoring at level 3 or higher on 7th grade FCAT + • 6th and 7th graders taking HS EOCs in the current year that have matched course records + • Other 8th graders taking HS EOCs that have matched course records • Performance on high school end-of-course assessments (50 points) Denominator = participants from the participation measure • Attainment of National Industry Certifications • AAAC recommends including with HS EOCs in the acceleration measures, when data become available. Accountability, Research, and Measurement

More Related