State Board Update: Accountability System March 2013

State Board Update:Accountability

System

March 2013

Current System is Confusing

No Child Left Behind Waiver

HB 555 Passed in December 2012

Report Card Measures Grouped into 6 Components

Component grades and overall grade begin in August 2015

New Report Card Based on Letter Grades

Measures Phased In

2012-2013 Up to 9 Measures

2015-2016 & Beyond Up to 18 Measures

Prepared for Success

K-3 Literacy

Graduation Rate

Gap Closing

Progress

Achievement

Overall Grade

Overall Grade & Components

Report Card Components

AchievementPerformance Index Performance Indicators

Graduation Rate4 Year Graduation Rate 5 Year Graduation Rate

Gap ClosingAnnual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

ProgressValue-Added Overall, Gifted, Lowest 20% and Students with Disabilities

K-3 LiteracyK-3 Literacy Improvement

Prepared for SuccessCollege Admission Test, Dual Enrollment, Industry Credentials, Honors Diplomas, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate

Ohio’s New Local Report Card

Accountability Committee Created

Held Six Meetings

Adopt Rules for Report Card

Role of the State Board

March – Present

April – Intent to Adopt

May – Public Hearings & JCARR

June – Final Adoption

Timeline for 2012-2013 LRC rules

Review Recommendations

for 2012-2013

Achievement Component

Performance IndicatorsPerformance Index

Michael Collins

State Indicators

2012-2013 Report Card

State Indicators – 75% Proficient

State Indicators Letter Grade

State Indicators Percentage

A 90% - 100%

B 80% - 89.9%

C 70% - 79.9%

D 50% - 69.9%

F < 50%

State Indicators

Letter Grade

State Indicators

Percentage

School Districts Based on 2012

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 369 60.5%

B 80% - 89.9% 90 14.8%

C 70% - 79.9% 65 10.6%

D 50% - 69.9% 48 7.9%

F < 50% 38 6.4%

Total 610 100.0%

State Indicators

Letter Grade

State Indicators

Percentage

Traditional Buildings Based

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 1652 53.8%

B 80% - 89.9% 353 11.5%

C 70% - 79.9% 213 6.9%

D 50% - 69.9% 217 7.1%

F < 50% 635 20.7%

Total 3070 100.0%

NA 156

State Indicators

Letter Grade

State Indicators

Percentage

Community Schools Based on

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 20 8.7%

B 80% - 89.9% 8 3.5%

C 70% - 79.9% 9 3.9%

D 50% - 69.9% 27 11.7%

F < 50% 166 72.2%

Total 230 100.0%

60%15%

Schools Districts

A B C D F

Community Schools

Traditional Build-ings

State Indicators

2013-2014 Report Card

Change in Law

State Indicators Letter Grade

State Indicators Percentage

A 90% - 100%

B 80% - 89.9%

C 70% - 79.9%

D 50% - 69.9%

F < 50%

State Indicators

Letter Grade

State Indicators

Percentage

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 244 40.0%

B 80% - 89.9% 87 14.3%

C 70% - 79.9% 109 17.9%

D 50% - 69.9% 93 15.2%

F < 50% 77 12.6%

Total 610 100.0%

State Indicators

Letter Grade

State Indicators

Percentage

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 1264 41.2%

B 80% - 89.9% 309 10.1%

C 70% - 79.9% 261 8.5%

D 50% - 69.9% 343 11.2%

F < 50% 893 29.1%

Total 3070 100.0%

NA 156

State Indicators

Letter Grade

State Indicators

Percentage

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 13 5.7%

B 80% - 89.9% 4 1.7%

C 70% - 79.9% 10 4.3%

D 50% - 69.9% 22 9.6%

F < 50% 181 78.7%

Total 230 100.0%

Schools Districts

A B C D F

6%2% 4

Community Schools

Performance Index

Performance Index Letter Grade

Performance Index Percentage

A 90% - 100%

B 80% - 89.9%

C 70% - 79.9%

D 50% - 69.9%

F < 50%

Performance Index Letter

Performance Index

Percentage

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 30 4.9%

B 80% - 89.9% 444 72.8%

C 70% - 79.9% 118 19.3%

D 50% - 69.9% 18 3.0%

F < 50% 0 0.0%

Total 610 100.0%

Performance Index

Percentage

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 215 7.1%

B 80% - 89.9% 1830 59.6%

C 70% - 79.9% 647 21.1%

D 50% - 69.9% 361 11.6%

F < 50% 19 0.6%

Total 3072 100.0%

NA 154

Performance Index

Percentage

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 3 1.3%

B 80% - 89.9% 28 11.7%

C 70% - 79.9% 68 28.3%

D 50% - 69.9% 124 51.7%

F < 50% 17 7.1%

Total 240 100.0%

Performance Index

Schools Districts

A B C D F

Community Schools

Weighted Acceleration3302.01(A) …the department shall assign additional weights to students who have been permitted to pass over a subject in accordance with a student acceleration policy… If such a student attains the advanced score… the department shall assign to the student an additional proportional weight, as approved by the state board.

1.3 Selected for Consistency

Questions?

Safe Harbor

Not later than March 31, 2013, the State Board of Education shall submit to the

General Assembly… recommendations to create a one-year safe harbor for districts

and schools for the first year of the PARCC assessments.

House Bill 555

Safe Harbor

The recommendation shall include a method to exempt [schools and

districts] from sanctions and penalties prescribed by law based on report card

ratings.

House Bill 555

Safe Harbor Sanctions

• Challenged School District

• Academic Distress Commission

• Educational Choice scholarships

• Community school closure

• Public school restructuring

Safe Harbor Recommendation

• Report actual grade

• If safe harbor is met, calculate adjusted grade

• Sanctions for schools and districts based on adjusted grades

Performance IndexB

IndicatorsB

No Component or Overall Grade

Example: 2013-2014

5 Year Grad RateC

4 Year Grad RateC

Value-Added: All Students

Achievement

DProgress

GradRate

K-3 Literacy

Prep for Success

Overall Grade

Indicators

FDrop in Performance Index (PI) grade, affecting overall grade

Example: 2014-2015

First Year of PARCC Assessments

Safe Harbor?

Safe harbor statistical calculation(Met or Not Met)

Maintain performance compared to other schools and districts?

If Met, adjusted safe harbor grades

used to determine sanctions

Achievement

BProgress

GradRate

K-3 Literacy

Prep for Success

“Safe Harbor” Overall Grade

Indicators

B“Safe Harbor” PI

Example: 2014-2015 – Safe Harbor

Sanctions based on Adjusted Grade

2013-2014 PI grade used

Questions?

Graduation Rate

4 Year Rate 5 Year Rate

Stephanie Dodd

4 Year Graduation Rate

Grad Rate – Four Year Letter Grade

Grad Rate – Four Year Percentage

A 93% - 100%

B 89% - 92.9%

C 84% - 88.9%

D 79% - 83.9%

F < 79%

Grad Rate Four Year

Letter Grade

Grad Rate Four Year

Percentage

Count Percentage

A 93% - 100% 247 40.50%

B 89% - 92.9% 171 28.00%

C 84% - 88.9% 109 17.90%

D 79% - 83.9% 43 7.00%

F < 79% 40 6.60%

Total 610 100.00%

Grad Rate Four Year

Letter Grade

Grad Rate Four Year

Percentage

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 93% - 100% 271 36.97%

B 89% - 92.9% 187 25.51%

C 84% - 88.9% 123 16.78%

D 79% - 83.9% 57 7.78%

F < 79% 95 12.96%

Total 733 100.00%

Grad Rate Four Year

Letter Grade

Grad Rate Four Year

Percentage

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 93% - 100% 1 1.80%

B 89% - 92.9% 1 1.80%

C 84% - 88.9% 3 5.40%

D 79% - 83.9% 1 1.80%

F < 79% 50 89.30%

Total 56 100.00%

Schools Districts

A B C D F

2% 2%5% 2

Community Schools

Grad Rate – Five Year Letter Grade

Grad Rate – Five Year Percentage

A 95% - 100%

B 90% - 94.9%

C 85% - 89.9%

D 80% - 84.9%

F < 80%

Grad Rate Five Year

Letter Grade

Grad Rate Five Year

Percentage

Count Percentage

A 95% - 100% 152 25.00%

B 90% - 94.9% 245 40.20%

C 85% - 89.9% 119 19.50%

D 80% - 84.9% 55 9.00%

F < 80% 38 6.20%

Total 609 100.00%

Grad Rate Five Year

Letter Grade

Grad Rate Five Year

Percentage

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 95% - 100% 167 23.00%

B 90% - 94.9% 270 37.20%

C 85% - 89.9% 134 18.50%

D 80% - 84.9% 65 9.00%

F < 80% 90 12.40%

Total 726 100.00%

Grad Rate Five Year

Letter Grade

Grad Rate Five Year

Percentage

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 95% - 100% 2 4.40%

B 90% - 94.9% 1 2.20%

C 85% - 89.9% 2 4.40%

D 80% - 84.9% 4 8.90%

F < 80% 36 80.00%

Total 45 100.00%

Schools Districts

A B C D F

4% 2%4%

Community Schools

Traditional Buildings

Questions?

Gap Closing

Annual Measurable Objectives(AMOs)

C. Todd Jones

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

AMOLetter Grade

AMO Percentage

A 90% - 100%

B 80% - 89.9%

C 70% - 79.9%

D 60% - 69.9%

F < 60%

AMOLetter Grade

AMO Percentage

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 28 4.6%

B 80% - 89.9% 207 33.9%

C 70% - 79.9% 142 23.3%

D 60% - 69.9% 83 13.6%

F < 60% 150 24.6%

Total 610 100.0%

AMOLetter Grade

AMOPercentage

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 776 25.5%

B 80% - 89.9% 507 16.7%

C 70% - 79.9% 310 10.2%

D 60% - 69.9% 303 10.0%

F < 60% 1143 37.6%

Total 3039 100.0%

AMOLetter Grade

AMOPercentage

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A 90% - 100% 24 12.8%

B 80% - 89.9% 12 6.4%

C 70% - 79.9% 6 3.2%

D 60% - 69.9% 6 3.2%

F < 60% 139 74.3%

Total 187 100.0%

Schools Districts

A B C D F

6%3%3%

Community Schools

10%10%

Questions?

Progress

Value Added:Overall

Gifted StudentsLowest 20%

Students with Disabilities

Bryan Williams

Value-Added

Value-Added Letter Grade

Value-Added Gain Index

A > = 2.0

B >= 1 and < 2

C >= -1 and < 1

D >= -2 and < -1

F < -2

Value-Added: OverallValue Added: Overall Letter

Value Added: Overall Gain

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 216 35.4%

B >= 1 and < 2 86 14.1%

C >= -1 and < 1 155 25.4%

D >= -2 and < -1 62 10.1%

F < -2 92 15.1%

Total 611 100.0%

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 702 29.6%

B >= 1 and < 2 335 14.1%

C >= -1 and < 1 674 28.4%

D >= -2 and < -1 223 9.4%

F < -2 436 18.4%

Total 2370 100.0%

NA 856

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 55 24.6%

B >= 1 and < 2 29 12.9%

C >= -1 and < 1 62 27.7%

D >= -2 and < -1 29 12.9%

F < -2 49 21.9%

Total 224 100.0%

Value-Added: Overall

14%25%

Schools Districts

A B C D F

Community Schools

14%28%

Value-Added: Gifted Students

Value Added: Gifted Letter

Value Added: Gifted Gain

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 79 12.9%

B >= 1 and < 2 93 15.2%

C >= -1 and < 1 275 45.0%

D >= -2 and < -1 86 14.1%

F < -2 45 7.4%

Total 578 94.6%

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 244 12.9%

B >= 1 and < 2 311 16.5%

C >= -1 and < 1 877 46.4%

D >= -2 and < -1 272 14.4%

F < -2 186 9.8%

Total 1890 100.0%

NA 1336

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 0 0.0%

B >= 1 and < 2 0 0.0%

C >= -1 and < 1 2 50.0%

D >= -2 and < -1 0 0.0%

F < -2 2 50.0%

Total 4 100.0%

NA 260

Value-Added: Gifted

Schools Districts

A B C D F

50%50%

Community Schools

Value-Added: Lowest 20% in Achievement

Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade

Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 108 18.2%

B >= 1 and < 2 86 14.5%

C >= -1 and < 1 269 45.4%

D >= -2 and < -1 66 11.1%

F < -2 63 10.6%

Total 2163 100.0%

NA 1090

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 268 12.5%

B >= 1 and < 2 393 18.4%

C >= -1 and < 1 1020 47.8%

D >= -2 and < -1 273 12.8%

F < -2 182 8.5%

Total 2163 100.0%

NA 1090

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 43 20.8%

B >= 1 and < 2 33 15.9%

C >= -1 and < 1 73 35.3%

D >= -2 and < -1 29 14.0%

F < -2 29 14.0%

Total 207 100.0%

Value-Added: Lowest 20%

Schools Districts

A B C D F

Community Schools

Value-Added: Students with

Disabilities

Value Added: Students with

Disabilities Letter Grade

Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 116 19.0%

B >= 1 and < 2 108 17.7%

C >= -1 and < 1 241 39.4%

D >= -2 and < -1 78 12.8%

F < -2 46 7.5%

Total 589 96.4%

Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade

on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 287 13.9%

B >= 1 and < 2 379 18.4%

C >= -1 and < 1 978 47.5%

D >= -2 and < -1 245 11.9%

F < -2 170 8.3%

Total 2059 100.0%

NA 1167

Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade

2012 Data

Count Percentage

A > = 2.0 18 13.6%

B >= 1 and < 2 18 13.6%

C >= -1 and < 1 61 46.2%

D >= -2 and < -1 16 12.1%

F < -2 19 14.4%

Total 132 100.0%

NA 207

Value-Added: Students with Disabilities

18%39%

Schools Districts

A B C D F

Community Schools

Questions?

K- 3 Literacy

Tom Gunlock

2013-2014 – Measure Graded

2014-2015 – Component Graded

2013-2014 – Measures Reported

2014-2015 – Component Graded

Debe Terhar

Communications and Feedback

Next Steps

March – PresentApril – Intent to Adopt

May – Public Hearings & JCARRJune – Final Adoption

Timeline for 2012-2013 LRC rules

LRC Rollout TimelineAugust 2013

New Graded Measures

Performance Indicators

Performance Index

Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs)

Value-Added: All Students

Value-Added: Gifted Students

Value-Added: Lowest 20% in Achievement

Value-Added: Students with Disabilities

New Graded ComponentNone

New Graded Measure

K-3 Literacy Improvement

New Reported MeasuresCollege Admission Test

Dual Enrollment

Industry Credentials

Honors Diploma

Advanced Placement

International Baccalaureate

Overall Grade Calculated

New Graded Components

Achievement

Progress

Gap Closing

Graduation Rate

K-3 Literacy

New Graded Measure

New Reported MeasureCollege & Career Ready Assessment

Overall Grade Calculated

New Graded Measure

Value-Added: High School

New Reported MeasureNone

Questions

Dropout Prevention and Recovery

Academic Performance Rating and Report

Card System

March 2013

HB 555 Passed in December 2012

Enact rules for dropout prevention and recovery (DOPR) performance levels and benchmarks

Benchmarks for

7 Report Card Indicators

No indicator ratings in 2013

Add benchmark for 1 additional indicator

Prescribe Overall Rating Designation (not to be used until 2015)

Graduation Rates:4 Year Graduation Rate 5 Year Graduation Rate6 Year Graduation Rate7 Year Graduation Rate8 Year Graduation Rate

2013 RuleReport Card Indicator Benchmarks

High School Assessment Passage

Additional HB 555 Charges

Review Ohio dropout prevention and recovery data

Consult with Ohio stakeholders

Consult with other states’ departments of education

Arizona

California

Colorado

Florida

Ohio is the only state establishing a report

card system that includes high stakes

consequences

Review RuleRecommendations

for OAC 3301-102-10

Graduation Rate

4 Year Rate 5 Year Rate6 Year Rate7 Year Rate8 Year Rate

DOPR Ratings

4 Year Graduation

Rate Benchmarks

SchoolsBased on 2011 Data

Count Percentage

Exceeds Standards

30% - 100% 21 25.3%

Meets Standards 7% - 29.9% 40 48.2%

Does Not Meet Standards

0% - 6.9% 22 26.5%

Total 83 100.0%

DOPR Ratings

5 Year Graduation

Rate Benchmarks

Schools Based on 2011 Data

Count Percentage

Exceeds Standards

39% - 100% 18 25.4%

Meets Standards 12% - 38.9% 35 49.3%

0% - 11.9% 18 25.4%

Total 71 100.1%

DOPR Ratings

6, 7, 8 Year Graduation

Rate Benchmarks

Count Percentage

Exceeds Standards

39% - 100% Not Available

Not Available

Meets Standards 12% - 38.9% Not Available

Not Available

0% - 11.9% Not Available

Not Available

High School Assessment

Passage

DOPR Ratings

High School Assessment

Passage RateBenchmarks

Count Percentage

Exceeds Standards

59% - 100% 22 25.9%

Meets Standards 18% - 58.9% 41 48.2%

0% - 17.9% 22 25.9%

Total 85 100.0%

DOPR Ratings

AMOBenchmarks

SchoolsBased on 2012 Data

Count Percentage

Exceeds Standards

33% - 100% 4 25.0%

Meets Standards 5% - 32.9% 8 50.0%

0% - 4.9% 4 25.0%

Total 16 100.0%

By March, 2015

Based on analysis of 2013 and 2014 dropout prevention and recovery data

Review performance levels and amend benchmarks if warranted

Statement of Intent

Next Steps

March –Intent to Adopt

April – JCARR Filing

May – Public HearingsJune – Final Adoption

Timeline for 2013 DOPR rule

DOPR Report Card Rollout Timeline

2012-2013

- 4, 5, and 6 Year Graduation Rate- High School Assessment Passage- AMOs- No ratings

2013-2014

- 4, 5, 6, and 7 Year Graduation Rate- High School Assessment Passage- AMOs- Indicators rated- Growth reported, if available- Student outcomes reported

2014-2015

- 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Year Graduation Rate

- High School Assessment Passage- AMOs- Growth- Indicators rated- Student outcomes reported- Overall DesignationSchools first identified for closure 2015-2016

Success for Each Student

Questions

State Board Update: Accountability System March 2013

Documents

Assessment and Accountability Update

1 Student Assessment Update Research, Evaluation & Accountability Angela Marino Coordinator Research, Evaluation & Accountability

Accountability Update

ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE State and Federal Systems

THE ROCHESTER POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD

2016-17 CALENDAR OF SIGNIFICANT DEADLINES · Plan to add to your next Board Meeting the 2016-17 Update Local Control Accountability Report (LCAP) Update Local Control Accountability

Update on Strategic Plan and Community-Based Accountability · 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 Timeline of Community Based Accountability: NISD Board Adopts 5 year strategic plan: 2014-2018

Board Transparency And Accountability

MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW BOARD · MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Municipal Accountability Recovery Board (MARB) FROM: Alison Fisher, OPM

Legislative Update - Site Selection · Legislative Update A new law establishes a Workforce Education Investment Accountability and Oversight Board, the Washington College Grant Program,

AYP and State Accountability Update

Assessment and Accountability Update Dr. Chun-Wu Li Assessment and Accountability Services

Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

Assessment and Accountability Update Assessment and Accountability Services August 23, 2013 1

Accountability Update Ty Duncan Coordinator of Accountability and Compliance, ESC 17 @instructionalle

Defense Property Accountability System ( DPAS) Update

BOARD OF EDUCATION – District Accountability Systeminternet.savannah.chatham.k12.ga.us/district/finance/Budgeting... · BOARD OF EDUCATION – District Accountability System INTRODUCTION

Accountability Meeting Coordinating Board Update TCCIA James Goeman June 2013

AGB Statement on Board Accountability

Assessment and Accountability Update Chun-Wu Li, Ph.D. Assessment and Accountability Services