Upload
whitney-farmer
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
New York: New York: The State The State
Of AccountabilityOf Accountability
Presentation toStatewide Network of Middle Level Liaisons
November 2010
College and Career Ready
Students
Highly EffectiveSchool Leaders
Highly Effective Teachers
The Race is Already UnderwayIncreasing College and Career Increasing College and Career Readiness of All StudentsReadiness of All Students•Common Core State Standards
adopted•Proficiency bar raised on state
assessments to match college-readiness
•State assessments more rigorous and performance-based
•Committed to building sequenced, content-rich statewide curriculum with embedded formative assessments
•PARCC – Governing State
Regents Strategic Plan9 Goals9 Goals
Regents Strategic Goals RTTT Assurance Areas
Curriculum and Professional Development B. Standards and Assessments
Assessment B. Standards and Assessments
Teacher Preparation and Effectiveness D. Great Teachers and Leaders
Replace Failing Schools E. Turning Around Low Performing Schools
Raise Graduation Rates for At-Risk Students Sum of B, C, D, and E
Transform the Field of School Leader Preparation D. Great Teachers and Leaders
Transform NYSED A. State Success Factors
Build a P-20 Data System C. Data Systems
Early Childhood Invitational Priorities: Early Learning Outcomes
College Readiness Current 2013 Target
Points Gain
ELA Regents Exam score 75 or above 56% 69% 13Math Regents Exam score 80 or above 42% 59% 17
Graduation Rate 72% 80% 8
College Persistence 72% 76% 4
All Students
All Students Prepared to Succeed in College and All Students Prepared to Succeed in College and CareersCareersMeasurable, substantial progress toward student Measurable, substantial progress toward student successsuccess
Close the gaps in achievement for Black students, Hispanic students, English language learners, students with disabilities,
and economically disadvantaged students
Higher Education Degree Holders Earn More And Contribute More To Economic Growth
5Source: Current Population Survey, 2008
6
7 Of The Top 10 Fastest-growing Occupations
Require A Postsecondary Degree Education or training level for fastest growing occupations, 2008 to 2018
Rank Title Education or training level
1 Biomedical engineers Bachelor's degree
2 Network systems analysts Bachelor's degree
3 Home health aides Short-term on-the-job training
4 Personal and home care aides
Short-term on-the-job training
5 Financial examiners Bachelor's degree
6 Medical scientists Doctoral degree
7 Physician assistants Master’s degree
8 Skin care specialists Postsecondary vocational award
9 Biochemists and biophysicists
Doctoral degree
10 Athletic trainers Bachelor's degreeSource: Employment Projections Program, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
7
Entry-level and manufacturing jobs require higher skill levels than ever before
• The material that many entry-level blue-collar workers must read – technical manuals and installation instructions – is complex and critical to job performance. (Daggett 2003)
• During the current recession, U.S. manufacturers are eliminating lower-skilled jobs and moving towards automation. They need people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery and follow complex blueprints. (NYT front-page article 7/1/10)
U.S. College Graduation Rates Have Stagnated Relative To The Rest Of The Developed World
College and university graduation rates in 1995 and 2006 (first-time graduation)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Icel
and1
Aust
ralia
1
New
Zea
land
1
Finl
and1
Pola
nd1
Den
mar
k1
Net
herl
ands
1
Nor
way
1
Swed
en1
Italy
Irel
and
Uni
ted
King
dom
1
Japa
n
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Isra
el
Uni
ted
Stat
es
EU19
ave
rage
Cana
da1,
2
Slov
ak R
epub
lic1
Port
ugal
1
Spai
n
Hun
gary
Switz
erla
nd1
Czec
h Re
publ
ic1
Aust
ria1
Ger
man
y1
Slov
enia
Gre
ece1
Turk
ey
2006 1995
1. Net graduation rate is calculated by summing the graduation rates by single year of age in 2006.2. Year of reference 2005.Countries are ranked in descending order of the graduation rates for tertiary-type A education in 2006.Source: OECD. Table A3.2 See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008 )
%
15th
2nd
Decline in relative position of U.S. from 1995
to 2006
8
Nearly A Quarter Of Students In All NYS Two- And Four-year Institutions Of Higher Education Take Remedial Courses
New York State First-Time Students Taking Remedial Coursework
By Type of Institution, 1998-2007
24%13%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
4-Year & 2-Year 2-Year 4-Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
2-Year Institutions4-Year InstitutionsAll Institutions
Source: NYSED Administrative Data for all Public, Independent and Proprietary 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education 9
Institutions Of Higher Education Consider A Regents Exam Score of 75 to 85 The Bare Minimum For College
Readiness
Admissions directors of two- and four-year public and private colleges in the Western NY, Central NY, Hudson Valley and New York City metropolitan regions say that:– 75 to 85 on Regents exams is considered by selective
schools (as part of their holistic review of applicants) the lower threshold for admissions
– SUNY campuses use 85 as a mark of solid competence; below 75 is a mark of “inadequately prepared”
– 75 on Regents exams is a threshold for placement in remediation for CUNY
– 75 on Regents is considered roughly equivalent to a 500 on the SAT and serves as a threshold for remediation
Admissions directors of two- and four-year public and private colleges in the Western NY, Central NY, Hudson Valley and New York City metropolitan regions say that:– 75 to 85 on Regents exams is considered by selective
schools (as part of their holistic review of applicants) the lower threshold for admissions
– SUNY campuses use 85 as a mark of solid competence; below 75 is a mark of “inadequately prepared”
– 75 on Regents exams is a threshold for placement in remediation for CUNY
– 75 on Regents is considered roughly equivalent to a 500 on the SAT and serves as a threshold for remediation
10
Students who score below an 80 on their Math Regents have a much greater likelihood of being placed in a
remedial college course
ArithmeticElementary
AlgebraIntermediate
Algebra**College Algebra
Pre-Calculus
Calculus
Less than 55 68.3% 29.7% 0.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
55 to 64.9 61.4% 33.7% 0.6% 3.2% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0%
65 to 69.9 38.9% 44.7% 1.8% 8.0% 4.8% 1.8% 0.7%
70 to 79.9 14.7% 24.6% 5.9% 23.5% 21.3% 8.1% 1.8%
80 to 89.9 0.8% 2.8% 4.3% 17.3% 30.6% 32.3% 12.0%
Above 90 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 3.4% 12.7% 39.2% 44.2%
**Intermediate Algebra is considered a remedial course in some schools in the CUNY system and a credit-bearing course in others.
Totals sum to 100 percent along rows, but not down columns.
Source: CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, Math A Regents; all CUNY 2- and 4-year institutions
11
12
Students who score above an 80 on their Regents exam have a good chance of earning at least a C in college-level math
12Source: CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment; all CUNY 2- and 4-year institutions
Students At The Former Level 3 Proficiency Standard On Their 8th Grade Math Exam Had Less Than a 1 in 3 Chance of
Earning an 80 On Their Math Regents
Source: NYSED Administrative Data, Math A Regents, 2006-2010 Cohort 13
Current cut score of 650
gives students 30% chance of scoring 80 on
Regents
Current cut score of 650
gives students 30% chance of scoring 80 on
Regents
Students In High-Needs Districts At The Former Level 3 Proficiency Standard On Their 8th Grade ELA Exam Had About A 50-50 Chance Of Earning A 75 On Their ELA
Regents
Source: NYSED Administrative Data, English Regents, 2006-2010 Cohort 14
Current cut score of 650 gives
students in high needs districts 57% chance of scoring 75 on
Regents
Current cut score of 650 gives
students in high needs districts 57% chance of scoring 75 on
Regents
Since 2006, New York’s 8th Grade Students Had Improved Substantially On The State Math Test, But Their Performance On The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Had Remained Nearly Flat
15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Ch
an
ge i
n S
Ds
NYS_Public NY NAEP_Public
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005-2009 Mathematics Assessments. NYSED Administrative Data
Possible Reasons For This Divergence Include:
• Increased learning by students on content tested by state assessments
• Instruction focused on narrow strands of content that appear on the state tests
• Differences between what the state assessments and the NAEP measure
• Technical issues in equating scores from year to year
• Increased learning by students on content tested by state assessments
• Instruction focused on narrow strands of content that appear on the state tests
• Differences between what the state assessments and the NAEP measure
• Technical issues in equating scores from year to year
16
17
GradeMath ELA
8 673 658
7 670 664
6 674 662
5 674 666
4 676 668
3 684 662
Grade 3-8 Proficiency Cut scores have been raised from the 650 that was in place in the
past.
Improving The State Assessments Year By Year
• 2010– Raised cut scores for Level 2 and Level 3 Proficiency– Included 25 to 30 percent more tested performance
indicators on the math assessment– Added audit items
• 2011-2013– Increase number of items on the Math and ELA tests– Test more new performance indicators– Make test items more difficult to predict– Improve quality of ELA Regents exam
• 2014-2015– Use the Common Core Assessments
• 2010– Raised cut scores for Level 2 and Level 3 Proficiency– Included 25 to 30 percent more tested performance
indicators on the math assessment– Added audit items
• 2011-2013– Increase number of items on the Math and ELA tests– Test more new performance indicators– Make test items more difficult to predict– Improve quality of ELA Regents exam
• 2014-2015– Use the Common Core Assessments
18
19
Changes in Grade 3-8 ELA and math test administration
Time Adjusted Grade 3-8 ELA and math cut scores
SWDs and AYP: Sunset of USED’s 34 point flexibility; Declassified Students in Subgroup for 2 Additional Years
New Graduation Rate Goal and Targets
Accountability Changes: 2009-10
20
Schools Identified for Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring in 2009-2010
Improvement Status NYC Rest of State Total
Improvement (year 1) - Basic 34 42 76
Improvement (year 1) - Focused 2 7 9
Improvement (year 1) - Comprehensive 13 4 17
Improvement (year 2) - Basic 23 29 52
Improvement (year 2) - Focused 5 3 8
Improvement (year 2) - Comprehensive 12 5 17
Corrective Action (year 1) - Focused 16 17 33
Corrective Action (year 1) - Comprehensive 6 4 10
Corrective Action (year 2) - Focused 17 14 31
Corrective Action (year 2) - Comprehensive 3 0 3
Restructuring (year 1) - Focused 20 14 34
Restructuring (year 1) - Comprehensive 8 14 22
Restructuring (year 2) - Focused 26 13 39
Restructuring (year 2) - Comprehensive 7 5 12
Restructuring (Advanced) - Focused 64 13 77
Restructuring (Advanced) - Comprehensive 41 18 59
TOTAL 297 202 499
• How do we address the potential large increase in schools and districts not making AYP?– Increase student performance?– Reset Annual Measurable Objectives?– Have approved a growth model that allows a significant
percentage of schools and districts to make AYP?
Issues for 2010-11 Accountability
21
NYSED Growth Model: Draft Working Principles
22
Growth shall be measured in terms of growth to standards and percentile growth across a minimum of two points in time ( i.e., comparing a student to all other students in the State who have comparable assessment histories).
For purposes of school and district accountability, no factors other than a student’s assessment history should be the basis of making a determination regarding the student’s performance in relationship to growth.
The model shall only utilize such data as is collected through State data collection processes to make a growth determination.
The growth model shall be designed to make its first growth determinations using 2011-12 school year results for English language arts and mathematics in grades 4-8.
The growth model shall be designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 that require that such growth model be one that is determined by external experts in educational testing and measurement to be valid, reliable and in accordance with established standards for educational and psychological testing.
The growth model shall be designed so that it can be integrated into NY’s ESEA accountability system.
The growth model shall be designed to inform determinations regarding teacher and principal effectiveness based on student growth beginning with ELA and math results in grades 4-8 in 2011-12.
NYSED Growth Model: Draft Working Principles
231
The model shall be sufficiently flexible so as to remain valid and reliable as NY’s assessment program is modified over time.
The model shall use an “open architecture.” The methodology used to calculate growth should be transparent.
The model shall be able to measure growth for all students, including those who perform at the low basic and high advanced levels.
The model should address key design issues, such as students who take alternative assessments and students who have been taught by more than one teacher during the school year.
To the maximum extent, consistent with good psychometric practice, a student’s entire state assessment history should be used to determine a students’ growth performance.
The growth model shall be extended to include measures of growth for students at the high school level in, at a minimum, ELA and math beginning with 2012-13 school year results.
24
Growth Percentile: An Example
Starting proficiency
Nex
t ye
ar’s
pro
fici
ency
L 3
L 2L 3
• What should be the graduation goal and progress target for high school graduation rate beginning with 2011-12 school year results to reflect:– New federal graduation rate definition– AYP graduation rate accountability based on
disaggregated groups– Use of five year extended graduation rate?
Issues for 2010-11 Accountability
25
• How should student growth be measured for purposes of teacher and principal evaluation:– Grade 4-8 ELA and math teachers and their principals beginning with the
2011-12 school year results;– All other teachers and principals beginning with 2012-13 school year results:
• Teachers with one state assessment• Teachers of grade three and below• Teachers of other subjects and grades
• Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness:– Charged to advise NYSED on implementing regulations for §3012-c – Membership: 1/3 Teachers, 1/3 Principals, 1/3 stakeholders– Preliminary recommendations to Board scheduled for January 2011,
with recommendations for 1st phase in Spring 2011
Issues for 2010-11 Accountability
26
– Purposes: Improve Accountability and Teaching and Learning by measuring students’ college and career readiness. Students meeting the standards will be eligible for placement in college courses without remediation.
– Assessment results should:• Be comparable across states• Meet internationally rigorous benchmarks• Assess student growth over time
– Results should:• Inform decisions about promotion and graduation• Teacher and leader evaluations• School and district accountability
– Design should include:• End of year component• Through course periodic components• Computer Based Testing and Innovative Items Types• Common Performance Levels and Growth Measures• Released Items and Item Analysis• Model Instructional Supports• Comparable testing conditions and accommodations
– Design should consider development of K-2 Assessments
Assessment of Readiness for College and Career: Guiding Principles
27
And… on the horizon
• Re-authorization of the Elementary, Secondary Education Act
• Continuing Fiscal Challenges
28
Key NYSED DeliverablesKey NYSED Deliverables2011-12
Training on implementation of Common Core Standards for ELA and Math Implementation and training of school-based Inquiry Teams Training on implementation of new performance evaluations for teachers and principals in
ELA and Math
TodayToday – Measuring the impact of delivery to teachersTomorrowTomorrow – Measuring the impact on student achievement
2012-13 Training on access and use of Early Warning Data System Training on access and use of Instructional Improvement Reporting System Training on implementation of ELA and Math curriculum models aligned with Common Core Training on use of ELA and Math formative assessments aligned with Common Core Implement new performance evaluations for all remaining teachers and principals
2013-14 Training for implementation of curriculum models for science, social studies and arts Training on use of formative assessments in science, social studies and arts Implement performance evaluations for all teachers and principals utilizing the State- developed value-added growth model
2014-15 Training for implementation of PARCC summative assessments in ELA and Math
30
Additional Questions
Contact: Ira SchwartzAssistant Commissioner for Accountability
718 722-2796