Upload
preston-anthony
View
217
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
2013-2014 Up to 16 Measures
2014-2015 Up to 17 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
Report Card Components
Gap ClosingAnnual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
ProgressValue-Added Overall, Gifted, Lowest 20% and Students with Disabilities
Report Card Components
K-3 LiteracyK-3 Literacy Improvement
Report Card Components
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
Data
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%
NA
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%
NA 34
State Indicators – 75% Proficient
60%15%
11%
8%6%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
9%
4% 4
%
12%
72%
Community Schools
54%
12%
7%
7%
21%
Traditional Build-ings
State Indicators
2013-2014 Report Card
Change in Law
State Indicators – 80% 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
Data
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%
NA
State Indicators
Letter Grade
State Indicators
Percentage
Traditional Buildings Based
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
Community Schools Based on
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%
NA 34
State Indicators – 80% Proficient
40%
14%
18%
15%
13%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
6%2% 4
%
10%
79%
Community Schools
41%
10%8%
11%
29%
Traditional Build-ings
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
Grade
Performance Index
Percentage
School Districts Based on 2012
Data
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%
NA
Performance Index Letter
Grade
Performance Index
Percentage
Traditional Buildings Based
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 Letter
Grade
Performance Index
Percentage
Community Schools Based on
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%
NA 24
Performance Index
5%
73%
19%
3%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
1%
12%
28%
52%
7%
Community Schools
7%
60%
21%
12%
1%
Traditional Build-ings
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
AMOsC
Value-Added: All Students
B
Achievement
DProgress
B
GradRate
C
K-3 Literacy
B
AMOs
C
Prep for Success
B
Overall Grade
C
Indicators
BPI
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
B
GradRate
C
K-3 Literacy
B
AMOs
C
Prep for Success
B
“Safe Harbor” Overall Grade
B
Indicators
B“Safe Harbor” PI
B
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
School Districts Based on 2012
Data
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
Traditional Buildings Based
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
Community Schools Based on
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%
4 Year Graduation Rate
40%
28%
18%
7%
6%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
2% 2%5% 2
%
89%
Community Schools
37%
26%
17%
8%
13%
Traditional Build-ings
5 Year Graduation Rate
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
School Districts Based on 2012
Data
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
Traditional Buildings Based
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
Community Schools Based on
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%
5 Year Graduation Rate
25%
40%
20%
9%
6%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
4% 2%4%
9%
80%
Community Schools
23%
37%
18%
9%
12%
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
School Districts Based on 2012
Data
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
Traditional Buildings Based
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
Community Schools Based on
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%
AMOs
5%
34%
23%
14%
25%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
13%
6%3%3%
74%
Community Schools
26%
17%
10%10%
38%
Traditional Build-ings
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
Grade
Value Added: Overall Gain
Index
School Districts Based on 2012
Data
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%
NA 3
Value-Added: OverallValue Added: Overall Letter
Grade
Value Added: Overall Gain
Index
Traditional Buildings Based
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
Value-Added: OverallValue Added: Overall Letter
Grade
Value Added: Overall Gain
Index
Community Schools Based on
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%
NA 40
Value-Added: Overall
35%
14%25%
10%
15%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
25%
13%
28%
13%
22%
Community Schools
30%
14%28%
9%
18%
Traditional Build-ings
Value-Added: Gifted Students
Value Added: Gifted Letter
Grade
Value Added: Gifted Gain
Index
School Districts Based on 2012
Data
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%
NA 36
Value Added: Gifted Letter
Grade
Value Added: Gifted Gain
Index
Traditional Buildings Based
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
Value Added: Gifted Letter
Grade
Value Added: Gifted Gain
Index
Community Schools Based on
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
14%
16%
48%
15%
7%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
50%50%
Community Schools
13%
17%
46%
14%
10%
Traditional Build-ings
Value-Added: Lowest 20% in Achievement
Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade
Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index
School Districts Based on 2012
Data
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
Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade
Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index
Traditional Buildings Based
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
Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade
Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index
Community Schools Based on
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%
NA 57
Value-Added: Lowest 20%
18%
15%
45%
11%
11%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
21%
16%
35%
14%
14%
Community Schools
13%
18%
48%
13%
9%
Traditional Build-ings
Value-Added: Students with
Disabilities
Value Added: Students with
Disabilities Letter Grade
Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index
School Districts Based on 2012
Data
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%
NA 25
Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade
Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index
Traditional Buildings Based
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
Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index
Community Schools Based on
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
19%
18%39%
13%
8%
Schools Districts
A B C D F
14%
14%
46%
12%
14%
Community Schools
14%
18%
48%
12%
8%
Traditional Build-ings
Questions?
K- 3 Literacy
Tom Gunlock
2013-2014 – Measure Graded
2014-2015 – Component Graded
2013-2014 – Measures Reported
2014-2015 – Component Graded
Prepared for Success
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
4 Year Graduation Rate
5 Year Graduation Rate
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
LRC Rollout TimelineAugust 2014
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
LRC Rollout TimelineAugust 2015
Overall Grade Calculated
New Graded Components
Achievement
Progress
Gap Closing
Graduation Rate
K-3 Literacy
Prepared for Success
New Graded Measure
None
New Reported MeasureCollege & Career Ready Assessment
LRC Rollout TimelineAugust 2016
Overall Grade Calculated
New Graded Measure
Value-Added: High School
New Reported MeasureNone
New Graded ComponentNone
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
2013
Add benchmark for 1 additional indicator
Prescribe Overall Rating Designation (not to be used until 2015)
2014
Graduation Rates:4 Year Graduation Rate 5 Year Graduation Rate6 Year Graduation Rate7 Year Graduation Rate8 Year Graduation Rate
2013 RuleReport Card Indicator Benchmarks
2013 RuleReport Card Indicator Benchmarks
High School Assessment Passage
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
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
Texas
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%
Does Not Meet Standards
0% - 11.9% 18 25.4%
Total 71 100.1%
DOPR Ratings
6, 7, 8 Year Graduation
Rate Benchmarks
Schools Based on 2011 Data
Count Percentage
Exceeds Standards
39% - 100% Not Available
Not Available
Meets Standards 12% - 38.9% Not Available
Not Available
Does Not Meet Standards
0% - 11.9% Not Available
Not Available
High School Assessment
Passage
DOPR Ratings
High School Assessment
Passage RateBenchmarks
Schools Based on 2012 Data
Count Percentage
Exceeds Standards
59% - 100% 22 25.9%
Meets Standards 18% - 58.9% 41 48.2%
Does Not Meet Standards
0% - 17.9% 22 25.9%
Total 85 100.0%
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
DOPR Ratings
AMOBenchmarks
SchoolsBased on 2012 Data
Count Percentage
Exceeds Standards
33% - 100% 4 25.0%
Meets Standards 5% - 32.9% 8 50.0%
Does Not Meet Standards
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