Post on 22-Feb-2016
description
transcript
2011 Top to Bottom and Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools List
Overview Briefing: MDEAugust 23, 2011
Top to Bottom (TTB) versus Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA) •Top to Bottom Ranking: Ranking of all
schools in the state, based on proficiency, improvement and achievement gap in all five tested subjects.
•PLA List: List of the schools identified as Persistently Low Achieving Schools (PLA schools) following a set of federal guidelines
Why are the lists different?Top to Bottom PLA
Subjects included MathReadingWritingScienceSocial Studies
MathReading
Graduation rate? Yes NoComponents Achievement (1/2)
Improvement (1/4)Achievement gap (1/4)
Proficiency (2/3)Improvement (1/3)
Proficiency? Uses standardized measure of student performance (z-score)
Uses proficiency levels
High achieving schools?
Calculation adjustments to avoid “ceiling effects”
No adjustment
Tiers? No tiers; all schools included
Tiers; Title I, AYP and school level considered
Why are we publishing both?•TTB Ranking
▫Includes ALL schools▫Represents MDE’s preferred methodology,
developed in collaboration with stakeholders Three rounds of public hearings Three State Board of Education presentations Referent group feedback Multiple presentations to stakeholder groups
(30+ presentations)▫Provides increased light of day for a larger
number of low-performing schools ▫Changes made to reflect feedback and
recommendations from stakeholders
Why are we publishing both?•PLA list
▫State statute ties our identification of PLA schools to the approved business rules for the School Improvement Grant program.
▫Attempted to obtain waiver from USED; waiver denied.
▫Would not approve new rules because of USED timelines
▫Must use currently approved federal rules for identification of PLA schools
Information to be published on 8.26.11Top to Bottom Ranking
PLA List
List Yes Yes
Ranking (number) Yes No
Full data file Yes Upon request from PLA schools
“Brackets” display Yes Upon request from PLA schools
Data dictionary Yes Upon request
Business rules Yes Yes
FAQ Yes Yes
Explanatory Powerpoint
Yes Yes
Z-Score “Cheat Sheet”•Z-scores are a standardized measure that
helps you compare individual student (or school) data to state average data.
Student z-score = (Student Scale Score) – (Statewide average of scale scores)
Standard Deviation of Scale ScoreSchool z-score=(School Value) – (Statewide average of that value)
Standard deviation of that value
Z-Score “Cheat Sheet”•Z-scores are centered around zero•Positive numbers mean the student or
school is above the state average•Negative numbers mean the student or
school is below the state average
0 1 2 3-1
-2
-3
State Average Better than state
average….…Worse than state
average
Z-Score Examples•Your school has a z-score of 1.5. You are
better than the state average.
0 1 2 3-1
-2
-3
State Average Better than state
average….…Worse than state
average
Z-score of 1.5
Z-Score Examples•Your school has a z-score of .2. You are
better than the state average, but not by a lot.
0 1 2 3-1
-2
-3
State Average Better than state
average….…Worse than state
average
Z-score of 1.5
Z-score of 0.2
Z-Score Examples•Your school has a z-score of -2.0. You are
very far below state average.
0 1 2 3-1
-2
-3
State Average Better than state
average….…Worse than state
average
Z-score of 1.5
Z-score of 0.2
Z-score of -2.0
TTB Overview•Prezi presentation•Will contain voiceover
•Interactive Overview of TTB Ranking
Using the “Brackets” Tool•Created a tool to help schools walk
through their own data.•Will post this on the website.•Will send this out to all of you after this
presentation so you can try it out ahead of time.
•TTB Brackets Display
Comparing PLA and TTB
Number of Schools IdentifiedList Number
of Schools
2011 PLA List 982010 PLA list 92Lowest 5% of Top to Bottom
151
Comparison of 2010 and 2011 PLA Lists
Comparison NumberOn both PLA 2010 and PLA 2011
58
New to 2011 PLA list 40 (4 of these not ranked in 2010)
On 2010 list; OFF 2011 list
34
2011 PLA List: DistrictsDistrict Information Number
Districts represented on 2011 PLA list
53
Districts represented on 2010 PLA list
48
Number of Detroit schools (2011)
38
Number of Detroit schools (2010)
40
Comparison: PLA and Lowest 5%
Comparison NumberPLA 2011 AND Lowest 5% TTB
48
Schools on 2011 PLA list who would NOT be identified in Lowest 5%
50
Schools in lowest 5% who are not in 2011 PLA list
103
On 2011 PLA; Not on Lowest 5%•Highest rank of these schools: 64th
percentile (University High)•Lowest rank: 5th percentile
Understanding University High2011 PLA Lowest 5%
Subjects included Reading and math only
Reading, math, science, social studies, writing
High performance subjects
Math MathSocial studiesGraduation rate
Lower performing subjects
Reading ScienceSocial StudiesWriting
Achievement gaps -- Small gaps; helps ranking
Tiers? Tier 2 (high schools only, Title I eligible, fail AYP)
No tiers
Calculations Percent proficient and improvement disadvantages UP
Z-scores help UP, as do achievement gaps
Common Concerns
Why are some schools on the PLA list but ranked higher than 5th percentile in TTB?•Differences in ranking methodology; most
significantly:▫Only math and reading in PLA rules; all five
subjects in TTB.▫Graduation rate in TTB ranking
•Tiers used in PLA▫Tier 1: Receiving Title I, failing AYP▫Tier 2: Eligible for Title I, secondary school
Are you comparing “apples to apples?”•Improvements in TTB to ensure we are
comparing students and schools more equally▫Translating student scale scores into z-
scores instead of into performance levels; compares students to like students.
▫Z-scores on school measures compare elementary/middle schools to other elementary/middle schools, and high schools to other high schools.
High-performing schools are disadvantaged by the ranking•Included “ceiling effects” provisions
▫Schools with over 90% of students proficient are ranked on achievement and gap only
▫Students who are previously proficient who maintain are counted as improving
▫Graduation rate over 90%; do not look at improvement, only rate.
The inclusion of achievement gap hurts high performing schools•High performing schools who do not
ensure all students are high-performing will have their ranking impacted
•Only ¼ of final ranking•Don’t want to decrease proficiency to
improve gap because achievement is ½ of ranking
•Need to get serious about making sure all students are learning
This system is too complex and hard to understand•Capturing school performance requires a
nuanced system.• Complexity does not decrease transparency
▫ Transparency does not equal simplicity▫ Transparency does equal the ability for external verification▫ Transparency includes providing details on the system’s
complexity• Complexity of the model has been added at the request
of the field and experts to more appropriately capture school performance
• MDE will support the transparency through professional learning, technical assistance, and open access to data
Questions? Concerns?What are we missing for the release plans? What additional information would you like to have available for internal usage?