Massachusetts school performance rating process cycle ii information session
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 16

Massachusetts School Performance Rating Process Cycle II Information Session PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 55 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Massachusetts School Performance Rating Process Cycle II Information Session. Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability and Targeted Assistance October 31, 2002. ESEA Accountability Provisions “No Child Left Behind”.

Download Presentation

Massachusetts School Performance Rating Process Cycle II Information Session

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Massachusetts school performance rating process cycle ii information session

Massachusetts School Performance Rating ProcessCycle II Information Session

Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner

Accountability and Targeted Assistance

October 31, 2002


Esea accountability provisions no child left behind

ESEA Accountability Provisions“No Child Left Behind”

  • Single State system for state, district and school performance review -- all schools

  • Student assessment results as primary indicator

  • 12 year goal -- All students proficient in ELA and mathematics

  • Standards set by State for assessing Adequate Yearly Progress (“AYP”) toward achieving 12 year goal.

  • Performance goals must be met for students in aggregate and for student subgroups; 95% participation required

  • At least one additional indicator required --graduation rate mandatory for high schools; state to decide for elementary/middle schools


Changes to school performance rating process cycle ii

Cycle II

ELA and Math

No “Overall” Ratings

Performance categories defined by proficiency index bands

Improvement measured using “proficiency index”

Improvement target based on 14 years to get all students to scaled score of 240 or higher

Improvement ratings:

Declined, No Change, Improved Below Target, On Target, Above Target

Cycle I

ELA, Math & Science

Subject and “Overall” Ratings

Performance categories defined by % Failing; % Proficient/Advanced

Improvement measured using averaged scaled scores

Improvement expectation calculated based on 20 years to reach average scaled score of 270

Improvement ratings:

Failed to Meet, Approached, Met, or Exceeded improvement expectations

Changes to School Performance Rating Process, Cycle II


Proficiency index measures how close a school is to all students being proficient advanced

Proficiency Index Measures How Close A School Is To All Students Being Proficient/Advanced

Advanced

260

100 points

Proficient

Target For AllStudents

240

75 points

Needs Improvement

50 points

220

25 points

Failing/Warning

0 points

200


Performance ratings

Performance Ratings

RatingProficiency Index

Very High90 - 100

High80 - 89.9

Moderate70 - 79.9

Low60 - 69.9

Very Low40 - 59.9

Critically Low 0 - 39.9


Massachusetts school performance rating process cycle ii information session

Massachusetts Performance Targets

for ELA and Mathematics 2002 - 2014


Massachusetts state performance targets for cycle ii

Proficiency Index

English Language Arts

Mathematics

70.7

53.0

Massachusetts State Performance Targets for Cycle II


Determining your improvement target for cycle ii

100 (Goal) - 51 (Baseline PI)

7 (# of cycles, 2001-2014)

7 Points (Improvement Target for Cycle II)

=

Determining Your Improvement Target for Cycle II

Target to be achieved is a two year average. If you improved by 7 points in 2001 you had to sustain that improvement in 2002. If you improved by less than 7 points in 2001, you had to increase by more than 7 in the second year to have an average gain of 7 points over the two year cycle.


Massachusetts school performance rating process cycle ii information session

Calculating Cycle II Improvement Targets(Close gap between Baseline Proficiency Index and 100 by 1/7th)

Baseline PI of 51.0

Improvement Target is 7.0 points


Improvement ratings

Improvement Ratings

RatingCriteria

Above TargetTarget +2.6 < points

On TargetTarget +/- 2.5 points

Improved Below TargetBelow On Target

Above No Change

No ChangeBaseline +/- 2.5 points

DeclinedBaseline -2.6 < points


Determining improvement ratings minimum sample size of 50 students per year average

Improved Below Target

No Change

On Target

Above Target

-2.5

+2.5

-2.5

+2.5

Declined

51

48.5

53.5

55.5

58

60.5

Baseline

Target

Determining Improvement RatingsMinimum Sample Size of 50 Students Per Year/Average


Determining improvement ratings minimum sample size of 50 students per year average1

Improved Below Target

No Change

On Target

Above Target

-2.5

+2.5

-2.5

+2.5

Declined

62.5

65

67.5

70

72.5

Baseline

Target

Where two rating categories overlap, the higher rating is assigned.

Determining Improvement RatingsMinimum Sample Size of 50 Students Per Year/Average


Massachusetts school performance rating process cycle ii information session

Improved Below Target

Above Target

Declined

No Change

On Target

- 4.5

-4.5

+4.5

46.5

48.5

51

53.5

55.5

58

60.5

62.5

Baseline

Target

Determining Improvement Ratings -- Small SchoolsSchools with fewer than 50 students/year-- Individualized Computation of Standard of Error Up To Maximum Error Band of +/- 4.5


Massachusetts school performance rating process cycle ii information session

Expected Improvement Over Time

2002

2006

2008

2014

2004

2010

2012

100

Very High

90

High

80

Above Target

Moderate

70

X

On Target

Proficiency Index

Low

X

Improved, Below Target

X

60

X

No Change

Very Low

40

X

Declined

Critically Low

B

Baseline


Criteria for determining whether a school made ayp

Criteria for Determining Whether A School Made “AYP”

AYP is determined separately for ELA and mathematics.

A school is considered to have made AYP for the two years covered by Cycle II if:

  • Performance is at or above the State Performance Target for Cycle II (PI of 53 or higher for mathematics; 70.7 or higher for ELA)

    OR

  • Improvement was rated Improved Below Target, On Target, or Above Target.


  • Login