Mississippi Statewide Accountability System

1
Mississippi Statewide Accountability System

• Adequate Yearly Progress Model
• Improving Mississippi Schools Conference
• June 11-13, 2003
• Mississippi Department of Education
• Innovation and School Improvement

2
Mississippi Statewide Accountability System

• Steve Hebbler, Director
• Office of Research and Statistics
• shebbler_at_mde.k12.ms.us
• Kris Kaase, Director
• Office of Student Assessment
• kkaase_at_mde.k12.ms.us

3
Statewide Accountability SystemSchool Districts
Accreditation Status
Annual Accountability Designation
AYP Model
4
Statewide Accountability SystemSchools
Achievement Model
School Performance Classification
Growth Model
Annual Accountability Designation
AYP Model
5
Which Students Must Be Assessed?

• All eligible students are required to be assessed
  under
• Mississippi Public School Accountability
  Standards 2001
• MS Code 37-16-3 1972 Annotated
• P.L. 107-110 Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)

6
What does assess all students mean?

• Students in grades 2-8 in reading, language, and
  mathematics
• Non-graded students ages 7-15 (age on September
  1)
• Students enrolled in Algebra I and English II
• Students required to take the Biology I test,
  U.S. History test, or FLE for graduation
• Students enrolled in vocational programs in
  whichnon-disabled students are tested
• Exemption for LEP students in their first or
  second year in a U.S. school without sufficient
  English language proficiency in effect for Spring
  2003 only

7
What about the 95 rule?

• 95 is the minimum participation rate in
  assessments required under AYP.
• The rule acknowledges that even with scheduled
  and make-up test administrations there will be
  some unusual circumstances in which students are
  not assessed despite every effort.

8
Which Students Determine the Participation Rate?

• Denominator
• Students enrolled in the grade level or course in
  the 8th month.
• Non-graded students ages 7-15 (age on September
  1).
• Numerator
• Students that took a MCT, Instructional Level
  Test, or Subject Area Test whose score was not
  excluded.
• Students that took an alternate assessment.

9
Which Students Determine the Participation Rate?

• The appeals process plus a new MSIS ID
  verification/correction process developed in
  spring 2003 provide ways for schools and
  districts to detect data problems resulting from
  incorrectly coded MSIS ID numbers and to provide
  corrected information to MDE to insure accurate
  participation rates.

10
Which Students Determine the Participation Rate?

• Special Rules for Algebra I
• Required because achievement has to be counted at
  the grades 10-12 level
• Denominator
• Students enrolled in the 10th grade level
• Numerator
• Students that took the Algebra I test in 10th
  grade that school year
• Students that took the Algebra I test at any time
  prior to their enrollment in 10th grade at any
  school in the state (first test score will be
  used for school accountability)

11
Which Students Determine the Participation Rate?

• Special Rules for Algebra I 2002-03 Only
• Required because testing of all students enrolled
  in Algebra I for the first time has not been
  required previously
• Denominator
• Students in the 10th grade enrolled in Algebra I
  for the first time
• Numerator
• Students that took the Algebra I test at 10th
  grade

12
Which Students Determine the Participation Rate?
13
Students Included for Accountability
(Achievement, Growth, AYP)

• Spring Testing Data (MCT and Traditional Schedule
  SATP)
• If Students End of Month 8 School Same School
  on 6 of the 7 Earlier End of Month Records (Month
  1 through Month 7) the student is included.
  (Represents 75 of instructional time)
• If Students End of Month 7 School Same School
  on all 6 of the Earlier End of Month Records
  (Months 1 through 6) the student is included.
  (Represents 75 of instructional time)
• Fall Testing Data (SATP Semester/Block Schedule)
• If Students End of Month 3 School Same School
  on End of Month 1 and End of Month 2 Records the
  student is included. (Represents 67 of
  instructional time)
• Spring Testing Data (SATP Semester/Block
  Schedule)
• If Students End of Month 8 School Same School
  on End of Month 5, 6, and 7 Records the student
  is included. (Represents 75 of instructional
  time)

14
Students Included in Accountability/Proficiency
Determination
15
How Many Students?

• Minimum Number of Students (4 definitions for 4
  purposes)
• Minimum Number for Reporting 10
• Minimum Number for Achievement Model No Minimum
• Minimum Number for Growth Model 10
• Minimum Number for AYP Model 40 in the AYP
  group summed across the grades represented in the
  school (determined separately for
  reading/language and mathematics)

16
AYP Groups

• There are nine groups for which Adequate Yearly
  Progress is measured.
• All Students
• Students with Disabilities
• Economically Disadvantaged Students
• Limited English Proficient Students
• Asian Students
• Black Students
• Hispanic Students
• Native American Students
• White Students

17
AYP Groups
18
AYP Groups

• All students will be included in at least one
  group, and some students could be included in as
  many as five groups!
• Schools will want to make sure that they are
  aware of Students in Overlapping Categories
  (SOCs).
• The minimum number of students for AYP model must
  be met for the group to be included (40,
  separately for reading/language and mathematics).

19
AYP Goals (Example)
The 2002-03 AYP goal for all nine student groups
in all schools, districts, and the state is to
have 61 of students or more scoring at or above
Proficient on the grade 3 Reading MCT. This goal
is also called the annual measurable objective.
20
AYP Goals (Example)
Setting the starting point for AYP Goals as
required by NCLB
Percent Proficient
Number of Students
Cumulative Number
20th percentile of state total in the grade and
subject
83 74 27 ? ? ? 16 39 54
61.4 61.4 61.2 ? ? ? 31.3 30.8 29.6
6,677 6,751 6,834 ? ? ? 109 93 54
21
AYP Goals (Example)
The percent of students scoring at or above
Proficient for each grade is compared to the
goal. The comparisons for each grade are then
combined for all grades across the school (or
district) using a weighted index.
22
AYP Goals (Example)
For the first two years of implementation, the
AYP goal is the same. Beginning in 2004-05 the
goal increases to a new level for three years.
The goal increases again in 2007-08, 2010-11, and
2013-14.
23
AYP Goals (Example)
24
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Example Mathematics
• K-5 School
• Hispanic/Latino Students - Number of Students
  Tested and Percent Proficient in Mathematics

25
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 1. Compare the actual percent of students
  proficient or above to the AYP goal.

26
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 2. Calculate the weight of each grade level
  group (so that groups are counted equitably
  toward the calculation of the proficiency index).

27
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 3. Calculate the proficiency index by
  multiplying the difference between the actual
  percent of students proficient or above and the
  AYP goal times the weight, and then sum.

In this example, the group met the proficiency
goal, also called the annual measurable objective.
28
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Example - Reading/Language
• K-5 School
• Hispanic/Latino Students - Number of Students
  Tested and Percent Proficient in Reading and
  Language

29
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 1. Compare the actual percent of students
  proficient or above to the AYP goal for Reading.

30
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 1. Compare the actual percent of students
  proficient or above to the AYP goal for Language.

31
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 2. Calculate the weight of each grade level
  group (so that groups are counted equitably
  toward the calculation of the proficiency index).

32
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 3. Calculate the proficiency index by
  multiplying the difference between the actual
  percent of students proficient or above and the
  AYP goal times the weight, calculate the weighted
  average of Reading and Language, and then sum.
• Reading

33
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 3. Calculate the proficiency index by
  multiplying the difference between the actual
  percent of students proficient or above and the
  AYP goal times the weight, calculate the weighted
  average of Reading and Language, and then sum.
• Language

34
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 3. Calculate the proficiency index by
  multiplying the difference between the actual
  percent of students proficient or above and the
  AYP goal times the weight, calculate the weighted
  average of Reading and Language, and then sum.

In this example, the group did not meet the
proficiency goal, also called the annual
measurable objective.
35
How Do You Calculate Proficiency?

• Step 3. Calculate the proficiency index by
  multiplying the difference between the actual
  percent of students proficient or above and the
  AYP goal times the weight, calculate the weighted
  average of Reading and Language, and then sum.
• Example of Calculating a Weighted Average
• for Reading and Language
• Grade 4 Example

36
AYP Model

• The following decisions must be made separately
  in reading/language arts and mathematics for each
  of the AYP groups represented in the school and
  school district.
• 1. Does the AYP group meet the minimum number of
  students?
• A. If No, then group is not included in AYP.
• B. If Yes, go to step 2.
• 2. Were at least 95 of the students in the AYP
  group tested?
• A. If No, then group did not meet AYP standard.
• B. If Yes, then go to step 3.

37
AYP Model (continued)

• 3. Is the percent of students proficient in the
  AYP group at or above the annual measurable
  objective?
• A. If No, go to step 4.
• B. If Yes, is the group All Students?
• 1) If No, the group met AYP.
• 2) If Yes, go to step 5.

38
Step 3. Was the Annual Measurable Objective Met
for the Group?
39
AYP Model (continued)

• 4. Did the proficiency index increase by 10
  compared to the proficiency index value for the
  previous year?
• A. If No, the group did not meet AYP.
• B. If Yes, go to step 5.

40
Step 4. Did the Proficiency Index Increase
Compared to the Previous Year?
41
AYP Model (continued)

• 5. Did the group improve on the other academic
  indicator(s)?
• For schools with grades 3-8, the other academic
  indicator is the growth index (met level).
• For high schools, the other academic indicator is
  the graduation rate (required by NCLB beginning
  in 2004-05).
• A. If No, the group did not meet AYP.
• B. If Yes, the group met AYP.

42
Step 5. Other Academic Indicators
43
AYP Model (continued)

• 6. Did all the AYP groups that met the criterion
  for inclusion in the model meet the AYP standard?
• A. If No, then the school or school district did
  not meet AYP.
• B. If Yes, then the school or school district
  met AYP.

44
Step 6. Did the School/District Meet AYP?
45
Graduation Rate Indicator

• Graduation Rate Indicator 4-Year Graduation
  Rate
• The graduation rate goal has not been set.
• Graduation Rate Indicator will be lagged one year
  (e.g., 2002-03 results will use 2001-02
  graduation rate)
• Graduation Rate will be used for the All Students
  group only, until individual students can be
  tracked and graduation rates for each of the
  other groups can be calculated (tentatively
  2004-05).
• For the disaggregated groups in high schools, the
  growth index will be used as the other academic
  indicator until graduation rates are available OR
  a one year graduation rate will be used. MDE
  will select one of these to implement (the one
  that is most beneficial).

46
AYP Model for Schools with No Data

• For (approximately 38) public schools with no
  accountability assessment data, the AYP decision
  will be based on feeder patterns.
• The AYP decision will be derived using assessment
  data from the lowest accountability grade level
  in the school receiving the students.
• For a K-1 or K-2 school, for example, AYP will be
  determined using the grade 3 assessment data at
  the receiving school.

47
Tentative Dates for Statewide Accountability
Model
48
Tentative Dates for Statewide Accountability
Model (continued)
49
Assessment of Students with Disabilities

• Fall 2002
• Districts informed that NCLB may require
  assessing all students with disabilities using an
  assessment based on students grade
  classification rather than instructional level
• Districts told to continue assessment of students
  with disabilities under existing guidelines until
  MDE received further clarification from the USDE
  (regional administrators meetings)

50
Assessment of Students with Disabilities

• December 2002
• Preliminary review of state accountability plan
  with USDE USDE says MDE cannot count
  instructional level or alternate assessments as
  proficient.
• January 2003
• Formal review of state accountability plan with
  USDE
• Plan allows for continued use of instructional
  level and alternate assessments

51
Assessment of Students with Disabilities

• January 2003 (continued)
• Students taking instructional level or alternate
  assessments will be counted as Not Proficient
  for purposes of determining Adequate Yearly
  Progress (AYP) (see January 31 memo from Offices
  of Special Education and Student Assessment)

52
Assessment of Students with Disabilities

• March 2003
• MDE requests permission to count students taking
  instructional level assessments according to
  their proficiency level for two years to allow
  school districts time to adjust to requirements
  of NCLB. After two years, students assessed on
  instructional level would be counted as not
  proficient.

53
Assessment of Students with Disabilities

• March 2003
• USDE issues proposed rule to allow the use of an
  alternate achievement standard for
  severe/profound cognitively disabled students
  (students three standard deviations below in IQ
  and adaptive behavior).

54
Assessment of Students with Disabilities

• Do not confuse rules for students with
  disabilities under AYP model with achievement and
  growth models.
• Achievement model - students assessed with
  instructional level test or alternate assessment
  are included.
• Growth model - only students taking a standard
  test (with or without accommodations) are
  included.