accountability update: top-to-bottom
DESCRIPTION
Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom. Alexander Schwarz Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research and Evaluation Michigan Department of Education. Top-to-Bottom (TTB) List. Used as measure of accountability U.S. Department of Education - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Alexander SchwarzOffice of Psychometrics, Accountability,
Research and EvaluationMichigan Department of Education
Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom
![Page 2: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Used as measure of accountability U.S. Department of Education
Schools ranked from 99 to 0 on student performance
Schools held accountable:AchievementImprovementAchievement GapGraduation (high schools only)
Top-to-Bottom (TTB) List
![Page 3: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Reward: highest performing, greatest progress, Beating-the-Odds (BTO) schools
Focus: largest achievement gaps
Priority: lowest performing schools
Top-to-Bottom Ranking
![Page 4: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
•Highest four, five, or six year graduation rate used
• z-score values are capped to -2 and +2
• Scorecard performance impacts Top-To-Bottom Priority and Focus categories
Top-to-Bottom Changes in 2013
![Page 5: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Each component applies to each subject for a school:• Achievement• Improvement in achievement over time• Achievement gap measure between top scoring
30% of students versus the bottom scoring 30% of students
Individual components tell schools something about their overall performance and can be used for diagnostic purposes
Components of TTB
![Page 6: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Schools with 30 or more full academic year (FAY) students in the two most recent years in at least two state-tested content areas Some schools do not receive a ranking if they:• Have too few FAY students• Only have one year of data• Have a grade span that does not include two
tested areas
Which schools receive a ranking?
![Page 7: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
• For Mathematics and Reading in grades 3-8, testing every year allows us to calculate improvement in achievement based upon individual student performance level change
• All other subjects and grades use a slope calculation based upon cohorts of students
Grade Span Difference
![Page 8: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
• A school must change by four or more grades in order to get a new code
Example: A K-2 building becoming a K-6 buildingNew codes are NOT granted when a school is
reopened as a charter, for example
• If not, the school retains the old code and continues to have data “point” to it from all students for whom that code is their feeder school
What about reconfigured Schools?
![Page 9: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
• z-scores are a standardized measure that help compare individual student (or school) data to the state average data (average scores across populations)
• z-scores “level the playing field” across grade levels and subjects
• Each z-score corresponds to a value in a normal distribution. A z-score will describe how much a value deviates from the mean
• z-scores are used throughout the ranking to compare a school’s value on a certain component to the average value across all schools
Why do we use z-scores?
![Page 10: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Student z-score = (Student Scale Score) – (Statewide average of scale scores)
Standard Deviation of Scale Score
School z-score=(School Value) – (Statewide average of that value)
Standard deviation of that value
z-score Summary PowerPoint and Business Rules-
http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-37818_56562---,00.html
z-Score “Cheat Sheet”
![Page 11: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
•Based upon feedback from the field
•Concern with outliers having an inordinate impact on the identification of focus schools
•Modified all student level scoresNormalize all student z-score distributionsCap all student z-score distributions at -2 on
the lower end and at +2 on the upper end
Modifications to 2012-2013 Top-to-Bottom
![Page 12: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
•Prohibit from appearing on the focus list any schools as defined by both of the following:The school’s bottom 30% group proficiency
rate is higher than the state average proficiency rate in at least two subject areas
The school’s top to bottom percentile rank is at least 75
2012-2013 Focus School Status
![Page 13: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
•Applied in 2012-2013 Accountability Cycle
•Prohibit from appearing on the focus list any schools as defined by both of the following:The school’s bottom 30% group meets the safe-
harbor requirement in all applicable subject areas as determined in the Accountability Scorecard
The school’s top to bottom percentile rank is at least 75
Good-Getting-Great
![Page 14: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
2798 Schools ranked137 Priority Schools
52 new schools85 first designated as Priority in previous
cohorts 349 Focus Schools342 Reward Schools
Overview of Ranking Results
![Page 15: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
High schools not more likely to be Priority SchoolsE/MS schools make up a higher proportion now
Percent of students in school who are LEP no strong relationship with Priority Status
Percent of students SWD related to Priority Status (as % SWD increases, so does number of Priority Schools)
Very strongly related to economic disadvantage73% of our Priority Schools in the 2013 cohort are high
economic disadvantage (over 75% of students ED) compared with 18% of the state
Also strong relationship between % minority students and Priority status; not as strong as ED
Urban schools overrepresented; rural schools underrepresented
Characteristics of Priority Schools
![Page 16: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
185 schools were Focus in 2012 and 2013164 are new to Focus in 2013173 came off the list
8 became Priority125 have no label37 are Reward3 are not ranked
Characteristics of Focus Schools
![Page 19: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
More schoolwide Title I schools identifiedMore rural schools, fewer urban schools,
more small and large schools, fewer 400-800 student schools
Fewer low ED schools, more 50-75% ED schools
Focus 2013 relative Focus 2012
![Page 20: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
•Complete TTB list of all schools and their ranking•At-A-Glance Document• Individual school look-up to see your school’s
results•Business rules by which the rankings were
calculated•Complete data file and validation file• Links to separate pages for each of Priority,
Focus and Reward schools
You can access these resources at www.mi.gov/ttb
Resources Available
![Page 21: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
• Separate pages for each of Priority, Focus and Reward schools
•At-A-Glance Documents• Powerpoints for understanding each status•Overview presentations with voice over•Documentation for supports• Look-up Tools
You can access these resources at www.mi.gov/priorityschoolswww.michigan.gov/focusschoolswww.michigan.gov/rewardschools
Resources Available
![Page 22: Accountability Update: Top-to-Bottom](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022081604/5681600d550346895dcf0c62/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
• You can also request individual assistance by calling the Office of Evaluation, Strategic Research and Accountability (OESRA) at 877-560-8378, Option 6 or emailing [email protected]
Additional Assistance