1 / 20

Focus Schools and Special Education Centers

Focus Schools and Special Education Centers. Presentation to MAASE October 10, 2012 Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. Bureau of Assessment and Accountability. Taking a Step Back: Why do we do accountability?. Three myths; one reality Myth #1: To drive reform Myth #2: To create education policy

lundy
Download Presentation

Focus Schools and Special Education Centers

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Focus Schools and Special Education Centers Presentation to MAASE October 10, 2012 Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. Bureau of Assessment and Accountability

  2. Taking a Step Back: Why do we do accountability? • Three myths; one reality • Myth #1: To drive reform • Myth #2: To create education policy • Myth #3: Because we are gluttons for punishment • Reality: • Accountability metrics/systems are quantitative articulations of the core policy beliefs of the education system • They help us measure our progress in meeting those core policy goals • They are the measure, not the purpose or the goal

  3. Accountability Landscape: 2012 • A new era of accountability • Switching from a purely criterion-based system to a normative system • Criterion-based systems: Set average proficiency targets for schools. • Normative system: identifies the “worst” or “best” or “lowest” or “highest”

  4. Why the change? Policy imperative for NCLB: all students CAN and SHOULD demonstrate proficiency  criterion-system with proficiency targets for all schools and subgroups 10 years later: our average achievement is increasing, but we still have students and schools lagging behind New policy imperative (ESEA Flex): we must target our lowest performing schools AND our lowest performing students more specifically and strategically

  5. Why Focus Schools? • Different metric  addresses a different policy goal • Policy goal  to shine new light on the lowest performing students within schools • Priority Schools = lowest performing schools overall • Focus Schools = largest within-school gaps

  6. Intersection with Policy Regarding Students With Disabilities • “All means all” • Michigan believes all students should have access to high-quality instruction and rigorous content; and that we must have high expectations for all students • So—the accountability articulation of this core policy belief is to include ALL students and ALL schools in the metrics

  7. Quick Reference for Z-Scores What is a Z-Score?

  8. Why do We Use Z Scores? Z-scores are a standardized measure that helps you compare individual student (or school) data to the state average data (average scores across populations). Z-scores allow us to “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. What do you need to know: Z-scores are used throughout the ranking to compare a school’s value on a certain component to the average value across all schools.

  9. What is a Z-Score? State Average …Worse than state average Better than state average…. 1 -3 -2 0 2 3 -1 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

  10. Z-Score Examples Z-score of 1.5 State Average …Worse than state average Better than state average…. 1 -3 -2 0 2 3 -1 Your school has a z-score of 1.5. You are better than the state average.

  11. Z-Score Examples Z-score of 0.2 Z-score of 1.5 State Average …Worse than state average Better than state average…. 1 -3 -2 0 2 3 -1 Your school has a z-score of .2. You are better than the state average, but not by a lot.

  12. Z-Score Examples Z-score of -2.0 Z-score of 0.2 Z-score of 1.5 State Average …Worse than state average Better than state average…. 1 -3 -2 0 2 3 -1 Your school has a z-score of -2.0. You are very far below state average.

  13. How do we get Standardized Scale Scores for Each Student? • Step #1: Take each student’s score on the test they took and compare that score to the statewide average for students who took that same test in the same grade and year • This creates a student-level z-score for each student in each content area • Compare • MEAP to MEAP • MEAP-Access to MEAP-Access • MME to MME • MI-Access • Participation to Participation • Supported Independence to Supported Independence • Functional Independence to Functional Independence

  14. What do we do with those standardized scores? • Step #2: Once each student has a z-score for each content area (based on the test they took), we take all of the students in a each school, and rank order the students within the school. • Z-scores will have come from different tests, and compare students to statewide average for that grade, test, and subject • But they can now be combined for the school • Step #3: Add up all z-scores and take the average. This is now the average standardized student scale score. • Step #4: Define the top and bottom 30% subgroups, based on that rank ordering.

  15. Average Z-score (average standardized student scale score): 0.28 (sum all z-scores, divide by 15)

  16. Top 30% Bottom 30%

  17. Implications for SWDs and Center Programs • Students compared only with other students who took the same assessment (Participation to Participation, etc.) • All schools treated the same • Not that center programs have a gap; but that they have some of the largest gaps • Don’t assume the bottom 30% is only one type of student; can look at student data file

  18. Final Point • The accountability system will not pick and choose between students and/or schools; it will apply the same rules to all students/schools • Accountability system does not decide when to deviate from this; core educational policy does • Need to continue to work to make sure that metrics mirror policy goals

  19. Contact Information Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. Evaluation, Research and Accountability Bureau of Assessment and Accountability keeslerv@michigan.gov or mde-accountability@michigan.gov

More Related