1 / 12

March 2019 Study Session A-F Accountability System 9-12

March 2019 Study Session A-F Accountability System 9-12. Study Session Agenda. Member Baker’s Request – Linking AzMERIT , ACT and SAT Attachment “Linking AzMERIT to ACT and SAT” Member Mak’s Request – Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement

shelly
Download Presentation

March 2019 Study Session A-F Accountability System 9-12

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. March 2019 Study Session A-F Accountability System 9-12

  2. Study Session Agenda • Member Baker’s Request – Linking AzMERIT, ACT and SAT • Attachment “Linking AzMERIT to ACT and SAT” • Member Mak’s Request – Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement • Attachment “Subgroup Growth and Gap Improvement Modeling” • Conclusions • Attachment “All Growth Approaches Summary” • Attachment “All Growth Approaches One Pager”

  3. Linking AzMERIT to ACT and SAT To address Member Baker’s request: • Joint product of work with ATAC members and the ADE • The linking is necessary to establish the groundwork for a growth measure in a Menu environment • Though test vendors are contractually required to provide a linking study, ATAC and ADE conducted this initial study following direction from SBE. Despite extensive research and analysis being conducted, ATAC and ADE strongly recommend that test vendors produce linking information to be used as the official linking study for the A-F Accountability System.

  4. Linking AzMERIT to ACT and SAT Cont. • Three researchers separately, without coordination on methodology, calculated comparisons. Results were overwhelmingly similar. • Depending on subject, 50-55% of students performed at the same performance level across assessments type. This number varies across performance levels, with level 2 (Partially Proficiency) having the lowest consistent performance at 35%-42% for Math assessments • Results raise questions not only for growth but also proficiency • Similar results to the Florida study previously shared with SBE • For more information see attachment “Linking AzMERIT to ACT and SAT”

  5. Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement (Approach #7) To address Member Mak’s request: • Subgroups included: White, Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan Indian, Asian, African American, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, Two or More Races, English Learner, Special Education, and Economically Disadvantaged, Bottom 25% (could be included) • Total measure is worth twenty (20) points to replace SGP and SGT. Components included: • Subgroup Proficiency Improvement (10 points) • Subgroup Graduation Improvement (5 points) • Subgroup Dropout Improvement (5 Points) • Subgroup Gap Improvement is part of our state ESSA plan

  6. Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement (Approach #7) Cont. Subgroup Proficiency Improvement(Method C)(10 points) • Although points are awarded for aggregated groups of students it is based on individual student scores. • The number of improved subgroups and subjects are divided by the number of subgroups and subjects the school is eligible for to get an improvement rate. • The improvement rate is multiplied by 10 and the result becomes the school’s improvement points.

  7. Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement (Approach #7) Cont. Subgroup Proficiency Improvement(Method C) (10 points) Correlations for the Growth measure; not the entire system. See later slide.

  8. Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement (Approach #7) Cont. Subgroup Graduation Improvement (5 points) • Follows current business rules for four-year graduation rate • To be eligible, each subgroup at a school must have at least ten students in the cohort • As with the current graduation rate rules, FAY is not applied • The same ten subgroups as proficiency would be used • The difference is between the previous two years graduation rates • Consistent with current business rules, a school also receives credit for maintaining at least a 90 percent graduation rate

  9. Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement (Approach #7) Cont. Subgroup Dropout Improvement (5 Points) • Follows current business rules for dropout rate, which can be found in ADE’s Graduation, Dropout, and Persistence Rate Technical Manual.” • To be eligible, each subgroup at a school must have at least ten students in the cohort • As with the current dropout rate rules, FAY is not applied • The same ten subgroups as proficiency and graduation rate would be used • The difference is between the current year and prior year dropout rates • A school does not receive credit for maintaining a subgroup’s dropout rate if it stays at 100 percent

  10. Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement (Approach #7) Cont.

  11. Conclusions • ADE and members of the ATAC analyzed Arizona’s available ACT and SAT data and results were similar to the Florida study. • ADE and members of the ATAC considered 10 different approaches to growth • All ten are summarized in previous documents and are available for the Board’s consideration . See attachment “All Growth Approaches Summary” • Subgroup Growth/Gap Improvement (Approach #7) is viable at this time • This approach comes with the same concerns that exist with proficiency

  12. Questions and Answers • What questions does the State Board have?

More Related