Floridas School Grading System State Board of Education Workshop

J 23 2012January 23, 2012

Kris Ellington Deputy Commissioner Kris Ellington, Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education

Accountability, Research and Measurement 1

Floridas School Grading System Florida s School Grading System

Purpose and AimsPurpose and Aims Make school performance clear to the public P id i ll d t d t i (A F)Provide universally understood metric (AF) Base rating upon student outcomes Report as part of a system of rewards and supports

Focus on primary and enduring goals: raise student achievement and success, bring more opportunities to students

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement 2

A Brief HistoryA Brief History 1970s: Educational Accountability Act to assess student

progress, sch lhool programs, alilign with NAEPi h NAEP

1990s: Blueprint 2000 required rewards for highperforming schools and supports for criticallylow performing schools;schools and supports for critically low performing schools; FCAT at selected grades

1999: A+ Plan expanded FCAT, added learning gains, school lletter graddes, school recognition, opportunity sch lholarships, h l h kindergarten screening

2006: A++ Plan expanded career academies, required reading2006: A++ Plan expanded career academies, required reading remediation, differentiated pay, PD for school leaders

More details: History of Statewide Assessment Program (http://fcat.fldoe.org/hsaphome.asp)

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement

http://fcat.fldoe.org/hsaphome.asp

ContextContext Assessment and accountability systems are in transi iition

ESEA waiver and reauthorization FCAT 2 0 R di M th ti d S i FCAT 2.0 Reading, Mathematics, and Science

EndofCourse Assessments Achievement Standards have increased Achievement Standards have increased PARCC in 201415

New statutorilyrequired elements New statutorily required elements Middle school acceleration measures

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement 4

Transition in School Grades SystemTransition in School Grades System

Design the system now to accommodate knownDesign the system now to accommodate known changes for 201112 through 201314

Developp a multiyyear model to: Implement statutory changes Include new tests as they are availableInclude new tests as they are available

Establish clear expectations throughout the transition

Working closely with stakeholders

January 2012 5Accountability, Research and Measurement

School Grade Distribution Graded Schools

70%

49% 48% 45%

53% 52% 55%

61%

52% 54%

51% 48%

46%

37%

45%46%

30% 24% 24%

13% 17% 23% 23% 23% 22%

22%

17%

20% 17%

23% 22%23% 23% 22%

20%

21%

20%

14%

19% 17%

25%

16%

13%

8% 11% 14%8%

5% 7% 8%

4% 8% 5% 6% 5% 5%

3% 0% 0% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1%

School Grade Distribution Graded Schools

60%

50%

40%

30%30%

20%

10%

0% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement

A B C D F

6

80%

70%70%

60%

50%50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Elementary School Grade Distribution (AF) 2002 to 20112002 to 2011

72%

60% 57% 58%

64%64%

59% 58%56% 54%

39%

28%

22% 20% 20% 22% 19% 20% 18%23%

8% 18%18% 16%16% 17%17% 18%18%

17%

15% 18%18%

15% 20%

10% 18%18%

2% 3%

1% 4%

1%

5%

1% 2%0%

3% 2%

3% 1%

2% 4% 1% 2%

5%

1%

20022002 20032003 20042004 20052005 20062006 20072007 20082008 20092009 20102010 20112011

A B C D F

7

Accountability, Research and Measurement

80%

70%70%

60%

50%50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Middle School Grade Distribution (AF) 2002 to 20112002 to 2011

67%

60% 64% 61%

59%

52% 48%

45% 40%

36%

28% 29%29%

24%

25% 26%

24% 27% 20%

24% 19%

17% 19%

18%18% 12% 18% 8% 17%17% 16%

17%

17%

17% 17%17%

4% 1%

4%

0%

5%

3%

6%

2% 1%0% 2%

4% 1%

2% 1%

4% 1%

5%

1%

20022002 20032003 20042004 20052005 20062006 20072007 20082008 20092009 20102010 20112011

A B C D F

8

Accountability, Research and Measurement

50% 48%

44%

38%

30% 30% 30%

25%

40%42% 34%

38%

30%

26%26% 28%

16% 17%

17% 14%

17%

19%

23%

18% 21%

25%

22%

22% 24%

26% 27%

15% 13%

12%

23% 24%

18%

18% 10% 15%

17%12% 15% 13%

6%6% 3% 4%

5% 3%

8%

4% 4% 1%

1%

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement 9

0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

A B C D F

High School Grade Distribution (AF)High School Grade Distribution (A F)

60%

50%

40%40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Each time standards are raised, the number of lower performing schools has decreased in the followingg yyear.

Num

bber of

Sch

ools

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2 077 2,077 2,127

2,317 2,221

1,809

1,802 1,844

1,952

1,004

1,447

515 677

845845

401401 307

249249

173 233

308308

143

299

200 217 213

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement

A and B Schools D and F Schools

10

Overview of School Grading:Overview of School Grading:

Assessment Components

Currentlyy Com pprises 100% of Elementaryy and Middle School Grades, and 50% of High School Grades

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement 11

Current Elementary and Middle School Grades Model

Reading Math Writing Science

FCAT 2.0 (100) 12 5%

FCAT 2.0 (100) 12 5%

FCAT (100) 12 5%

FCAT (100) 12 5%

Performance

12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5%

FCAT 2.0 (100)

FCAT 2.0 (100)

Learning Gains: All Students

12.5% 12.5%

FCAT 2.0 FCAT 2.0

Low 25% Learning Gains

(100) 12.5%

(100) 12.5%

(300) 37.5%

(300) 37.5%

(100) 12.5%

(100) 12.5%

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement

37.5% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5%

12

201011 High School Grades Model 2010 11 High School Grades Model Reading Math Writing Science Acceleration Grad Rate College Readiness

FCAT 2.0 (100) 12.5%

Perfor

FCAT 2.0 (100) 12.5%

Performance

FCAT (100) 12.5%

mance

FCAT (100) 12.5%

Participation (175) 10.94%

Overall (200) 12.5%

Reading (100) 6.25%

FCAT 2.0 (100) 12.5%

Learning Gain

FCAT 2.0 (100) 12.5%

s: All Students Performance

(125) 7.81%

At Risk (100) 6.25%

Math (100) 6.25%

FCAT 2.0 (100) 12 5%

Low 25% Le

12.5%

FCAT 2.0 (100) 12 5%

arning Gains

12.5%

(300) 18.75%

(300) 18.75%

(100) 6.25%

(100) 6.25%

(300) 18.75%

(300) 18.75%

(200) 12.5%

Assessment Components = 50% Acceleration Components = 50%

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement 13

Defining Learning GainsDefining Learning Gains

Th W t M k L i G iThree Ways to Make Learning Gains:

1. Move up by one or more achievement levels.

2. Maintain a satisfactory achievement level.

3. For students who remain at FCAT Level 1 or T Level 1 or3. For students who remain at FCA2, demonstrate more than one years worth of growth on the FCAT vertical scale.of growth on the FCAT vertical scale.

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement 14

Additional Requirements

Adequate Progress of Lowest Performing 25% in Reading and Mathematicsand Mathematics At least 50% of the low performers in a school must show learning ggains in readingg or math,, or the school must show annual improvement in that percentage.

The school grade is lowered one letter grade if the requirement is not met for schools that would otherwise be graded C orornot met for schools that would otherwise be graded C higher

Percent Tested Reqquirement 90% must be tested to receive a regular grade in lieu of an I. 95% must be tested for a school to be eligible for an A.

January 2012 Accountability, Research and Measurement 15

HS Components Outside State Assessments 50% of Higgh School Grade ((800 ppoints))

GRADUATION ACCELERATION (AP, IB, AICE, DE, Ind.Cert.) READINESS (ACT, SAT, CPT,

P.E.R.T.) GROWTH/DECLINE

Overall Rate 200

Participation 200 (in 2009-10) 175 (in 2010-11)

Performance on Reading 100

For each component, schools earn up to 20 points for GROWTH

At-Risk Rate 100100

Performance 100 (in 2009-10)100 (in 2009 10) 125 (in 2010-11)

Performance on Mathematics

100

For each component, schools lose 5 points for