Message: Revised slides

Revised slides
Revised slides

From | Neale, Chris | Date Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:08 AM

To | Wieberg, Jackie;Rush, Brenda
Cc | Dorsey, Casey
Subject | Revised slides

A1 E2 MSIP TAC (2).pptx (162 Kb ) MSIP 6 for 9 12 17.pptx (306 Kb )

Jackie and Brenda,

The attached presentations are for use today. I cleaned them up early this morning.

Thank you,

Chris

Chris Neale, Ed. D.

Assistant Commissioner

Office of Quality Schools

PO Box 480

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480

573-751-4234 (v)

573-751-9434 (f)

dese.mo.gov/quality-schools

MSIP Advisory Committee

Missouri Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education

Algebra I and English II

SEPTEMBER 2017

Type comments here.

1

Situational Framework

- The Assessment TAC determined that two EOCs produced unusable results.

- 2017 Algebra I
- 2017 English II

2

APR impact

- District APR

- Academic Achievement

- Mathematics
- English

- Subgroup Achievement

- Mathematics
- English

- High School Readiness

3

Calculation Impact

- MPI

- Status

- MPI-NCE

- Progress

- HSR

- Pct Readiness

- NCE

- Growth

Impacted

Not Impacted

4

Statewide MPI Impact

Content | Minimum | Maximum | 3 yr Avg
ELA | 0 | -6.3 | -2.1
Mathematics | 0 | -5.5 | -1.8

5

LEAs Gaining, Neutral and Losing

Content | % Lost | % Neutral or Gained
English language arts | 75% | 25%
Mathematics | 60% | 40%

6

Status Solutions Considered

- Hold Harmless (full)
- Adjust Status Targets
- Adjust MPI

- 3 year average multiplier
- 2017 multiplier

7

Hold Harmless

- Based on the premise that we choose between the greater of:

- Current, or
- Prior

- With no current data, this approach cannot be implemented.

8

Status Target Adjustment

- Conceptually:

- Adjust status targets to accommodate the loss of EOC data
- Based on Jamtgaard’s research, this is arguably in the range of -1.8 to -2.1

- Practically:

- All boundaries must be addressed to achieve comparability
- Eliminates longitudinal continuity

9

Status Target Adjustment - ELA

| Floor | Approaching | On-Track | 2020 Target
2017 | 100.0-299.9 | 300.0-370.2 | 370.2-385.6 | 385.7-500.0
Jamtgaard | 100.0-297.8 | 297.9-368.0 | 368.1-383.5 | 383.6-500.0
Max. Stability | 100.0-292.0 | 292.1-366.8 | 366.9-382.7 | 382.8-500.0

10

Status Target Adjustment – Math

| Floor | Approaching | On-Track | 2020 Target
2017 | 100.0-299.9 | 300.0-366.6 | 366.7-392.7 | 392.8-500.0
Jamtgaard | 100.0-298.1 | 298.2-364.8 | 364.9-390.9 | 391.0-500.0
Max. Stability | 100.0-294.5 | 294.6-360.1 | 360.2-388.6 | 388.7-500.0

11

Status Target Analysis

- Practical
- Explainable

- Creates 30 appeals / standard
- Not transparent
- Discontinuity
- “Approaching” below 300

Advantages

Disadvantages

12

MPI Adjustment

Area | 3 yr. Avg. EOC Effect | Loss Reciprocal
S1 ELA | .9812 | 1.0192
S2 ELA | .9790 | 1.0214
S1 Math | .9896 | 1.0105
S2 Math | .9899 | 1.0102

13

MPI Adjustment Applied

Area | Existing MPI | Loss Reciprocal | Adjusted MPI
S1 ELA | 330.9 | 1.0157 | 336.1
S2 ELA | 319.6 | 1.0176 | 325.2
S1 Math | 336.6 | 1.0097 | 339.9
S2 Math | 324.3 | 1.0093 | 327.3

14

Methods of MPI Adjustment

Remove EOCs (2015-2017)

3 yr. Avg. Raw MPI

Multiply by Reciprocal

Adjusted MPI

15

2017 MPI x Reciprocal

Avg 2015, 2016, Adj 2017

Adjusted MPI

MPI Adjustment Examples

| 2015 | 2016 | 2017
S1 Math MPI (w/o, w/o, w/o) | 330.6 | 321.2 | 308.2
S1 Math MPI (w/, w/, w/o) | 337.0 | 331.2 | 308.2

16

Method 1: (Remove EOCs across 3 years)

3 yr avg x Reciprocal = Adjusted MPI

320.0x 1.0105 = 323.36

Method 2: (Adjust 2017 only)

Average of (2015, 2016, Adjusted 2017)

(337.0 + 331.2 + (308.2*1.0105)) = 326.5

Loss Reciprocal Appeals Projected

Content / Standard | Loss Reciprocal | Applied to Avg. | Applied to 2017
ELA S1 | 1.0192 | 9 | 4
ELA S2 | 1.0124 | 19 | 6
Mathematics S1 | 1.0105 | 11 | 4
Mathematics S2 | 1.0102 | 8 | 1

17

Progress Calculation

- Rolling Average 2015 through 2017
- Based on NCE
- Apply reciprocal to 2017 MPI
- Calculate NCEs for each year
- Keep rolling average formula intact

18

High School Readiness

| LEAs | Prof./Adv. Students | Total Students | Prof./Adv. on Algebra I only | Prof./Adv. on any other EOC | Total Prof./Adv.
2015 | 80 | 538 | 1978 | 13.4% | 13.8% | 27.2%
2016 | 84 | 651 | 2090 | 12.7% | 18.4% | 31.1%
2017 | 85 | 664 | 2175 | 10.7% | 19.8% | 30.5%

19

High School Readiness

20

- Less than half of the LEA’s annually have students score Top 2 on the A1 EOC

- 2015: 36
- 2016: 34
- 2017: 29

- E1 is used more often

- 2015: 37
- 2016: 42
- 2017: 46

- Very few GE, GV, AH assessments

HSR: Status solutions considered

21

- Waive HSR

- Changes APR to 70 points
- 66 APRs decline (-0.1 to -8.9)
- 12 APRs increase (+0.1 to +13.5)

- 1 district provisional to accredited
- 3 districts accredited to provisional

- Remove A1

- Keeps APR at 80 points
- 33 APRs decline (-3.1 to -13.2)

- 5 districts accredited to provisional
- 1 district accredited to unaccredited
- 1 district provisional to unaccredited

HSR: Status solutions considered

22

- Freeze and use 2016 data in place of 2017

- No changes due to HSR
- No value for other assessments given in 2017

- Substitute 7th %T2 from 2016 for A1 in 2017

- Use E1 and other EOC’s from 2017 for HSR
- No districts change accreditation status based on HSR
- Preserves utility of HSR

title:MSIP 6 Development
author:nealec
last saved by:nealec
revision number:33
last print date:2017-09-12T12:02:23Z
creation date:2017-09-05T21:00:55Z
Last Saved Date:2017-09-12T12:06:39Z
edit minutes:1427
word count:775
source:Microsoft Office PowerPoint
presentation format:On-screen Show (4:3)
Count Paragraphs:296
slides:22
slide notes:1
hidden slides:1
multimedia clips:0
Scale Crop:no
company:State of Missouri
links up to date:no
shared doc:no
Links Dirty:no
Application Version:14.0000

MSIP 6
Phase I wrap UP

Missouri Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education

September 2017

Type comments here.

1

Educational Policy Alignment

Federal

State

Local

2

Proper Perspective

Policy Drivers

Every Student succeeds Act

Every Student succeeds Act

Every Student succeeds ActPolicy Drivers

Every Student succeeds Act

Every Student succeeds Act

Every Student succeeds Act

MSIP

ESSA

CSIP

Every Student succeeds Act

Every Student succeeds Act

Every Student succeeds Act

MSIP

ESSA

CSIP

3

MSIP Policy Goals

- Articulate the State's expectations

- Distinguish Performance of Schools

and Districts

- Empower all Stakeholders

- Promote Continuous Improvement
  and Innovation

4

MSIP 6

- Performance

- Academic Achievement
- Success-Ready Graduates

- Processes

- Effective and Stable Leadership and Governance
- Effective Educators and Instructional Practices
- Climate and Culture

5

MSIP 6 is an iteration that began in 1990.

Many states use only ESEA for improvement

Resource only to broad to performance and back

MASA – Effective Schools research

DESE strategic plan

Engaged in Standard and Indicator writing

1/6/2011

2

Current Realities

Preferred Future

Gaps

Preferred Future Model

Working Toward the Preferred Future

MSIP 5

- Current Reality

MSIP 6

- Intermittent Changes

MSIP 7

- Significant Changes

MSIP 8

- Preferred Future

7

Desirable Outcomes for MSIP 6

- Increased focus on each student and their success
- Focus on individual student growth
- Drive and encourage innovation and continuous improvement
- Prepare all students endeavors beyond high school
- Move from “chasing points” to “risk-taking for instructional improvement”

8

Desirable Outcomes for MSIP 6

- Create more balanced approach to student outcomes and system inputs
- More local and regional partnerships and collaborative relationships
- Emphasize schools’ needs to respond to needs of business and industry

9

10

Career Education

Diversity

Standards

3

DRAFT

Performance measures

- Academic Achievement

- Continue to examine all students and subgroups

- English language arts
- Mathematics
- Science
- Social studies

11

Continue to wrestle with EL issue – be specific

4

DRAFT

Process Measures

- Effective Educators and Instructional Processes

- Effective educators in every classroom
- Professional learning
- Comprehensive, rigorous, and viable curriculum
- Meet the needs of all learners
- Comprehensive assessment program
- Comprehensive school counseling
- Career and technical education
- Library media services
- Technology
- Collaboration

12

DRAFT

Process Measures

- Climate and Culture

- High expectations for all students
- Collaboration around sustaining the vision, mission and positive environment
- Leadership contribution to culture
- Multi-tiered system of support for students
- Safe and caring environment
- Use of climate and culture data

13

DRAFT

Process Measures

- Leadership

- Visionary Leadership
- Instructional Leadership
- Managerial Leadership
- Relational Leadership
- Innovative Leadership
- Equity and Culturally Responsive Leadership

14

DRAFT

Process Measures

- Governance

- Policy
- Superintendent
- Mission, vision, goals
- Communications and engagement
- Evaluation systems for personnel and programs
- Deliberate planning
- Resource management
- Professional learning

15

Performance Measures

| General | Academics | Co-curricular and Leadership | Career and Citizenship
Kindergarten |  |  |  |
Middle |  |  |  |
High |  |  |  |
Post-secondary |  |  |  |

16

Success-Ready Graduates

Readiness Indicators

Emergent Themes

- Balance of Processes and Performance

- Current Health
- Actions to Improve

- Local Context Matters
- Focus on Individual Children
- Hunger for Innovation
- Emphasis on Collaboration

17

I’d like to share a bit about the recommendations in general

Don’t get hung up on measurement

5

What is next

- Draft to SBE 9 19
- Proposal to SBE in October
- Reporting and Metrics Fall and Winter
- Piloting beginning in 2018

18

That’s why!

Get out your phones . . .

19

Chris.Neale@dese.mo.gov

dese.mo.gov/Quality-Schools

Questions?

20

title:Every Student succeeds Act
author:nealec
last saved by:nealec
revision number:127
last print date:2017-05-02T14:13:42Z
creation date:2016-12-16T16:57:12Z
Last Saved Date:2017-09-12T12:00:59Z
edit minutes:1217
word count:487
source:Microsoft Office PowerPoint
presentation format:On-screen Show (4:3)
Count Paragraphs:168
slides:20
slide notes:5
hidden slides:0
multimedia clips:0
Scale Crop:no
company:State of Missouri
links up to date:no
shared doc:no
Links Dirty:no
Application Version:14.0000