Message: RE: A1 E2 MSIP TAC.pptx

RE: A1 E2 MSIP TAC.pptx
RE: A1 E2 MSIP TAC.pptx

From | Freeman, Kevin | Date Monday, September 11, 2017 10:31 AM

To | Neale, Chris;Strand, Jocelyn
Cc |
Subject | RE: A1 E2 MSIP TAC.pptx

A1 E2 MSIP TAC.pptx (160 Kb )

I added some slides. Waiting on Amanda’s work for the details on the last two options

Kevin

From: Neale, Chris
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:04 AM
To: Strand, Jocelyn; Freeman, Kevin
Subject: A1 E2 MSIP TAC.pptx

My latest for the TAC

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 -2.3

- 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 | 1.0157 | 9 | 4
ELA S2 | 1.0176 | 19 | 6
Mathematics S1 | 1.0097 | 11 | 4
Mathematics S2 | 1.0093 | 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

- Most used EOC is E1

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

- Very few GE, GV, AH given

High School Readiness

21

- After removing A1 scores from students who were also T2 in E1 (or another EOC):

- 2015: 229
- 2016: 216
- 2017: 173

- HSR = number T2 on any one EOC/number 8th graders

HSR: Status solutions considered

22

- 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 only

- 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

23

- Freeze and carry from 2016

- No changes due to HSR

- Substitute 2016 A1 for 2017 A1, use all other ‘17 EOC scores

- Xx
- xx

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

- Xx
- Xx

title:MSIP 6 Development
author:nealec
last saved by:Freeman, Kevin
revision number:32
creation date:2017-09-05T21:00:55Z
Last Saved Date:2017-09-11T15:29:27Z
edit minutes:1369
word count:802
source:Microsoft Office PowerPoint
presentation format:On-screen Show (4:3)
Count Paragraphs:306
slides:23
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