2006 assessment and accountability annual meeting2006 assessment and accountability annual meeting...

2006 Assessment and Accountability Annual Meeting

Evaluation and Reporting Office Florida Department of Education

September 7, 2006

Agenda

� Welcome and Introductions � Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting � 2005-06 School Grades and AYP Results � 2006-07 School Grade Changes � 2006-07 AYP Changes � 2007 and Beyond � New Website � Existing Websites’ Improvements � SV23 Matching/Updating Process � Round Table Discussions (Two Sessions) � Summary of Round Table Discussions � Reminders � Questions and Answers 1

Responsibilities for Evaluation and Reporting

� School Grades Under A+ Plan � School grades were first issued in 1999. � In 2002, learning gains were first included in the

calculation.

� Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) � The federal accountability indicator in the No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001. � AYP has been calculated since 2003.

2


� Schools in Need of Improvement � Required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). � Evaluation and Reporting is working with the K-12 Division

to determine Schools in Need of Improvement. � Only Title I schools that miss AYP two consecutive years

are subject to sanctions.

� School Recognition � In 2006, $157,587,811 was distributed to 1,799 schools

for earning an A or improving at least one school letter grade.

� The total amount awarded over the eight years has been $852,688,204. 3


� Alternative Schools Accountability � The 2006 legislature passed House Bill 7087, commonly

known as A++, which was signed into law on June 5, 2006, by Governor Jeb Bush.

� Provides alternative schools the option of earning a school grade or a school-improvement rating.

� If an alternative school chooses not to be graded, those students’ performance data will be included in the calculation of the alternative school’s improvement rating and the “home school’s” school grade.

� Further discussion of the implementation of this law will occur during the roundtable discussions this afternoon. 4


� Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten (VPK) Accountability � VPK providers are responsible for ensuring their children

are ready for kindergarten. � Evaluation and Reporting will be working with the Office of Early

Learning to develop this accountability calculation. � Every child enrolled in the VPK Program is screened using

a statewide kindergarten screening. These screenings provide objective data for readiness for kindergarten.

� Screenings that will be used: � ECHOS (Early Childhood Observation System) is a continuous

observational assessment system to determine if the child is on track to meeting expectations.

� DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is a series of short probes to measure progress of foundational reading skills.

5


� STAR Evaluation, Teacher Effectiveness � Evaluation and Reporting is developing a fair and

equitable way to determine teacher effectiveness by enacting value tables to identify the top 25% of effective teachers.

� A value table is a valid and reliable way to measure improved student achievement and identify effective teachers.

6


� STAR Evaluation, Teacher Effectiveness � In proviso language contained in the 2006 General

Appropriations Act, $147.5 million is provided for theSpecial Teachers Are Rewarded performance pay plan(STAR Plan).

� Districts are responsible for selecting an instructionalpersonnel evaluation instrument for purposes ofSTAR, half of which must be based on student performance on the Sunshine State Standards.

� Supplemental Educational Services (SES)Accountability � Evaluation and Reporting is working with the K-12

division to develop an accountability calculation foreffectiveness of SES providers. 7


� No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Office � Evaluation and Reporting acts as a clearing house

for all NCLB processes and reporting. � Research, Analysis, and Evaluation � Evaluation and Reporting is tasked with a number

of ad-hoc analyses examining the impact of programs and policies on student achievement. � Charter schools � Class size � Course-taking patterns

� Research Alerts 8


� SAT/ ACT/ PSAT/ PLAN and Teacher Projections � Multiple results and trends are published on our website.

� Teacher Projections � Multiple trends and statistical reports pertaining to teacher

data are on our website. � New hires � Critical teacher shortage areas � Florida teacher retention � Supply of New Teachers

� Projected High School Graduates

9

School Grades

AYP Results

2005-2006

And

10

School Grades 1999 - 2006

1600

1467

1400 1262

1242 1255 1230 1200 1165

1122

1000 894

800 725

592 610 615 619 601600 579 553

567 540

589 570536

412 400 397

313 307 266 230

200 202 185 184

138 121 76 64 35 49

78

0 40 21

A B C D F

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Since 1999, the number of “A” school grades has increased to 1,467 in 2006 from 202 in 1999, 579 in 2000, 592 in 2001, 894 in 2002, 1,242 in 2003, 1,262 in 2004, and 1,255 in 2005. The number of “B” schools has increased to 610 in 2006 from 313 in 1999, 266 in 2000, 412 in 2001, 553 in 2002, 567 in 2003, 540 in 2004, and 589 in 2005. The number of “C” schools has decreased to 570 in 2006 from 1,230 in 1999, 1,165 in 2000, 1,122 in 2001, 725 in 2002, 536 in 2003, 615 in 2004, and 619 in 2005. The number of “D” schools has decreased to 121 in 2006 from 601 in 1999, 397 in 2000, 307 in 2001, 185 in 2002, 138 in 2003, 184 in 2004, and 230 in 2005. The number of “F” schools has decreased to 21 in 2006 from 76 in 1999, 4 in 2000, 0 in 2001, 64 in 2002, 35 in 2003, 49 in 2004, and 78 in 2005.

Source: Florida Department of Education

2006 11

Num

ber o

f Sch

ools

School Grades 1999 - 2006

2500

2,077

2000 1,809 1,802 1,844

1,447 1500

1,004

1000 845

677

500 515

401 307 308 249 173 233 142 0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

A and B Schools D and F Schools

In 2006, there were 2,077 “A” and “B” schools. This is an increase from 5�5 “A” and “B” schools in �999, 8�5 in 2000, �,00� in 200�, �,��7 in 2002, �,809 in 200�, �,802 in 200�, and �,8�4 in 2005. In 2006, there were �42 “D” and “F” schools. This is a decrease from 677 “D” and “F” schools in �999, �0� in 2000, �07 in 200�, 2�9 in 2002, �73 in 200�, 2�� in 200�, and �08 in 2005.


2006 12

School Grades by School Type2006

1000 943

900

800

700

600

500

400 360 353

300 289

200 146

0

100 36

7

103 61

6 1

64 95

66

10

107

52 74

13 3

Elementary Middle High Combination

A B C D F

In 2006, there were 943 elementary schools, 353 middle schools, 64 high schools, and 107 combination schools that earned an “A” school grade; 360 elementary schools, 103 middle schools, 95 high schools, and 52 combination schools that earned a “B” school grade; 289 elementary schools, 61 middle schools, 146 high schools, and 74 combination schools that earned a “C” school grade; 36 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 66 high schools, and 13 combination schools that earned a “D” school grade and; 7 elementary schools, 1 middle school, 10 high schools, and 3 combination schools that earned an “F” school grade.


200613

2006

Sch

ool G

rade

2006 School Grades Compared to 2005

2005 School Grade

A B C D F

A 1034 277 104 14 2

B 178 203 180 30 0

C 40 105 291 99 12

D 0 2 37 67 11

F 1 1 2 7 6

In 2006, 1,034 schools maintained an “A” school grade, 203 schools maintained a “B” school grade, 291 schools maintained a “C” school grade, 67 schools maintained a “D” school grade, and 6 schools maintained an “F” school grade. There were 277 schools that improved to an “A” from a “B”, 104 schools improved to an “A” from a “C”, 14 schools improved to an “A” from a “D”, and 2 schools improved to an “A” from an “F”. There were 180 schools that improved to a “B” from a “C”, 30 schools improved to a “B” from a “D”, and no school improved to a “B” from an “F”. There were 99 schools that improved to a “C” from a “D” and 12 schools that improved to a “C” from an “F”. There were 11 schools that improved to a “D” from an “F”. There were 178 schools that dropped from an “A” to a “B”, 40 schools dropped from an “A” to a “C”, no school dropped from an “A” to a “D”, and 1 school dropped from an “A” to an “F”. There were 105 schools that dropped from a “B” to a “C”, 2 schools that dropped from a “B” to a “D”, and 1 school that dropped from a “B” to an “F”. There were 37 schools that dropped from a “C” to a “D” and 2 schools that dropped from a “C” to an “F”. There were 7 schools that dropped from a “D” to an “F”.


200614

School Recognition: Schools Maintaining an “A”

or Improving Grades

36 New Schools Earned an "A"

332 SchoolsImproved to a Grade

Other than "A"

1,034 Schools Maintained an "A"

397 Schools Improved to an "A"

In 2006, there are 1,034 schools that maintained their “A” school grade, 36 new schools that earned an “A” school grade, 397 schools improved to an “A” school grade, and 332 schools improved to a school grade other an “A”.


200615

2006 Grades for 2005 “F” Schools

"A" Schools 2

"F" Schools "B" Schools 6 0

"C" Schools12

"D" Schools11

Of the schools graded an “F” in 2005, 2 earned an “A”, none earned a “B”, 12 earned a “C”, 11 earned a “D”, and 6 earned an “F” in 2006. There were 33 schools that earned an “F” in 2005 that are alternative schools in 2006 and earned a points-only grade. There were 3 “F” schools in 2005 that were not open in 2006. There were 6 schools that were an “F” in 2005 that were too small to be graded in 2006. There were 3 schools that were an “F” in 2005 that are an “I” in 2006.


200616

Raising Standards and Higher Accountability Lead to

Improved Student Performance

180 158

160

140

120

100 78 78 80 71

Rai

sed

th

e B

ar

Rai

sed

th

e B

ar

64

49 35 R

aise

d t

he

Bar

Rai

sin

g t

he

Bar

60

40 30 2120

0 4 4

0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

In 2007, the bar will be raised again. Science, the lowest 25 percent in Mathematics, and Grade 11 and 12 FCAT retakes will be included in the school grade calculation.

Due to provisions in A++ legislation (House Bill 7087, sections 46 and 47), alternative schools have the option to not be included in school grade calculations. As a result, 22 schools that would have earned an “F” earned a points-only grade in 2006.

As expectations for school performance increase, Florida schools are rising to the occasion. The number of low performing schools has decreased to 21 in 2006, from 158 in 1995, 71 in 1996, 30 in 1997, 4 in 1998, (then the standards were raised) 78 in 1999, 4 in 2000, 0 in 2001 (then the standards were raised again), 64 in 2002, 35 in 2003, 49 in 2004, (then the standards were raised) and 78 in 2005. Standards will be raised again for the 2007 school year when Science, the lowest 25 percent in Mathematics, and Grade 11 and 12 FCAT retakes are included in the school grade calculation.


200617

School Grade Points by Component

100

90 86 85 81 83

78 80 72 71

60

70 58 61 63 64

68 61

65 63 62 62 63 65

61 60 63 58

61 63 65 68 70 69 69

50

40

30

20

10

0

Reading Meeting Reading Learning Reading Lowest Math Meeting High Math Learning Writing Meeting High Standards Gains 25% Standards Gains High Standards

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

In 2006, schools earned an average of 68 points toward their school grade for meeting high standards in reading, this is an increase from 58 points in 2002, 61 points in 2003, 63 points in 2004, and 64 points in 2005. In 2006, schools earned an average of 62 points toward their school grade for making learning gains in reading, this is an increase from 61 points in 2002, 65 points in 2003, 63 points in 2004, and 62 points in 2005. In 2006, schools earned an average of 63 points toward their school grade for making learning gains with the lowest 25 percent of students in reading, this is equal to the 63 points in 2002, 65 points in 2003, 61 points in 2004, and 60 points in 2005. In 2006, schools earned an average of 68 points toward their school grade for meeting high standards in math, this is an increase from 58 points in 2002, 61 points in 2003, 63 points in 2004, and 65 points in 2005. In 2006, schools earned an average of 69 points toward their school grade for making learning gains in math, this is a decrease from 72 points in 2002, 71 points in 2003, 70 points in 2004, and 69 points in 2005. In 2006, schools earned an average of 83 points toward their school grade for meeting high standards in writing, this is an increase from 78 points in 2002, 86 points in 2003, 85 points in 2004, and 81 points in 2005.


200618

Reading Students in the Lowest 25%

School Grade Component

Limited English Proficient(LEP)

12,266 Students 4%

Standard Curriculum 207,842 Students

65% Students with Disabilities(SWD)

98,947 Students 31%

In 2006, the school grade component for the lowest 25 percent of reading was comprised of 207,842, 65 percent, standard curriculum students; 98,947, 31 percent, students with disabilities; and 12,266, 4%, limited English proficient students.


200619

ReadingStudents in the Lowest 25%

Making Learning Gains

80%

70%

70% 60% 67%

50% 56%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Standard Curriculum Students with Limited English Disabilities (SWD) Proficient (LEP)

In 2006, 67% of standard curriculum students in the lowest 25 percent made learning gains in reading; 56% of students with disabilities in the lowest 25 percent made learning gains in reading; and 70% of limited English proficient students in the lowest 25 percent made learning gains in reading.


200620

No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress

2005 2006

Provisional AYP Yes AYP Yes AYP 828 Schools 916 Schools1,117 Schools 27% 28% 36%

Provisional AYP 1,240 Schools

39%

No AYP No AYP 1,161 Schools 1,041 Schools

37% 33%

In 2005, 1,117 schools, 36 percent, made adequate yearly progress; 828 In 2006, 916 schools, 28 percent, made adequate yearly progress; schools, 27 percent, made provisional adequate yearly progress; and 1,240 schools, 39 percent, made provisional adequate yearly progress, 1,161 schools, 37 percent, did not make adequate yearly progress. and 1,041 schools, 33 percent, did not make adequate yearly progress.


200621

2006 School Grades Compared to AYP

A+ Plan NCLB

2006 AYP Criteria School Grade Schools Satisfied Schools Percent

A 1,467 90% or more 1,347 92%

B 610 80% or more 528 87%

C 570 70% or more 513 90%

D 121 60% or more 107 88%

F 21 50% or more 20 95%

In 2006, 1,467 schools earned an "A", of these "A" schools, 1347 satisfied at lease 90 percent of the adequate yearly progress criteria. In 2006, there were 610 "B" schools, of these "B" schools, 528 satisfied at least 80 percent of the adequate yearly progress criteria. In 2006, there were 570 "C" schools, of these "C" schools 513 satisfied at least 70 percent of the adequate yearly progress criteria. In 2006, there were 121 "D" schools, 107 satis-

fied at least 60 percent of the adequate yearly progress criteria. In 2006, there 21 "F" schools, of these "F" schools, 20 satisfied at least 50 percent of the adequate yearly progress criteria.


200622

History of School Grades

Blueprint 2000

1991

1996

1998

1999

Sunshine State Standards Adopted

4, 8, and 10

Grades Issued Learning Gains

Grades

Include all students in

School Grades

2001

2002 2007

2005

FCAT Expanded to Grades 3-10

Math Low 25 percent, and

Retakes 23

FCAT in Grades

A+ School

Added to School

Include Science,

24

2006-07 School Grade Changes

� Writing �

� Science � Add as a seventh component.

� Math Lowest 25 Percent � Add as an eighth component.

� Revised School Grading Scale � 800 point scale change from current 600 point scale.

� Retakes of Grade 11 and 12 � Earn ten bonus points when half of all 11th and 12th graders

retaking the FCAT meet the graduation requirement.

Remain at 3.5, no increase to 4.0.

25

Writing

� The Writing component of the school grade will remain at 3.5 rather than increasing to 4.0 for determining the percent meeting high standards. � This change was implemented because including the

multiple choice items in Writing is an option in 2007-08 and Writing will become a graduation requirement in 2009-10.

� Based on feedback received, the department is making all changes regarding Writing at the same time.

26

Florida’s School Grading System

Learning Gains of Lowest 25%

Learning GainsLearning Gains

PerformancePerformancePerformance

WRITINGMATHREADING

50% based on Performance

27




WRITINGMATHREADING


50% based on Learning Gains

28

Science

� Science added as a seventh component. � One point will be awarded for each percent

meeting high standards, achievement level 3 or above, on FCAT.

� The Science component was adopted in November 2003 by the State Board of Education.

29

Math Lowest 25 Percent

� Learning gains among students in the Math Lowest 25 Percent will be added as an eighth component. � One point will be awarded for each percent making

learning gains. � This calculation will mirror the current Reading

Lowest 25 Percent calculation. � This maintains the balance of half meeting high

standards and half learning gains in the school grade calculation.

30

50% based on Performance

Performance

WRITING





SCIENCEMATHREADING


31

50% based on Learning Gains

Performance

WRITING





SCIENCEMATHREADING


Revised School Grading Scale

� The school grading scale will be adjusted in 2006-07 to account for the addition of the Science and Math Lowest 25 Percent components, adding 200 points to the scale and requiring 115 more points to earn an A-F.

Grade 600 Point Scale 800 Point Scale

A 410+ 525+

B 380 to 409 495 to 524

C 320 to 379 435 to 494

D 280 to 319 395 to 434

F < 280 < 395 32

33

Adequate Progress of Low 25% in Reading and Math

• of the low 25% in both reading and math for the current year or the grade will be lowered to a “B”.

• the low 25% in both reading and math for either the current or previous year or the grade will be lowered to a “C”.

in Reading in the current or a “Yes” in Math in the current or

• of the low 25% in both reading and math for either the current or previous year or the grade will be lowered to a “D”.

in Reading in the current or a “Yes” in Math in the current or

A school with enough points to earn an “A” must show adequate progress

A school with enough points to earn a “B” must show adequate progress of

• A “Yes” previous year and previous year = grade is not lowered

A school with enough points to earn a “C” must show adequate progress

• A “Yes” previous year and previous year = grade is not lowered

Adequate Progress of Low 25% in Reading and Math

Some possible scenarios for schools with points equivalent to “B” or “C”

<=50% in Reading <=50% in Math ResultCurrent Year Previous Year Current Year Previous Year

Yes No Yes No Stays a “B” or “C”

No Yes No Yes Stays a “B” or “C”

Yes Yes No Yes Stays a “B” or “C”

Yes Yes Yes No Stays a “B” or “C”

No Yes Yes Yes Stays a “B” or “C”

Yes No Yes Yes Stays a “B” or “C”

No No Yes No “B” Æ “C” or “C” Æ “D”

No No No Yes “B” Æ “C” or “C” Æ “D”

Yes No No No “B” Æ “C” or “C” Æ “D”

No Yes No No “B” Æ “C” or “C” Æ “D”

34

35

th

and 12th Graders

� High schools will be able to earn ten bonus points toward their school grades when 50 percent of all 11th and 12th graders retaking the FCAT Reading and Mathematics meet the graduation requirement.

� Further discussion of the implementation of this law will occur during the roundtable discussions this afternoon.

Bonus Points - Retakes of 11

36

Adequate Yearly Progress

� Changes for 2007 � Benchmarks Increase � Long Term Students with Disabilities Flexibility

� Safe Harbor

2006 Changes

� AYP Benchmarks change

Year Reading Math

2006 44 50

2007 51 56 2008 58 62

37

38

SWD Flexibility The flexible reporting standards are: 1. SWD 1% Policy: Proficiency through alternative

assessment standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities (maximum of 1% of total tested population).

2. Long Term SWD 2% Policy: Proficiency through modified achievement standards, benchmarks, or another alternate assessment for students who may not be able to meet grade-level standards but are not part of the 1% (maximum of 2% of total tested population).

3. Short Term: SWD mathematical adjustment.

39

SWD 1% Policy: Summary

� Students with significant cognitive disabilities may be assessed using an alternative assessment.

� The percent of students reported as proficient on an SWD alternate assessment may not exceed 1% of the total assessed population.

� The 1% proficient limit is calculated at both the state and district levels and applied to state, district, and school levels.

40

SWD Long Term 2% Policy: Summary

� USED offers additional flexibility modified achievement standards, benchmarks, or another alternate assessment.

� This 2% group of students is separate from the 1% of significant cognitive disabilities students.

41

Short Term Mathematical Adjustment for SWD

� Applies to schools/districts that did not make AYP based solely on the performance of the SWD subgroup.

� Starting in 2004-05, the mathematical adjustment was added to the percent of students with disabilities who are proficient for a revised AYP calculation.

42

� Safe Harbor is a second way forschools/districts to satisfy Math/Reading AYPcriteria.

� To be eligible for Safe Harbor, a school must: � test at least 95% of students in total and in each

subgroup. � meet writing criteria for the total. � meet graduation rate criteria for the total. � have a school grade that is not D or F.

Yearly Progress

Safe Harbor – Adequate

43

Progress � To meet Safe Harbor, each subgroup being

evaluated must: � decrease the percent of non-proficient students

by at least 10% from the preceding year. � meet the writing criteria. � meet the graduation rate criteria.

Safe Harbor – Adequate Yearly

44

School Grades Beyond 2007

� Writing multiple choice, rather than just the essay component.

� State Board is always open to discussions on raising the bar.

Membership Matching

� Membership Matching with EIAS� Matching Process � Data Update Process

� Education Information & Accountability Services Contact Information � Ruth Jones: [email protected] � Tsung-Yuan Lin: [email protected]� Phone: 850-245-0400� Suncom: 205-0400

45

Membership Matching Surveys 2 and 3

� Purpose of Membership Matching

� Features

� Matching Process

� Timeline for 2006-07

� What Works

� Need for Improvement

� To Remember 46

Purpose of Membership Matching

� For AYP and School Grading Process: � Identify students meeting the

requirement of being in school all year. � Identify students needing updates to

data.

47

Features

� Timing � During survey 3 data base processing rather than

after. � Responsibility � Shared by many, not just Accountability

Coordinator. � Data Source � One integrated, consolidated data source

(Student Data Base) rather than a separate system.

48

Data Matching Process

• Start with all Survey 3 Student Demographic Records. (1)

• Remove McKay, Home Ed, & Private School students. (School of Enrollment = 3518, N998 & N999) (1)

• Remove students if District of Instruction is not equal to District of Enrollment. (1)

• Remove students with no matching course record. (2)

49

Data Matching Process – Continued

• Place all removed records in the Deleted Records file (F70549) with an indicator of why the record was removed. (1.1)

• Do the same record matching and removal for survey 2. Generate file F70586. (1.2)

EIAS Flowchart.doc50


• Match survey 3 records to ESE and ELL records and add four data elements. (3) • Exceptionality, Primary • Exceptionality, Other • Alternate Assessment Administered • ELL Entry Date

• (ELL = English Language Learners)

51


• Match survey 3 record to the Prior School Status record and indicate: (4) o Same school o Same district o New o Missing o None of these

52


� Add three PSS fields to record. (4) � Prior District � Withdrawal Date � Withdrawal Code

� Flag students with multiple PSS records.

53


• Match survey 3 records to survey 2 records. (5) o Use District & School of Enrollment and Student ID. o If not found, use Alias ID.

• Put records with multiple matches in the Problem Records file (F70550). (9)

• Put records that have a survey 2 school match in the Matched File (F70548). (8)

54


• If no match at school level, try again at District level. (6)

• Put records in Problem or Matched files with indicator of district match if matched.

EIAS Flowchart.doc55


• Look at PSS codes and determine whether the remaining non-matches are expected or unexpected. (7)

• Put unexpected non-matches in the Problem Records file (F70550). (9)

• Put expected non-matches in the Unmatched Expected Records file (F70551). (10)

56


• Five Files are Produced o F70549 Deleted Survey 3 Records o F70586 Deleted Survey 2 Records o F70548 Matched Records o F70551 Unmatched Expected Records o F70550 Unmatched Problem Records

57

2006-07 Timeline

� Survey 3, 2006-07 � Survey Week: February 5-9, 2007 � State Processing: February 12 – March 9, 2007

(Starts one week earlier than last year.)

� Request the Accountability Match files during state processing. � Use CICS menu. � Five files are run overnight.

� Correct errors and submit corrections by 4:00 p.m. EST on Friday, March 9, 2007. 58

What Works

� Collaboration between data staff and accountability staff at DOE and District levels.

� Early review of student information. � Accurate Student ID Numbers. � Looking at Prior School Status records.

59

Need for Improvement

� Missing and Incorrect Data � Race, Gender, ESE, etc. not always updated � ELL dates often missing � Incorrect Grade Levels

� Missing Prior School Status/Student Attendance records.

60

To Remember

� Submit all four records, as appropriate: � Student Demographic, � Exceptional Student (ESE) � English Language Learner (ELL) � Student Course Schedule

� Students must have a course record to be included.

� Data should reflect Friday of FTE Week (February 9).

61

To Remember

� Use N998 in School Number, Current Enrollment for Home Schooled students who attend the district for a class.

� Use N999 in School Number, Current Enrollment for Private School students who attend the district for a class.

62

To Remember

� Initial file submissions are processed in the morning.

� Batch update files run after 4:00 p.m. daily. � Batch update files for survey 2 run every

night rather than just on Wednesdays.� Reports run at night. � Reports must be requested from NWRDC.

63

Aids for Gathering Prior Year Data

� Student Locator � Use CICS system at NWRDC � Locate student IDs and prior FL public schools

attended

� FASTER � Keep Reading and Math Litho Codes locally � Send to new school when student moves � Required data elements as of 1/1/07

64

11th/12th Grade Retake Website

� Why? To get the most accurate data for bonus calculations � Match 2006 Summer, 2006 Fall, and 2007 Spring

retake assessments with Surveys. � Most accurate data to use in bonus calculation.

� How? Similar to PY Data matching process in 2005-06 � Evaluation and Reporting and Education Data

Warehouse (EDW) independently match 2006 Summer, 2006 Fall, and 2007 Spring retake assessments with Surveys.

� Evaluation and Reporting compares results and then 65

codes records accordingly.


� Districts and schools use the website to update matches.

� Website open from November/December through May.

66

67


� Link will be added to Main Application Menu

11th th/12 Grade Retakes

Reading/Math History Updates


� Survey/Assessment Match codes � Y=the record matches. No further information needed. � N=the record does not match. Retake administration

date and PAS (Litho Code) are needed. � V=the record may or may not match.

� Verify Match Code=Y if district/school agrees the record matches. � Verify Match Code=N if district/school do not agree the record

matches. And district/school enter retake administration date and PAS.

� C=district/school confirmed that this record matches by selecting “Yes” for “Verify Survey/Assessment Match.”

68


� Update table on web � Data table on Northwest Regional Data

Center (NWRDC) � Unique fields are district number, school

number, SID, administration month, and survey number and two digit year.

� Districts may upload data to web � Upload file layout must be strictly followed. � Upload errors reported back to district. 69

Improvements to Websites

� Main Menu Page � Sorting by Grade � Websites Open for Training � More Meaningful Error Messages � Appeals Website

70

Roundtable Discussions

� Alternative School Improvement Ratings

11� School Grades - Awarding bonus points for

th and 12th grade retakes � Web Processes – The Good, The Bad, The

Improvements

71

72

Wrap Up

� Summary of roundtable discussions � Reminders � Questions and Answers

Contact Information

Evaluation and Reporting Office Florida Department of Education325 West Gaines Street, Room 316Tallahassee, FL 32399

Phone: (850) 245-0411Email: [email protected]: http://www.firn.edu/doe/evaluation/

73

2006 assessment and accountability annual meeting2006 assessment and accountability annual meeting...

Documents