Overview%20and%20Update%20Raising%20Achievement%20and%20Closing%20Gaps%20Conference - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Overview%20and%20Update%20Raising%20Achievement%20and%20Closing%20Gaps%20Conference

Description:

Overview and Update Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Conference March 30, 2010 Angela H. Quick, Deputy Chief Academic Officer Lou Fabrizio, Director ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:122
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: DPI67
Learn more at: https://www.dpi.nc.gov
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Overview%20and%20Update%20Raising%20Achievement%20and%20Closing%20Gaps%20Conference


1
Overview and UpdateRaising Achievement and
Closing Gaps Conference March 30, 2010 Angela
H. Quick, Deputy Chief Academic OfficerLou
Fabrizio, Director, Accountability Policy and
CommunicationsGary Williamson, Director,
Accountability Operations
2
Mission
Our GoalNC public schools will produce
globally competitive students.
The Purpose of StandardsTo define and
communicate the knowledge and skills a student
must master to be globally competitive.
3
ACRE Accountability and Curriculum Revision
EffortA Simple Vision

Essential Standards
Assessments

Accountability
4
Writing and Revising
Writing and Revising the Essential Standards
5
Writing Teams Membership
Instructional Coaches
Curriculum Directors
Administrators
AccountabilityStaff
Teachers
Higher Ed
EC CurriculumStaff
School Readiness Staff
External Business
6
Filters
National InternationalStandards
Revised Blooms Taxonomy
Assessment Prototypes
21st Century Skills
7
National and International Standards
Conceptual development
Science K-12
  • Standards Frameworks
  • American Association for the Advancement of
    Science - Benchmarks for Science Literacy
  • American Association for the Advancement of
    Science - Atlas of Science Literacy volumes I and
    II
  • National Research Council - National Science
    Education Standards
  • Other State Standards (including Massachusetts,
    Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina,
    California)
  • Singapore Science Syllabus

NSES
AAAS Benchmarks
AAAS Atlas
Other State Standards
Singapore
  • Assessment Frameworks
  • Trends in International Mathematics and Science
    Study (TIMSS)
  • Programme for International Student Assessment
    (PISA)
  • National Assessment of Educational Progress
    (NAEP) 2009 Framework

TIMSS
PISA
NAEP
8
Criteria and Filters
Conceptual development
Criteria
Filters
Course
Generalized goals
Examples and processes to achieve criteria
Student Outcomes
  • Enduring
  • Measurable
  • Clear and Concise

National InternationalStandards
21st Century Skills
Revised Blooms Taxonomy
Assessment Prototypes
  • Prioritized and Focused
  • Rigorous
  • Relevant to the Real World

9
Essential Standards
North Carolina Standard Course of Study Essential
Standards Overview
Course
Prototypical Assessment
Classroom
Objective
Prototypical Assessment
EOC-EOG
...zooming in on one Essential Standard
10
Marzanos Dimensions of Thinking
Revised Blooms Taxonomy
Evaluating
Integrating
Generating
Analyzing
Applying
Organizing
Knowing
11
Stakeholder Involvement
Writing and Revising
Four primary meansfor involvement
Writing Teams and Meetings
LEA CollaborativeFeedback
IndividualPublic Comment
StructuredBusinessFeedback
12
Current Status I. SBE Approved Math,
Science, English 10, Instructional
Technology 2. Under Development English Language
Arts, Social Studies, Second Languages, Guidance,
The Arts, Health and Physical Education, and
Instructional Toolkits
13
Goal Institute an accountability model that
improves student achievement, increases
graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.
Indicators
Uses
Levels
2
14
Proposed Indicators
Student Performance
Post-SecondaryReadiness
Student Growth
Graduation Rates
Academic Course Rigor
15
Impact of ESEA Reauthorizationhttp//www2.ed.gov
/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html
16
Shown are some possible weighting scenarios we
have considered. Wed like both performance
index and growth index to have the same
weighting. These are preliminary numbers, not
final recommendations.
High School
School
Weighting the Indicators?
Indicator Ex 1 Ex 2 Ex 3 Ex 4 Avg ?
Student Achievement The School Performance Composite 50 70 50 10 45
Post-Secondary Readiness as Measured by the ACT (or Other National Indicators) 20 20 20 40 25
Future-Ready Core Participation (A Measure of the Rigor of Courses that Students Take Based on Algebra II Completion and Proficiency) 10 5 5 10 7.5
5-Year Cohort Graduation Rate 20 5 25 40 22.5
Draft For discussion purposes only.
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
Examples of Data We Should Report But Not Include
in the High-Stakes Accountability Model?
  • Advanced Placement ( and of participants and
    scores)
  • International Baccalaureate ( and of
    participants and scores)
  • Credentialing Programs ( and credentials)
  • Online Courses Taken ( and )
  • Higher-Levels Foreign Language Courses Taken (
    and )
  • Concentrations ( and )
  • College courses taken ( and )
  • Attendance of teachers and students
  • Local Options
  • Additional?

20
  • How Do We Address Unique School Types?
  • Examples
  • Alternative Schools
  • Hospital Schools
  • VocEd/Career Centers
  • Special Education Schools
  • Schools with grade 3 and below
  • How do these schools fit into the system?

21
How Do We Best Measure Post-Secondary Readiness?
  • ACT, SATWorkKeysAccuplacer Compass
  • If multiple, how to set cut scores, or ranges,
    for points to award to school?
  • If one assessment, which one?

22
Synopsis Whats Different?
  • Inclusion of LEA Accountability (Longitudinal
    Growth)
  • Incorporation of an Index Model
  • Robust Growth Measures
  • Inclusion of Post-Secondary Readiness Measure
  • Increased Academic Course Rigor (Future-Ready
    Core)
  • Graduation Rate Instead of Dropout Rate
  • Revised Reporting
  • Revised Student Accountability System

23
Academic Growth
  • How to Establish and Utilize Long-Term Growth
    Standards

24
(No Transcript)
25
Measurement of Growth
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
Numerical Comparison of the Four Strategies
Parameters (in Lexiles) NC Higher Intercept Higher Velocity Lower Deceleration Combination Strategy
Intercept 700.0 820.0 700.0 700.0 775.0
Initial velocity 118.7 118.7 132.0 118.7 122.0
Deceleration -12.2 -12.2 -12.2 -9.2 -11.8
32
(No Transcript)
33
A Growth Standard Presented in Tabular Form
Gains Between Each Pair of Grades Gains Between Each Pair of Grades Gains Between Each Pair of Grades Gains Between Each Pair of Grades Gains Between Each Pair of Grades Gains Between Each Pair of Grades
NC Averages (N67,908) By Grade rounded to nearest Lexile 700 813 913 1001 1077 1141

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8

3 113 213 301 377 441
4 100 189 265 329
5 88 164 228
6 76 140
7 64
8 0


change between adjacent grades i.e., year-to-year change
change across 2-year spans
change across 3-year spans
change across 4-year spans
change across 5-year span from 3 to 8
34
Growth Standard Presented as an Equation(Example)
Note Use T (Grade 3) when applying the model
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com