AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 81cc31-ZGQ3M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives

Description:

AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives Office of Educational Accountability Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2012 – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:76
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 36
Provided by: wius
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives


1
AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable
Objectives
  • Office of Educational Accountability
  • Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
  • November 2012

2
AMO Background
3
Background
  • Under NCLB, schools were required to meet AMOs in
    reading, math, and graduation. The AMOs in
    reading and math were tied to the goal of 100
    proficiency in both content areas by 2013-14.
  • This goal was widely panned as unrealistic and
    was the main driver for ESEA reauthorization
    conversations, which, when stalled in Congress,
    led to the waiver process.
  • To receive a waiver, the US Department of
    Education (USED) requires states to establish
    ambitious but achievable AMOs in reading and
    mathematics proficiency and in graduation rates,
    and to publicly report performance on the AMOs.

4
Background
Former AMOs for Reading and Mathematics 2001-02 to 2010-11 Former AMOs for Reading and Mathematics 2001-02 to 2010-11 Former AMOs for Reading and Mathematics 2001-02 to 2010-11 Former AMOs for Reading and Mathematics 2001-02 to 2010-11
Reading Proficiency Math Proficiency
Starting Point 2001-02 61 37
Starting Point 2002-03 61 37
Starting Point 2003-04 61 37
Intermediate Goal (Begin new 3-8 tests) 2004-05 67.5 47.5
Intermediate Goal (Begin new 3-8 tests) 2005-06 67.5 47.5
Intermediate Goal (Begin new 3-8 tests) 2006-07 67.5 47.5
Intermediate Goal 2007-08 74 58
Intermediate Goal 2008-09 74 58
Intermediate Goal 2009-10 74 58
Intermediate Goal 2010-11 80.5 68.5
5
Background
  • The old AMOs increased over time, but did not
    necessarily increase each year.
  • The same AMOs applied to all districts, schools,
    and student groups in the Wisconsin public school
    system.
  • The goal of NCLB was that all students would be
    proficient in Reading and Mathematics by 2013-14.

6
New AMOs
  • AMOs are still part of Wisconsins accountability
    system, but they are not used to calculate the
    accountability scores that determine ratings and
    support.
  • Starting with the 2011-12 school report card, AMO
    data is reported publicly but not factored into
    the accountability index.
  • AMO data for all subgroups are presented on the
    last page of the School Report Card.

7
Establishing New AMOs
8
Establishing New AMOs
  • In our waiver request, we submitted ambitious but
    achievable AMOs based on proficiency rates
    resulting from Wisconsins new WKCE performance
    level cut scores.
  • Using 2011-12 data, AMOs were set to move all
    schools in the state to the level of the schools
    that are now performing at the 90th percentile
    within six years.
  • By 2016-17, the expectation is for all schools to
    have all student groups reach 50 reading
    proficiency and 65 mathematics proficiency.
  • Some subgroups have steeper AMO trajectories
    because they are further behind in proficiency
    rates.
  • A minimum 1 of growth is expected annually. This
    would apply to those schools/subgroups that are
    already meeting the AMOs but for whom we expect
    continued growth.

9
Reading AMOs
10
Math AMOs
11
Meeting AMOs
  • For a schools reading and mathematics AMOs, a
    groups performance compared to its AMO is
    measured by the higher of
  • (1) the proficiency rate in the current year
    or
  • (2) the average proficiency rate in the current
    and prior year.
  • A cell size of 20 is used and a 95 percent
    confidence interval is applied to determine
    whether or not an AMO is met.

12
  • A confidence interval (CI) is a type of estimate
    used to indicate the reliability of a statistic.
  • The CI gives an estimated range of scores
    (interval) within which the schools or groups
    true score falls.
  • The level of confidence of the CI indicates the
    probability that the confidence range captures
    this true population parameter given a
    distribution of samples. It does not describe any
    single sample.
  • The confidence interval gives us 95 certainty of
    the groups performance. If the performance is
    within the confidence interval, it is determined
    to have met the AMO. We are 95 confident that
    the true value is in our confidence interval.  

Confidence Intervals
13
Meeting AMOs
14
Graduation AMO
  • Schools also have an AMO for graduation rate.
    Wisconsin uses the graduation rate goal of 85
    percent. A cell size of 20 and a 95 percent
    confidence interval are used to determine whether
    an AMO was met.
  • Separate graduation rate improvement targets are
    used for the four- and six-year rates. A school
    meets the graduation rate AMO for graduation if
  • (1) the graduation rate for the most recent year,
    or for the most recent two years combined, meets
    the 85 percent goal or
  • (2) the improvement in graduation rate meets the
    applicable target. DPI will first evaluate
    whether a school met the goal or target for the
    four-year rate. If it does not, the school will
    be evaluated using the six-year rate.
  • In 2011-12 only, the first year of this
    accountability system, a five-year rate was used
    in place of the six-year rate because we do not
    have the data to run a six-year rate until
    2012-13.

15
Graduation AMO Improvement Targets
16
Meeting AMOs
17
Impact of AMOs on Subgroups
18
Subgroup AMOs
  • The AMOs expect an increase of 1 or more in
    proficiency rates annually. This assures that the
    top-performing subgroups continue to make
    progress.
  • The six-year targets of 49.9 proficiency in
    reading and 65.3 proficiency in mathematics
    reflect dramatic increases in performance for
    most subgroups.
  • Dramatic increases in performance will require
    dramatic effort.

19
Subgroup AMOs
20
Subgroup AMOs
21
AMO Performance
22
A Look at the New AMOs
  • With the new cut scores, 2011-12 statewide
    reading proficiency is 35.8 and mathematics
    proficiency is 48.1.
  • The AMOs set forth in the waiver for All
    Students in 2011-12 show that statewide we are
    missing both AMOs.
  • 37.9 is the Reading AMO for 2011-12
  • 49.8 is the Math AMO for 2011-12

23
AMO Analysis
  • Half of all schools met all AMOs

24
AMO Analysis
  • Nearly half of the schools that met all the AMOs
    are Title I schools
  • Of those, the majority are targeted assistance
    schools.

Non-Title I
Title I
25
AMO Analysis
  • Of the schools that are NOT meeting AMOs, six in
    ten are Title I schools. Of those, the majority
    are SWP schools.

26
AMO Analysis
  • Of the Title I schools that are NOT meeting AMOs,
    three quarters are other T1 they are neither
    Focus nor Priority Schools.

27
AMO Analysis
  • On average, there is a ten point difference in
    index scores between those schools that met AMOs
    and those that didnt.

28
AMO Analysis
  • Schools that did not meet their AMOs were also
    more likely to receive deductions for Student
    Engagement.

of deductions
29
AMO Analysis
  • Schools that did not meet their AMOs were also
    more likely to receive deductions for Student
    Engagement.

Another 25 of these schools are also Focus
Schools
30
Data Analysis
  • Lets examine AMO misses by content area
  • Reading
  • Math
  • Graduation
  • Lets examine AMO misses by school type
  • Elementary
  • Middle
  • High School
  • Cross-reference with Focus/Priority status to
    zero in on area of need and intervention.
  • Examine where schools made it by confidence
    interval only

31
Using AMO Data
32
Using AMO Data
  • Since all schools received a school report card,
    all schools can readily gauge their progress with
    their students and specific student groups.
  • Schools can pinpoint how much progress their
    students and each student group will need to make
    annually, potentially establishing improvement
    plans with 2016-17 as a focal point.
  • For those Title I schools that were identified as
    Title I Priority or Title I Focus schools, AMOs
    will be used as part of the exit criteria from
    those identifications (a four-year cohort). As
    such, these schools will want to pay particular
    attention to the progress of student groups each
    year of the cohort. 

33
Using AMO Data
  • Common Core instruction
  • Multi-level systems of support (RTI/PBIS) to
    ensure were reaching all students
  • Consider links to Indistar, SIR, school
    improvement planning that incorporates AMO data
    and/or action plans

34
AMO Worksheet
  • Schools can calculate the improvement needed to
    reach the AMOs required for each subgroup based
    on this years School Report Card data.
  • (subtract 2011-12 performance from 2016-17 AMO
    and divide by 5)
  • For example, in order to meet statewide all
    students
  • 35.8 reading in 2011-12 means 2.82 increase in
    percent proficient annually
  • 48.1 math in 2011-12 means 3.4 increase in
    percent proficient annually

35
  • Office of Educational Accountability
  • Department of Public Instruction
  • http//oea.dpi.wi.gov/
About PowerShow.com