Erlanger-Elsmere Independent Schools 2014-2015 Assessment Results.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ASSESSMENT UPDATE Rhonda Sims, Director Division of Support and Research Office Of Assessment And Accountability
Advertisements

Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
Simpson County Schools Accountability Results, Fall of 2013 Franklin-Simpson High School 97 th Percentile* DISTINGUISHED *percentile rank based on 2012.
Kentucky Association for Assessment Coordinators (KAAC) Office of Assessment and Accountability 10/23/12 1 Assessment and Accountability Update.
+ Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 1 Hal Sanderson, Ph.D. Research and Assessment August 21,
Kentucky’s School Report Card and Spreadsheets
ESEA Flexibility: College & Career Readiness Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 7 of 8.
Education, Employment and the Economy Lexington Rotary July 19, 2012 Terry Holliday, Ph.D. Kentucky Education Commissioner.
Moving Forward With Assessment and Accountability August 2011.
ASSESSMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Create by KAAC Modified by Kenna Williams.
Science Content Leadership Network July 17, 2014.
Understanding Wisconsin’s New School Report Card.
January 19, :00 – 10:00 a.m. ET 1. Changes to Kentucky’s ESEA Waiver Request Required by USDOE Affecting 703 KAR 5:222, Categories for Recognition,
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
School Progress Index 2012 Results Mary Gable- Assistant State Superintendent Division of Academic Policy Carolyn Wood - Assistant State Superintendent.
P t G T P ersistence t o G raduation T ool A tool designed to identify students who may be off-track for graduating.
DAC Back-to-School Training Overview Presented By: Jennifer Stafford 1 OAA:DSR:js:07/22/2015.
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability Model June 2011.
Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.
Proficiency Delivery Plan Strategies Curriculum, Assessment & Alignment Continuous Instructional Improvement System ( CIITS) New Accountability Model KY.
Strategic Planning Update Kentucky Board of Education January 31, 2012.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
Principal Professional Learning Team August 2012.
School Year. Unbridled Learning Next Generation Learners (100%) Next Generation Support (23%) Next Generation Professionals (10%) Next Generation.
Assessment and Accountability Update Kentucky Association of School Administrators July 18, 2013 Kentucky Department of Education Office of Assessment.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Index Overview Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 3 of 8.
Next-Generation Standards and Accountability Terry Holliday, Ph.D. Kentucky Education Commissioner Quality New Mexico June 9, 2011.
July,  Congress hasn’t reauthorized Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  U.S. Department.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
Collecting data & information Talking with teachers, administrators, service providers Progress Monitoring Consolidated Planning /Use of Data Alternative.
By Brian Patrick Federal Programs Director Whiteriver Unified School District #20 WHITERIVER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 I.ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW.
The elements of the proposed accountability model are subject to change.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
Kentucky’s School Report Card and Spreadsheets 2015 Workbook.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
A Balanced Approach As of September 15, 2010 Proposed Accountability Model.
ASSESSMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Kentucky Association for Assessment Coordinators Ken Draut, Associate Commissioner Rhonda L.. Sims, Director Office.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Moving Forward With Assessment and Accountability August 2011 High School.
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.
703 KAR 5:225 Next-Generation Learners Accountability System Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:cw,ko.
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability System What to Expect for the First Release of Data.
Kentucky Department of Education, Office of Assessment and Accountability, July 2012 Questions: or
Novice Reduction & Non-Duplicated Gap Group
Rhonda Sims, Associate Commissioner Jennifer Stafford, Director Office of Assessment and Accountability Monthly DAC Webcast February 11, 2016 KDE:OAA:DSR:
Kentucky Department of Education, Office of Assessment and Accountability, July 2012 Questions: or
Accountability Overview Presented by Jennifer Stafford Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:pp: 12/11/2015.
School Accountability and Grades Division of Teaching and Learning January 20, 2016.
Gallatin County High School Accountability & Assessment Data.
Assessment and Accountability Update Longbranch Elementary School September 27,
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
2015 Assessment and Accountability Update Scott Trimble Workshop October 20, Rhonda Sims, Associate Commissioner Jennifer Stafford, Director Kentucky.
Next Generation Learners Session 1: Introduction of Next Generation Learners.
Assessment & Accountability Session 3: Content and School Scores.
February 2012 State Board Ruling: School Grade Calculations
Conversation about State Report Card November 28, 2016
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Next Generation Learners
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability System
HOGSETT Elementary School
College/Career Ready for All
Every Student Succeeds Act Update
Spencer County Public Schools
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
November 09, 2012 Suzanne M. Wright Joe Prather
Support for Effective Schools and Districts Persistently Low-Achieving
Presentation transcript:

Erlanger-Elsmere Independent Schools Assessment Results

The System of Accountability As required by Senate Bill 1 (2009), the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) developed a balanced accountability model, Unbridled Learning: College/Career-Readiness for All. The model took effect in the school year. It incorporates all aspects of school and district work and is organized around the KBE’s strategic priorities: Next-Generation Learners Next-Generation Instructional Programs and Supports (Program Reviews) Next-Generation Professionals The first two years of reporting include Next-Generation Learners; included Next-Generation Learners and Next-Generation Instructional Programs and Supports (Program Reviews). Next-Generation Professionals and additional Program Review areas are scheduled to enter the model in future years. All data for the assessment and accountability system are publicly available in the Kentucky School Report Card on the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) website.Kentucky School Report Card

Next Generation Learners Kentucky public school students in grades three (3) through eight (8) completed tests collectively named the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) in five content areas: Reading (All Grades) Mathematics (All Grades) Science (4th and 7th Grade) Social Studies (5th and 8th Grade) Writing (4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Grade) Students in the 8th Grade also take the EXPLORE (ACT) assessment as a measure of College and Career Readiness.

Next Generation Learners Students at the high school level complete End-of-Course exams in: Algebra II English II Biology U.S. History High school students also complete a writing test and language mechanics test as part of the PLAN (ACT) assessment in grade ten (10) and a writing test and the ACT assessment in grade eleven (11). The PLAN to ACT score is used as a measure of Growth and the ACT scores as a measure of College Readiness.

Next Generation Instructional Programs and Supports A Program Review is...a systematic method of analyzing components of an instructional program, including instructional practices, aligned and enacted curriculum, student work samples, formative and summative assessments, professional development and support services, and administrative support and monitoring KRS (1)(i) Program reviews have been written for five (5) areas:  Arts & Humanities (All Levels)  Writing (All Levels)  Practical Living and Career Studies (All Levels)  K-3 Program (Elementary Only)  Global Competency/World Language(All Levels) The review of a program should be an on-going, year-round, reflective process.

What's New For ? 1.Science scores in elementary and middle schools and alternate assessments at all levels are not included in the Next-Generation Learners component to allow for implementation of new standards. 2.Kindergarten-3 (K-3) Program Review scores are included in elementary school (where applicable) in addition to Arts and Humanities, Practical Living and Career Studies and Writing. Note: The 2014 data in the 2015 School Report Card has been updated based on data review changes made after the 2014 public release in addition to the changes listed in "What’s New for " above.

Performance Classifications, Rewards, and Assistance Categories Performance Classifications for Schools and Districts  Needs Improvement (Below 70th Percentile)  Proficient (At or Above 70th Percentile)  Distinguished (Above 90th Percentile) Rewards Categories for Schools and Districts  Progressing Meet Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) goal (1.0 gain in Overall Score below Proficient or.5 gain Proficient and above); Graduation rate goal (4-year adjusted cohort); Participation rate (95%)  High Performing Top 90% of schools/districts and meets AMO, graduation rate goal and participation rate goal  School/District of Distinction Top 95% of schools/districts and meets AMO, graduation rate goal, participation rate goal and has graduation rate above 60% for 2 years

Performance Classifications, Rewards, and Assistance Categories High progress is an additional label which is differentiated between Title I, Non-Title I and district. As defined in regulation: High-progress school means: (a) A Title I school that:  Meets its current year AMO starting in , student participation rate, and graduation rate goal;  Has a graduation rate above sixty (60) percent for the prior two (2) years; and  Has an improvement score indicating the school is in the top ten (10) percent of improvement of all Title I elementary, middle, or high schools as determined by the difference in the two (2) most recent calculations of the overall score; or (b) A Non-Title I school that:  Meets its current year AMO starting in , student participation rate, and graduation rate goal;  Has a graduation rate above sixty (60) percent for the prior two (2) years; and  Has an improvement score indicating the school is in the top ten (10) percent of improvement of all non-Title I elementary, middle, or high schools as determined by the difference in the two (2) most recent calculations of the overall score. High-progress district means:  Meets its current year AMO starting in , student participation rate, and graduation rate goal;  Has a graduation rate above sixty (60) percent for the prior two (2) years; and  Has an improvement score indicating the district is in the top ten (10) percent of improvement of all districts as determined by the difference in the two (2) most recent calculations of the overall score.

Performance Classifications, Rewards, and Assistance Categories A Focus designation places attention on how student groups are performing in Reading, Mathematics, Social Studies, Writing and Language Mechanics. Schools are designated as focus based on: 1)the non-duplicated gap group performing in the lowest 10% or 2)2) individual student groups (i.e., limited English proficiency, students with free/reduced-price lunch, students with disabilities, ethnicity groups) performing three standard deviations below the mean—scoring below 99% of the state. Based on federal expectations, Kentucky must identify 284 schools in as Focus. The initial identification was made in To exit focus, schools must show improvement with the focus group for two years and meet their Annual Measurable Objective (AMO), participation rate above 95% and graduation rate above 60%.

Performance Classifications, Rewards, and Assistance Categories As OAA applies the data rule to determine which schools and districts receive the Focus and High Progress Label, a set of cut scores for each label is created annually. The cuts for are in the table to the right.

2015 Locked Overall Accountability Cut Scores

Lloyd Memorial High School

Total Weighted Score76.9 Met AMO GoalYes Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalYes ClassificationDistinguished/Progressing Rewards CategoryHigh Performing School

Lloyd Memorial High School

Tichenor Middle School

Total Weighted Score55.1 Met AMO GoalNo Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationNeeds Improvement Rewards CategoryFocus School The Overall Gap group performing in the lowest 10% and students with disabilities performing three (3) standard deviations below the mean in reading.

Arnett Elementary School

The K-3 Program Review was not a part of Accountability

Arnett Elementary School

Total Weighted Score79.4 Met AMO GoalYes Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationDistinguished/Progressing Rewards Category School of Distinction/High Progress School

Howell Elementary School

The K-3 Program Review was not a part of Accountability

Howell Elementary School

Total Weighted Score56.5 Met AMO GoalNo Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationNeeds Improvement Rewards CategoryFocus School The Overall Gap group performing in the lowest 10% and students with disabilities performing three (3) standard deviations below the mean in reading.

Lindeman Elementary School

The K-3 Program Review was not a part of Accountability

Lindeman Elementary School

Total Weighted Score67 Met AMO GoalNo Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationNeeds Improvement Rewards Category N/A The cut score for a Proficient classification was 67.2 for Elementary schools.

Miles Elementary School

The K-3 Program Review was not a part of Accountability

Miles Elementary School

Total Weighted Score66.2 Met AMO GoalYes Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationNeeds Improvement/Progressing Rewards CategoryN/A The cut score for a Proficient classification was 67.2 for Elementary schools.

Erlanger-Elsmere Independent Schools

Total Weighted Score65.5 Met AMO GoalNo Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalNo ClassificationNeeds Improvement Rewards Category The cut score for a Proficient classification was 66.2 for Districts.