NDE State of the Schools 2012-13 Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Advertisements

No Child Left Behind Act January 2002 Revision of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Education is a state and local responsibility Insure.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
Michigan’s Accountability Scorecards A Brief Introduction.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
Ohio’s New Accountability System Ohio’s Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act a.k.a. ESEA January 8, 2002.
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
1 Student Assessment Update Research, Evaluation & Accountability Angela Marino Coordinator Research, Evaluation & Accountability.
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
School Achievement and Progress List Conference Call with Superintendents March 29, 2010.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Connecticut’s Performance on Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives, Presentation to Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
NDE Data Conference April 29, 2013 Dr. Valorie Foy Dr. John Moon
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
Testing Updates Updates New assessments in all areas Grades 3 – 8 ELA/Math Alternate Assessments - Online New Accountability Model Status,
1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
Department of Accountability: “Anyone can measure the rain; we build arks.” Assessment Update: Preliminary Results Department of Accountability.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
Preliminary AYP Preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Data.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
Nebraska Department of Education State of the Schools Report October 21, :00 a.m.
School Accountability and Grades Division of Teaching and Learning January 20, 2016.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Communication Webinar:
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
2012 Accountability Determinations
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Wade Hayashida Local District 8
AYP and Report Card.
Presentation transcript:

NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education October 21, 2013 Research Division

State of the Schools Report, Released by the Nebraska Department of Education  Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP (Federal Accountability)  Persistently Lowest Achieving School or PLAS (Federal Accountability)  Nebraska Performance Accountability System (State Accountability)

Nebraska State Assessment (NeSA) Timeline NeSA Results inform Accountability decisions. Late January NeSA-Writing Grades 4, 8, and 11 April NeSA-Reading and NeSA-Alternate Assessment Reading Grades 3-8, and 11 NeSA-Math and NeSA-Alternate Assessment Math Grades 3-8, and 11 NeSA-Science and NeSA-Alternate Assessment Science Grades 5, 8, and 11

What is AYP? (Federal Accountability) Performance Goals: Reading, Mathematics (grades 3-8, and 11) Participation Goals: All subjects must achieve 95% Other Academic Indicator Writing performance: grade 4 (62%) Writing performance: grade 8 (participation rather than performance in due to online testing irregularities experienced during the NeSA-Writing test) Graduation rate: (four-year cohort must achieve 90% or increase 2% from previous year) Federal requirement for 100% proficiency in reading and mathematics must be met in school year. All student groups with 30 or more students are judged.

Elementary Grades 3-6 Middle School Grades 7-8 High School Grade 11  Reading/LA – 89%  Mathematics – 84%  State Writing – Grade 4: 62%  Language Arts – 90%  Mathematics – 83%  State Writing – Grade 8: 61% * * For participation goal of 95% used due to online testing irregularities.  English – 89%  HS Mathematics –80%  Graduation Rate – (Grades 9-12) 90% or 2 percentage point increase AYP Performance Targets

Adequate Yearly Progress Subject Area Year Elementary School Middle School High School Reading %80%79% %90%89% Increases+11%+10% Math % 61% %83%80% Increases+17%+16%+19%

 Schools must achieve AYP targets for every student group of 30 or more students. Schools that are large and have many student subgroups are more likely to not meet AYP because there are more AYP target to be met.  Most Elementary Schools in Nebraska with a special education student subgroup are not able to access “Safe Harbor” to meet the AYP target due to a decision made by NDE.  Annual increases of 10 to 19 percentage points in AYP targets has increased the number of schools not meeting AYP across the state of Nebraska. Note: Beginning in , 100% of all public school students must be proficient in reading and mathematics. AYP Considerations

AYP Status and Title I Sanctions Timeline AYP Status # Years “Not Met” Same Subject Number of Title I Schools Title I Sanctions Met AYP0 0 - Title I Elem SchoolsNone Not Met AYP1 4 - Title I Elem SchoolsNone Needs Improvement, Year Title I Elem Schools School Choice Needs Improvement, Year Title I Elem Schools 1 - Title 1 Middle School School Choice Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Needs Improvement, Year 3 Corrective Action Title I Elem Schools 1 - Title 1 Middle School School Choice Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Decreased Authority at School Level Needs Improvement, Year 4 Planning for Restructuring 61 - Title I Elem School School Choice Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Decreased Authority at School Level Plan for Major Fundamental Reforms

What does the PLAS mean?  Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools label provided by NDE to meet Federally Accountability ARRA assurance  Reports an additional label; does not replace AYP label  Uses the performance of the “All” student group but not student sub-groups  Combines reading and mathematics performance and ranks schools to determine the lowest achieving schools  Identifies high schools with a three-year AYP graduation rate of less than 75%

PLAS Tiers  Tier I represents the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools in the State based upon results of the NeSA-Reading and NeSA-Mathematics tests.  Tier II represents non-Title I “eligible” secondary schools that are lowest performing in the State based upon results of the NeSA-Reading and NeSA-Mathematics tests and also non- Title I high schools with a graduation rate less than 75% over the three previous years.  Tier III includes any Title I school identified in “Needs Improvement”, “Corrective Action”, or “Restructuring” that is not a Tier I School.

PLAS Results Tier I:Title I Schools 6 elementary schools,1 middle school, 1 high school Tier II: Non-Title I Secondary Schools 5 middle schools and 4 high schools Tier III: Title I Schools 41 elementary schools and 1 middle schools Title I Schools in “Needs Improvement” not identified in Tier I are automatically placed in Tier II.

NePAS (State Accountability) Nebraska Performance Accountability System Section I – District Reports  Includes NeSA-Reading, Math, Science, and Writing  Four grade groups:  Grades (3-5)  Grades (6-8)  Grade (11)  District, Grades (3-8, 11)  Ranking comparison to other school districts Section II – School Reports  School and district results provided for each NeSA grade level, 3-8 and 11  Grade level charts will not include rankings  Results where fewer than ten students are in one of the sub-groups are masked

NePAS Components  Status Score (scale score average)  Improvement Score (programmatic comparison: scale score differences same grade level one year to the next)  Growth Score (cohort comparison: scale score difference when looking at growth based on two years of scores from the same group of students)  Graduation (percent graduating in 4 years)  Participation (percent score decision if 95% participation goal was attained, Met/Not Met or percent)

NePAS District Results Indicator Type NeSA Indicator OPSStateRank Ranked Districts Improvement Reading Mathematics Science Growth Reading Mathematics NePAS: Elementary (Grades 3-5)

NePAS District Results NePAS: Middle-Grade Level Configuration (Grades 6-8) Indicator Type NeSA Indicator OPSStateRank Ranked Districts Improvement Reading Mathematics Science Growth Reading Mathematics

NePAS District Results NePAS: Secondary Grade Level Configuration (Grade 11) Indicator Type NeSA Indicator OPSStateRank Ranked Districts Improvement Reading Mathematics Science

NePAS District Results NePAS: Secondary Grade Level Configuration (Grades 3-8, and 11) Indicator Type NeSA Indicator OPSStateRank Ranked Districts Improvement Reading Mathematics Science Growth Reading Mathematics

NePAS Results Grade ReadingMathematics NumberPercentNumberPercent % % % % % % % % %654.5 % %981.8 % %685.7 % OPS Schools Demonstrating Performance Increases (two years of results, same grade level, different students)

NePAS Results Grade ReadingMathematics NumberPercentNumberPercent % % % % % % %00.0 % %3 OPS Schools Demonstrating Increases in Achievement Growth (two years of results, same students, different grade levels)

OPS NePAS Data Demonstrates:  Improved student performance at the district level for high school (grade 11) in Reading, Mathematics, and Science.  Annual improvement in Science at all reported levels. (elementary, grades 3-5; middle school, grades 6-8; and high school)  Annual increase for Grade 8 students in Reading and Mathematics with more than 80% of middle schools showing improved performance.  Reading increased in grades 4, 5, and 6 in at least half of the schools.  Mathematics increased in grades 3, 4, and 6 in at least half of the schools.  Reading growth was strong comparing the same students as they moved from grades 3 to 4, 4 to 5, and 5 to 6.  Mathematics growth was strong comparing the same students as they moved from grades 4 to 5.  Except for NeSA-Science at Grade 5, growth is demonstrated for all subject areas at all levels.

Long Range Data Demonstrates Overall Positive Improvements

0%

Elementary Schools Reading +10% Mathematics +6% Science +0% Middle Schools Reading +13% Mathematics +8% Science +3% High schools Reading +1% Mathematics +7% Science +10% Long Range Data Demonstrates Overall Positive Improvements

Continued Commitment Gains in student achievement are further testimony to the commitment of OPS staff to the district’s mission “to provide educational opportunities which enable all students to achieve their highest potential.”

Questions?