MCPSS Data Review Aug. 2, 2011 Presenters: Phaedra Taylor Fox & Denita V. Reed.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Advertisements

AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives Office of Educational Accountability Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2012.
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.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
Contents: Writing Academic Goals, Strategies, and Action Steps Website and eCIP The CIP Worksheet Writing Academic Goals Writing Action Steps, Benchmarks,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Small/ASAM Schools and PI Categorical Program Director’s.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS October 5, 2011.
Performance Comparisons for Mobile County Schools Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama November 4, 2010.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
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.
1 Mobile County Public School System 2008 Accountability Report September 18, 2008.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
1 STUDENT PROGRESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 2013 September 10, 2013 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
2013 Accountability System Design Assessment & Accountability, Plano ISD.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
Performance Comparisons for Alabama’s Largest School Systems Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama January 17, 2008.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
11/5/2015 Michigan’s School Accreditation System : From Education YES to MI-SAS.
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.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
Rev ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS Section 1. “All effective accountability systems are dynamic.” “Accountability is not about measurement; it is about.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
AYP Accountability Participation Proficiency Attendance Rate Graduation Rate AAI Subgroups Safe Harbor Uniform Averaging Confidence Interval School Improvement.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
MCC MCA Data Discoveries. What does Minnesota think is important? What do we want kids to do?  Pass important tests “Be Proficient”  Grow.
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.
February 2016 Our School Report Cards and Accountability Determinations South Lewis Central School District.
AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives Office of Educational Accountability Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2012.
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.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Contents: Writing Academic Goals, Strategies, and Action Steps Website and eCIP The CIP Worksheet Writing Academic Goals Writing Action Steps, Benchmarks,
NYS School Report Card & Spring 2014 NYS Assessment Results Orchard Park Central School District Board of Education Presentation August 26, 2014.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Student Achievement Data Displays Mathematics & Reading Grade 3
Bixby Public Schools OCCT Data and AYP/API December 12, 2011.
2016 READY ACCOUNTABILITY DISTRICT RESULTS
ABCs/AYP Background Briefing
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
Academic Report 2007/2008 AYP.
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions
Proactive Assessments
Understanding AYP Campus Data
Prepared for Quincy Schools – November 2013
Dixon Elementary January 3, 2017.
North Carolina Positive Behavior Support Initiative
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
AYP and Report Card.
Marshall Public SchoolS MCA II Results
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Shelton School District SY 11-12
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

MCPSS Data Review Aug. 2, 2011 Presenters: Phaedra Taylor Fox & Denita V. Reed

OUTCOMES Participants will:  Gain a thorough understanding of Mobile County’s Accountability Status by disaggregating:  District Summary Reports  School Status Reports  ARMT & SAT-10 Results  Alabama High School Graduation Exam Results

State of Alabama 49 Systems Did Not Make AYP  Baldwin County  Jackson County  Washington County  Montgomery County

State of Alabama 49 Systems Did Not Make AYP  Jefferson County  Tuscaloosa County & City  Birmingham City  Huntsville City

CONGRATULATIONS !!! MCPSS Made AYP!

State of Alabama 377 Schools Did Not Make AYP  28 Systems in SI  227 Schools in SI

67 MCPSS Schools Made AYP Including:  The Regional School Augusta Evans (Green cells in every sub group except the AAI = Grad Rate)

24 MCPSS Schools Did not make AYP

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  Two elementary schools did not meet AYP:  Collins-Rhodes Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency  Dodge Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency Math – Special Ed. - Proficiency

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  13 middle schools did not meet AYP:  Burns Math – Special Ed. – Proficiency  Causey Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency  Chastang Math – Special Ed. – Proficiency  Scarborough Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency Math – Special Ed. – Proficiency

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  Denton Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency Math – Special Ed. – Proficiency  Grand Bay Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency Math – Special Ed. Proficiency  Hankins Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency  Lott Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  Mae Eanes Math – Special Ed. – Proficiency  Mobile County Training School Math – Special Ed. Proficiency  North Mobile Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency  Pillans Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency Math – Special Ed. Proficiency

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  Washington Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency Math – Special Ed. – Proficiency

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  8 high schools did not meet AYP:  Bryant Reading – All Students – Proficiency Reading – Special Ed. – Participation Reading – Free/Reduced Meals - Proficiency Math – Special Ed. – Participation AAI – Graduation Rate  Baker Reading – Special Ed. – Proficiency Reading – Black – Proficiency Reading – Free/Reduced – Proficiency Math – Special Ed. - Proficiency

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  Blount Reading – All Students – Proficiency Reading – Black – Proficiency Reading – Free/Reduced Meals - Proficiency AAI – Graduation Rate  Citronelle Reading – Free/Reduced – Proficiency

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  Davidson AAI – Graduation Rate  Mary G. Montgomery Reading – Free/Reduced – Proficiency

MCPSS 2011 AYP Information  Murphy Reading – Free/Reduced Meals - Proficiency  Williamson Reading – All Students – Proficiency Reading – Black – Proficiency Reading – Free/Reduced – Proficiency AAI – Graduation Rate

15 MCPSS Schools in School Improvement Excluding Special Schools  Burns – SI Year 1  Causey – SI Year 1  Scarborough – SI Year 1  Denton – SI Year 1

15 MCPSS Schools in School Improvement Excluding Special Schools  Grand Bay – SI Year 1  Hankins – SI Year 1  Mae Eanes – SI Year 1  Mobile Co. Training – SI Year 2

15 MCPSS Schools in School Improvement Excluding Special Schools  Pillans – SI Year 1  Washington – SI Year 1  Bryant – SI Year 1  Blount – SI Year 1

15 MCPSS Schools in School Improvement Excluding Special Schools  Citronelle – SI Year 1  Davidson – SI Year 1  Williamson – SI Year 1

School Improvement Must implement one of the following actions:  High-quality PD addressing problems  An intensive /focused instructional program  Supplemental educational services

School Improvement Must implement all of the following actions:  Provide written notice of the school’s status to each student enrolled in the school.  Offer Public School Choice  Budget and spend not less than 10% of its current year Title I allocation to provide high quality PD addressing the problems

Summary of Stanford-10 & ARMT Results

‘08 Total ‘09 Total ‘10 Total Reading ‘11 Total Reading ‘10/’1 1 + / - Total Reading ‘08 Total Math ‘09 Total Math ‘10 Total Math ‘11 Total Reading ‘10/’11 + / - Total Reading Grade Grade Grade Same Grade Grade Grade Stanford-10 Reading Math

’10 AMO ’10 MCPSS ’10 + / -’11 AMO’11 MCPSS ’11 + / - ‘10/’11 MCPSS Comparison Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade ARMT Reading (Levels III & IV)

’10 AMO ’10 MCPSS ’10 + / - ’11 AMO ’11 MCPSS ’11 + / - ‘10/’11 MCPSS Comparison Grade Grade Same Grade Grade Grade Grade Same ARMT Math (Levels III & IV)

Summary of MCPSS Status Reports

4 Ways to Make AYP 1.Meet Proficiency If you don’t meet proficiency, the following calculations take place: 2.Confidence Interval (CI) … if not 3.Uniform Averaging (UA) … if not 4.Safe Harbor (SH) … If you don’t make it in one of the 4 ways above, you don’t make AYP!

Confidence Interval It is used to determine whether or not the proficiency index is statistically different from the AMO goal. It is used to determine whether or not the proficiency index is statistically different from the AMO goal. It is used to ensure statistically sound decisions. It is used to ensure statistically sound decisions. A school is considered to have made AYP if its proficiency index is within the confidence interval. A school is considered to have made AYP if its proficiency index is within the confidence interval. Confidence Interval is abbreviated as CI on School Status Reports. Confidence Interval is abbreviated as CI on School Status Reports.

Uniform Averaging Uniform averaging is another way to make AYP in participation and proficiency. Uniform averaging is another way to make AYP in participation and proficiency. It is calculated by averaging the most recent three years of data. It is calculated by averaging the most recent three years of data. Uniform averaging is abbreviated as UA on School Status Reports. Uniform averaging is abbreviated as UA on School Status Reports.

Safe Harbor Safe harbor is a method used for making AYP in proficiency. Safe harbor is a method used for making AYP in proficiency. A school makes AYP by safe harbor if the school A school makes AYP by safe harbor if the school Made 95% participation goal Made 95% participation goal Reduced by at least 10% those not proficient from the previous year Reduced by at least 10% those not proficient from the previous year Met or improved the additional academic indicator Met or improved the additional academic indicator

Proficiency Index A proficiency index score of zero or higher indicates that a group made its goal. The proficiency index is an indication of where the group is in relation to meeting its goals across grades. A proficiency index score of zero or higher indicates that a group made its goal. The proficiency index is an indication of where the group is in relation to meeting its goals across grades. A proficiency index of zero means that, on average, students are meeting the goals across grades. A proficiency index of zero means that, on average, students are meeting the goals across grades

Proficiency Index Example An index of 3.00 means that, on average, the group has 3 percent more of its students scoring proficient than is required. An index of 3.00 means that, on average, the group has 3 percent more of its students scoring proficient than is required

Proficiency Index Example An index of negative 3.0 (-3.00) means that, on average, the group has 3 percent fewer students scoring proficient than is required. An index of negative 3.0 (-3.00) means that, on average, the group has 3 percent fewer students scoring proficient than is required

Could have been SH – Participation = No

Don’t wait for your GREEN cells to turn RED… Be PROACTIVE

Additional Look Fors: Brief walkthrough of Status Reports from 7 Schools that did not make AYP

Didn’t Make AYP last Year … Not in SI this year!

24 Schools Did not make AYP (23 had negative proficiencies – Sp. Ed. Reading) Levels Total # of Schools Not Making AYP Schools that have an N-Count (40) in Special Ed. Reading w/ negative proficiencies (Rolls up to District) Schools that have NO N-Count (39 or less) w/ negative proficiencies in Special Ed. Reading (Rolls up to District) Elementary220 Middle13121 High817 Totals23158

36 more schools w/ negative proficiencies in Sp. Ed. Reading made AYP Levels Total # of Schools Making AYP w/ negative proficiencies in Sp. Ed. Schools that Made AYP and have an N-Count (40) in Special Ed. Reading w/ negative proficiencies (Rolls up to District) Schools that have NO N-Count (39 or less) w/ negative proficiencies in Special Ed. Reading (Rolls up to District) Elementary32725 Middle111 High303 Totals36829

High Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 Citronelle Williamson MGM Blount Alma Bryant Baker Murphy Theodore Davidson Vigor Satsuma LeFlore B.C. Rain-32.88~~

Middle Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 Washington Mobile Co. Training Scarborough Denton Chastang Lott Hankins Eanes Grand Bay North Mobile Pillans Burns Semmes Middle Causey

Middle Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 Calloway-Smith Alba Dunbar Magnet Clark PhillipsNo Data

Elementary Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 Fonde Eichold-Mertz Collins-Rhodes Will Whitley Dodge Griggs Brazier Grant Forest Hill Westlawn Hamilton Indian Springs Burroughs

Elementary Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 Shepard Saint Elmo Turner

Elementary Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 Leinkauf Belsaw-Mt. Vernon Morningside Castlen Robbins Meadowlake Wilmer Tanner Williams Collier Dixon Booth Holloway

Elementary Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 McDavid-Jones Semmes Elem Hollinger's Island O'Rourke Lee Intermediate / Primary

Elementary Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 Craighead Haskew Davis Allentown Dawes Intermediate / Hutchens Breitling Spencer~ Gilliard E.R. Dickson Maryvale Hall Howard Orchard

Elementary Schools ‘ 09 ‘ 10 ‘ 11 Calcedeaver~-23.00~ Austin ~ Chickasaw~~~ Dauphin Island~~~ Old Shell~~~ CouncilNo Data ~ (Tilde) Fewer than 10 students

Closing Reminders Tilde ~ (1-9 Students) Where there is Unity, there is Strength!

Folder Contents: Tilde ~ (1-9 Students) 1. Two School Status Reports AYP Status for AYP Status for Color-coded dots (on your status reports inside your folder)

 Circle the report

Legend on Status Reports Tilde ~ (1-9 Students) N/A = (10 – 39 Students) ** No Data = No students in a particular subgroup

 If you Made AYP you have a Green Dot on your Status Report – Congratulations!

 If your Participation Rate fell below 95%, you have a Blue Dot on your Status Report. Create a school- wide plan ASAP so this will not happen again!

 If you have a Negative Proficiency in Special Ed. (or any other area) and you have a subgroup, you have a Yellow Dot on your Status Report. Please address these subgroups immediately with an intervention plan!

 If you have a Negative Proficiency in Special Ed. (or any other area) and you do not have a subgroup, you have a Red Dot on your Status Report. Get on top of this immediately! Your negative proficiencies roll up to the district! N/A = Fewer than 40 (not applicable for subgroups)

73

DATA MINING!!!!!!! vs. Data Collecting/Displaying

Looking for Patterns and Trends

2011 to 2012 AMO Readin g Readin g Diff Math Math Diff rd 4 th 5 th 6 th 7 th 8 th 11 th

Green below AMO Yellow equal to or above AMO

Blue below AMO Yellow equal to or above AMO

8 th Grade ARMT Year Tested Students Not Prof. Reading Percent Not Prof. Reading Students Not Prof. Math Percent Not Prof. Math SY 2008 Current 12 th %149230% SY 2009 Current 11 th %121227% SY 2010 Current 10 th %102024% SY 2011 Current 9 th %107824% Totals Typically the ratio of NP regular education students to special ed. students is The number of first time students to pass the AHSGE Reading in 10 th grade is 26-30% High School Regular and Special Education Students 8 th Grade ARMT Scores

AMO 92 AMO 86

Currently no data loaded Cut Scores for AHSGE Reading 426 Math 339 Pass Score for AHSGE Reading 563 Math 477

Non-Proficient Student List

Students listed with Y or N

Grad Rate AllSpec. Ed. Am In & Al Na. Asian Is. Pac. BlackHisp.WhiteLEPFree/ Red # Stud * Subgroup Graduation Rate Comparison * Largest Subgroup

Graduation Rate Calculations 1. Graduation Rate > 90% 1. Graduation Rate > 90% 2. Uniformed Averaging > 90% 2. Uniformed Averaging > 90% ( Graduates Graduates Graduates) ( Graduates Graduates Graduates) ( Total Students Total Students Total Students) ( Total Students Total Students Total Students) 3. Graduation Rate > Uniformed Rate Improvement 3. Graduation Rate > Uniformed Rate Improvement Target = [ Graduation Rate] + [10% x (90% Grad. Rate)] 4. Graduation Rate > Uniformed Avg. & Rate Improvement 4. Graduation Rate > Uniformed Avg. & Rate Improvement Target = [uniformed Average of Current Year and Past 2 Years > [Uniform Average of Past 3 Years] + [10% x (90% - Uniform Average of Past 3 Years)] Graduation Rate Calculations use the Graduation Rate and can go back as far as the Graduation Rate. Rates are rounded to hundredths.

Graduation Rate for Next Year Based on the class Based on the class Based on First time th grade class Based on First time th grade class Disaggregated by subgroups Disaggregated by subgroups Each subgroup must meet the 90% or show targeted improvement Each subgroup must meet the 90% or show targeted improvement

Graduation Rate Look Fors! Record all summer grads for the SY Record all summer grads for the SY Obtain proper documentation for students exiting the school before graduation Obtain proper documentation for students exiting the school before graduation October 2011-November 2011 complete the dropout and potential dropout list request from the state department October 2011-November 2011 complete the dropout and potential dropout list request from the state department

QUESTIONS?