Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Assessing Student Growth to Foster School Excellence Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education Education Leadership Conference American Psychological.
Advertisements

School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
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.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
Data for Student Success Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report “It is about focusing on building a culture of quality data through professional development.
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
School Progress Index 2012 Results Mary Gable- Assistant State Superintendent Division of Academic Policy Carolyn Wood - Assistant State Superintendent.
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.
Torrance Unified School District Annual Student Achievement Dr. George W. Mannon, Superintendent Dr. E Don Kim, Senior Director of Elementary Education.
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.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
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.
Parent Information Night Oklahoma’s A-F School Grading System.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
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)
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
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.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.
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.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
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.
C R E S S T / CU University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
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.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
2017 Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
A Brief History Data-Based School & District Improvement
Brassfield 5th & 6th Grade Center Bixby Public Schools
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Bixby Public Schools OCCT Data and AYP/API December 12, 2011.
2012 Accountability Determinations
Bixby Public Schools OCCT Data and AYP/API September 13, 2010.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
New Accountability System: District and Site Report Cards
Danvers Public Schools: Our Story
Wade Hayashida Local District 8
Michigan School Report Card Update
Key Concepts & Questions Adequate Yearly Progress
Broken Arrow Public Schools District Assessment/Accountability Report
Birmingham City Schools Report Card Indicators
2009 California Standards Test (CST) Results
AYP and Report Card.
Meeting the challenge Every Classroom Every Student Every Day
History of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Presentation transcript:

Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP Bixby Public Schools September 14, 2009

API “The API is the numeric index or score reflecting a particular school’s or district’s academic performance, as well as the influence of other factors tied to educational success.” Its use been to document compliance with NCLB (4 components), to reward schools (Triple A financial rewards) and to increase accountability to all schools. Source: Oklahoma Academic Performance Index District Report, Oklahoma State Department of Education, July 2008.

Overview for API Mandated by Title 70 O.S. 3-150 Developed by the Oklahoma State Board of Education Seven mandated indicators Law requires that testing is weighted at least 60% Law stipulates performance targets each year Scores are assigned to individual schools as well as to the district.

No Child Left Behind Act NCLB mandates that 100% proficiency be reached by the year 2013-14 SDE established a growth target of 1500 API by 2013-14 to be equivalent to 100% NCLB requires AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) for the District and each School Site Growth must be overall and by subgroup.

No Child Left Behind Act AYP is measured in part by reading and math API scores for each of the following student groups: All students, regular students, special education, ELL, Economically Disadvantaged, and each Major Racial/Ethnic Group (Black, White…etc)

No Child Left Behind Act AYP requires that 95% of each student group within a school site or district must participate in the student academic assessments. Reading and Math API’s are calculated and AYP determined only for student groups within a school site or district meeting the minimum sample size of 30. Additional Indicators: Graduation Rates and Attendance

AYP Timeline 932 Math 914 Reading 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Math 932 1074 1216 1358 1500 Reading 914 1060 1206 1352

STATE API: Seven Indicators---Three Categories Oklahoma School Testing Program (OSTP) Reading and Mathematics from all state-mandated tests given in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and EOI High School School Completion Attendance: 2008-2009 data Dropout Rates: 2007-2008 data Graduation Rates: 2007-2008 data

Seven Indicators---Three Categories Academic Excellence API* ACT Data: Scores and Participation College Remediation Rates in Mathematics and Reading Advanced Placement Participation *This indicator utilized only in high school (9-12) and K-12 District accountability.

Goal Level of Performance for AYP Federal Requirements NCLB 95% of students participating in testing 1500 API in Math and Reading by 2014 for all students and sub-groups Attendance 94% (164.5 days of the 175 days taught) Graduation Rate of 82.4% and must increase yearly once attained.

Goal for Level of Performance API Same as NCLB but also Drop out rate of 1.0% ACT participation rate of 86.1% ACT composite score of 24 College Math and Reading Remediation rates of 5% or less

District API Components Subscores API Math 932 Reading 914 OSTP (80%)* Reading and Math scores for Grade 3-8 CRT, and EOIs for English II and Algebra I Math All Students = 1360 Reading All Students = 1326 Total All Students API = 1318 Reg Ed API = 1385 99.7% of All Students were tested district-wide School Completion (10%) Attendance Rate 2008-2009 Dropout Rate 2007-2008 Graduation Rate 2007-2008 School Completion API 1072 1432 1349 1284 Rate Target 94.6 91.2% 1.6 1.0% 92.4 67.8% *Data Disaggregated by ethnicity and socioeconomic status

District API Components Subscores API Academic Excellence (Overall 10%) Total ACT (60%) Total Remediation (10%) Advanced Placement Credit (30%) 1059 669 1500 ACT Participation 2008 (66.7%) 1015 ACT Composite 2008 (21.2) 1102 Math Remediation Rate (38.1%) 840 Reading Remediation Rate (20.0%) 498 Academic Excellence API 1152

Annual Yearly Progress? District Why? Yes Subgroup IEP Target Math of 932 Subgroup IEP Target Reading of 914 1240 wCI 1093 wCI Is our district designated a School Improvement District NO These scores were designated as “Safe Harbor” which is A 10% decrease in % of students scoring below Satisfactory or A 10% increase in the difference between the previous year’s API score and the API upper limit of 1500 Bixby HS is Safe Harbor for IEP Reading Students.

Individual School API: High School Subscores API Target 2010 OSTP (80%) EOI Exams (All Students) in English II and Algebra I 1237 914 1060 1409 932 1074 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 1432 1.6 1.0% 1349 92.4 67.8% 940 93.5 91.2% Academic Excellence (10%) ACT (Total) College Remediation, and AP Credit API 1059 669 1500 Annual Yearly Progress? Yes

Individual School API: Middle School Subscores API Target 2010 OSTP (90%) 7th and 8th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1365 914 1060 1399 932 1074 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate Target of 91.2% = 159.6 of the 175 days taught API Rate Target 952 93.6 91.2% Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? Percentage Tested YES 99.0%

Individual School API: North 5 & 6 Subscores API Target 2010 OSTP (90%) 5th & 6th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1384 914 1060 1438 932 1074 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 1204 95.7 91.2 Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? YES Percentage of Students Tested 100.0%

Individual School API: Brassfield Subscores API Target 2010 OSTP (90%) 5th & 6th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1257 914 1060 1321 932 1074 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 988 93.9 91.2 Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? YES Percentage of Students Tested 99.3%

Individual School API: Central Elementary Subscores API Target 2010 OSTP (90%) 3rd & 4th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1252 914 1060 1227 932 1074 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 1108 94.9 91.2 Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? No Percentage of Students Tested 100%

Individual School API: North Elementary Subscores API Target 2010 OSTP (90%) 3rd & 4th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1415 914 1060 1299 932 1074 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 1192 95.6 91.2 Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? YES Percentage of Students Tested 100%

Historical Test Data Grades 3-8   2006 2007 2008 2009 % Sat/Above Target API Math 790 Reading 768 % Sat/Above Target API Math 932 Reading 914 Mathematics Grade 3 79 88 87 *79 Grade 4 92 91 96 *77 Grade 5 85 94 Grade 6 83 90 *83 Grade 7 75 *80 Grade 8 Reading 98 99 *76 89 *75 93 *78 82 *82 *Cut Scores changed

Historical Test Data = EOI Tests for AYP and API

Historical Test Data = API & AYP Indicators High School and District Year Graduation Rate* Grad. API Drop-Out Rate* Drop-Out API 2003 95.3 1340 1.2 1480 2004 88 1084 3.2 1240 2005 94.5 1312 1.4 1456 2006 91.9 2.7 1300 2007 91.2 1326 0.7 1540 2008 94.7 1393 2009 92.4 1349 1.6 1432

Historical Test Data = API Indicators High School Year Attendance Rate Attendance API ACT % Taking ACT API 2003 94.7 1084 63.6 938 2004 93.6 952 64.9 970 2005 94.6 1072 70.8 1118 2006 93.9 988 67.7 1040 2007 2008 90.1 532 69.0 1073 2009 93.5 940 66.7 1015

Historical Test Data = API & AYP Indicators Attendance by Site & District Year District HS MS BF North 5/6 Central North 2003 94.7 94.9 95.0   93.9 2004 94.3 93.6 94.0 2005 94.6 93.4 94.1 95.6 95.5 2006 92.1 92.8 95.7 2007 94.8 95.1 94.5 95.3 2008 93.2 90.1 93.5 95.2 2009

OMAAP and OAAP 10 8 # Eligible 7 6 # moved to LK 3 2 14 12 4 Central 3rd Grade Central 4th Grade # Math Proficient 10 8 # Eligible 7 6 # moved to LK 3 2 # Reading Proficient 14 12 4

OMAAP District Scores 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th Alg I EngII 72% 69% 89% A/SMath 72% 69% 89% 84% 90% 76% A/S Rdg 58% 79% 77% 83% 80%

Implications Target Professional Development to improve student achievement Reading (1060) and Math (1074) 2010 Targets Specific Subgroups such as Special Education, ELL, American Indian, Economically Disadvantaged Increased importance of accurate data collection and reporting Increased monitoring of number of students taking the test (95%) Continued emphasis on increasing number of students taking ACT (66.7% to goal of 85%) Increased emphasis on attendance (94.6% to a goal of 98%) Continue to take preventative action to reduce drop-outs (1.0% or less—current is 1.6%) Appropriately test special education students

Performance Levels Unsatisfactory – Student does not perform at least at the limited knowledge level. Limited Knowledge – Student demonstrates partial mastery of the essential knowledge and skills appropriate to his/her grade level, course, or level of education as applicable. Proficient– Student demonstrates mastery of appropriate grade-level subject matter and student is ready for the next grade, course, or level of education, as applicable. Advanced– Student demonstrates superior performance on challenging subject matter.

EOI Cut Score Changes 2008 2009 50% 40% 62% 55% 83% 78% 36% 37% 47% Limited Knowledge Proficient Advanced 2008 2009 Biology 50% 40% 62% 55% 83% 78% US History 36% 37% 47% 72% Eng II 38% 39% 52% 66%

Math Cut Score Changes Limited Knowledge Proficient Advanced Grade 2008 2009 3 29% 47% 56% 67% 91% 4 49% 64% 87% 90% 5 44% 60% 82% 80% 6 33% 62% 78% 7 38% 51% 8 31%

Reading Cut Score Changes Limited Knowledge Proficient Advanced Grade 2008 2009 3 30% 54% 68% 96% 4 32% 60% 50% 74% 5 39% 56% 59% 72% 94% 6 46% 64% 7 36% 58% 90% 8 42% 70% 92%

Advanced Scores 2009/2008 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th HS Alg I HS EngII Math 26/21 24/30 41/27 43/29 42/45 40/40 56/31 Rdg 5/5 10/5 10/11 15/13 15/20 16/12 45/30

Questions?