ABCs/AYP - 2006 Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director of Accountability Services NC Department of Public Instruction

ABCs Accountability Basic Skills with high educational standards Control (at the local level) Some key elements have remained. 2

ABCs Standards Growth Performance at the school level • AYP (adequate yearly progress) 3

ABCs - A Little History 1996-97 first year for grades K-8 1997-98 first year for high school Since 1996: curricula changes & new assessments; old statistical links are tenuous

ABCs in the 21st Century Comprehensive review of ABCs during 2004-05 New growth formulas developed as a result 2005-06 – Major transitions and major interactions with US Department of Education (USED)

ABCs – 2006 Key Points • New growth formulas • Continued focus on student achievement, school-level performance • 2006 results should not be compared with 2005 results

NC Testing Program Foundation for all test-related components used in accountability program Based on NC Standard Course of Study End-of-Grade (Grades 3-8) End-of-Course (High School and some Middle Schools) Writing Assessments Alternate Assessments and Other Tests 7

New in 2005-06 Growth formulas Math assessments (grades 3-8) Third grade mathematics not in growth Writing included in performance composite New Alternate Assessments

ABCs in 2005-06 (Growth) EOG growth in Grades 3-8 EOC growth College University Prep/College Tech Prep (CUP/CTP) Competency Test Passing Rate ABCs Dropout Rate

Additional High School Components of Growth College University Prep/College Tech Prep completion rate, and the ABCs dropout rate (Not measured on matched set of students; compares this year’s class to previous classes) Competency Passing Rate is measured on matched set of students; 8th grade and 10th grade

New Growth Formulas Use two years of prior performance to predict current year’s performance Includes adjustment for regression to the mean Are designed to be more resilient and reliable as curricula change Reading and mathematics growth calculated independently

New Terms to Know Academic change scale C-ratio [# met growth divided by # not met growth] AYP growth vs. ABCs growth – they are different

New Formula AC = CSc-scale – (0.92 x ATPAc-scale) Where • AC = academic change • CS = current score • ATPA = average of two previous assessment scores

C-Scale (Change scale) Subtract state mean (standard setting year) from student’s score Divide by standard deviation (from standard setting year) Scale runs for -4 to +4 Note: Standard setting year is first year of new test edition

A Single Student Actual Expected Difference 1.382 1.067 +0.315 1.382 1.067 +0.315 Met the individual growth standard Use with caution – Precision is +/- 0.5

How To Interpret Student had 0.315 change (growth) For growth purposes when included with the rest of the school, counts as met For individual interpretations, not out of the range of typical

School Level – Expected Growth Average all students’ Academic Change scores together Also, changes in Dropout rates CUP/CTP and Competency pass rate Note: Model is compensatory.

School Level – High Growth Must make expected growth Must also have C-ratio at or above 1.50 to make high growth

Performance Composite 2005-06 Percent of Students’ Scores At or Above Achievement Level III in: EOG Reading and Math (Grades 3-8) 10 EOC tests Writing Grades 4, 7 & 10 Alternate Assessments (NCCLAS, NCEXTEND2, NCAAP) Computer Skills at grade 8

Calculation of Performance Composite (Example Without Writing, Computer Skills or EXTEND2) Read Math NCCLAS AAP Total #  III 65 68 1 2 Total # 72 75 4 3 136  154 90.3% 90.7% 25.0% 66.7% 88.3% Note: Add all “numerators” and “denominators” to yield total.  

Incentive Awards/ Consequences Schools Designations Incentive Awards Assistance Teams Incentive awards are up to $1,500 for certified staff in High Growth schools ($up to $500 for teacher assistants). For Expected Growth schools, certified staff receive up to $750 and teacher assistants $375. 21

School Status Labels and Recognitions 22

NCLB Component Demonstrating Proficiency • All Schools Required to Have 100% Proficiency by 2013-14 School Year • Schools Must Make AYP “Adequate Yearly Progress” Talking Points • A centerpiece of the new ESEA is the requirement that all schools demonstrate 100 percent proficiency within 12 years. • In the meantime, until that 12-year deadline comes, schools must make “Adequate Yearly Progress.”

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) State Determines Baseline Subgroups Include: American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multi-Racial, White, School as a Whole, Limited English Proficient, Economically Disadvantaged, and Students With Disabilities 95% of Each Subgroup Must Be Tested More Flexibility Granted (Safe Harbor, Confidence Interval, AYP Growth)

Key Points Full Academic Year (FAY) = 140 Days at the Time for Testing Students on EOG/EOC Tests (School & District) Minimum Number of Scores for AYP Group = 40 (School); 40 or 1% (whichever is greater, District) All or Nothing Model

Think of 41 Hurdles in a Race Think of 41 Hurdles in a Race. (Most Schools Will Have Less, Some May Have More.) 10 Hurdles (Groups) for Reading Achievement 10 Hurdles (Groups) for Reading (95% Tested Rule) 10 Hurdles (Groups) for Mathematics Achievement 10 Hurdles (Groups) for Mathematics (95% Tested Rule) 1 Hurdle for Other Academic Indicator (Attendance or Graduation Rate) for School as a Whole

AYP Growth Model A final step for AYP Each student expected to be proficient within 4 years Trajectory to get a student there If on trajectory, student counts like proficient

AYP Growth Model Results (% students making growth) by subgroup reported Include proficient students using ABCs growth formula

Title I Schools Some Title I schools will have sanctions Two consecutive years of not making AYP in the same subject to enter School Improvement No consequences for not making AYP for one year Sanctions get progressively more severe

Steps for Title I Schools Steps for Title I Schools NOT Making AYP Year School’s Status Sanctions/Improvement Strategies Year One Fails to make AYP None Year Two Year Three In Title I School Improvement Year One; Fails to make AYP Public School Choice, technical assistance Year Four In Title I School Improvement Year Two; Fails to make AYP Public School Choice, supplemental educational services, technical assistance

Steps for Title I Schools Steps for Title I Schools NOT Making AYP Year School’s Status Sanctions/Improvement Strategies Year Five In Title I School Improvement Year Three; Fails to make AYP Public School Choice, supplemental educational services, corrective action, technical assistance Year Six In Title I School Improvement Year Four; Fails to make AYP Public School Choice, supplemental educational services, corrective action, plan for restructuring, technical assistance Year Seven In Title I School Improvement Year Five Public School Choice, supplemental educational services, implement plan for restructuring

Staggered AYP Release AYP Reporting for 2005-06 July (local)/August (state): High School AYP and Elementary & Middle School Reading AYP October: Elementary and Middle School Mathematics

Staggered AYP Release Impact on Title I Sanctions Make Initial Decisions on Reading Subsequent Decisions on Mathematics Public School Choice to be Offered as Soon as Possible

How to Enter LEA Improvement (Now) Miss any target (not necessarily the same target) in each of three grade spans (3-5, 6-8, HS) in the same subject, 2 consecutive years Note: USED asking states to include the other academic indicator (OAI) as another way to enter LEA Improvement

How to Exit LEA Improvement (Now) Make all targets in any of the three grade spans in the subject identified for District Improvement for 2 consecutive years (does not have to be the same grade span)

District Example 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 M 3-5 + - M 6-8 M HS R HS Improve-ment? N/A In In* Out

What is the “*” ? * = taking a step toward exiting improvement status LEAs Same as previous year sanctions First of the 2 years progress required to exit

Cohort* Graduation Rate Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate (will be reported in September but not part of AYP until 2006-07) *Follows students from grade 9 to12

Quality Control (Local, Regional, State) Schools (Principals, Teachers, School Testing Coordinators) LEA Testing/Accountability Coordinator Regional Accountability Coordinators (RACs) & Regional Computing Consultants (RCCs) NCDPI Division of Accountability Services

ABCs Report – October 5 http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org ABCs Results for 2005-06 ABCs Report – October 5 http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org

Web Site Resources Go to DPI Web site at www.ncpublicschools.org Other sites listed in Accountability Report Background Packet 41

Questions? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?