STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions Principals Meeting - August 13, 2008

STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions 11/13/2018

Reports Available FUSD CST Proficiency Reports AYP Proficiency Prediction Report CDE STAR Website Report AYP Report from CDE When Aug. 6 Aug. 13 Aug. 14 Sept. 3 Purpose To study trends in school scores To provide 1st look at estimated proficiency for NCLB accountability AMOs To show 1 year % of students performance levels Official NCLB accountability report Who Students continuously enrolled; includes students who took CMA in grades 3-5 as “not proficient.” excludes students who took CMA in grades 3-5 includes students who took CST or CAPA HS -10th grade CAHSEE All students testing at school; CST report includes students who took CST only Where On REA Web page and AiS static reports Handed out today On CDE web page: http:www.cde.ca.gov select STAR Reports On CDE web page: http:www.cde.ca.gov Select Annual Progress Reports Share with Public Predictions for Internal Use Only Public on 8-14

FUSD CST Proficiency Reports

CDE STAR Website Reports

AYP Report from CDE

AYP Proficiency Prediction Reports

Other Beginning of Year Reports REA is continuing to work to produce reports that schools can use to study progress and prepare for the new school year. Some of these are: AiS pages (already available– based on current or end of year roster) STAR student reports mailed directly to parents Initial draft available soon: GLAS/ACS to CST reports (contact REA analyst) CST Cluster Summary (contact REA Analyst)

AYP Prediction Reports STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions 11/13/2018

Reminder: 4 Components of AYP Participation (95%) Proficiency (AMOs) Percent of students scoring proficient or above CST/CAPA (grades 2-8) OR CAHSEE (grade 10) Academic Performance Index (API) The schoolwide API is used as an “additional criteria” for AYP. Graduation Rate For High Schools the graduation rate is used as an “additional criteria” for AYP.

AMOs-ELA: Annual Measurable Objectives - English Language Arts Here are the English Language Arts Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) or status bars laid out year by year. At the end of the 2003-2004 school year, the minimum performance level for elementary and middle schools was 13.6 percent of students would score proficient or advanced on the CST (along the elementary/middle school blue line). In the 2004-2005 school year with testing happening in spring 2005, the minimum performance level increased to 24.4 percent of students scoring proficient or advanced. This will be the minimum English Language Arts level for elementary and middle schools for 2005-06 and 2006-07. In a similar fashion, the high school annual measurable objectives went from 11.2 percent of students to 22.3 percent of 10th grade students scoring proficient or advanced on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).

AMOs-MATH: Annual Measurable Objectives - Mathematics Here are the mathematics Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) or status bars laid out year by year. At the end of the 2003-2004 school year, the minimum performance level for elementary and middle schools was 16 percent of students would score proficient or advanced on the CST (along the elementary/middle school blue line). In the 2004-2005 school year with testing happening in spring 2005, the minimum performance level increased to 26.5 percent of students scoring proficient or advanced. This will be the minimum Mathematics level for elementary and middle schools for 2005-06 and 2006-07. In a similar fashion, the high school annual measurable objectives went from 9.6 percent of students to 20.9 percent of 10th grade students scoring proficient or advanced on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).

OR Growth of 1 API Point Each Year Annual Measurable Objectives: API The API “Status Bar” as an “additional indicator” for AYP OR Growth of 1 API Point Each Year Here is the status bar for API. Like the other AMOs this one “stair-steps” until 2007-2008 when it becomes steep. For 2005, 2006, and 2007 results, a school can meet the API by either of two ways: Have and API of 590 or higher OR If the API is below 590, then showing at least 1 point of growth meets the “API for AYP” criteria Notice that the criteria for meeting this “additional indicator” for AYP is different than the criteria for meeting the California State accountability growth targets even though the same schoolwide API is used. It is possible for a school to meet its API goals and not its AYP goals. The opposite can also happen although it is less likely. This can happen because:   AYP and API are based on a different set of tests. API takes into account growth; AYP is a simple measurement of the percent of students rated proficient. AYP growth is based on increasing the percentage of students who are proficient (a specific percent is identified for each year). API growth is based on increasing a school’s score each year. The annual goal for each school is a 5% increase between the present score and 800 (or if above 800 to maintain the score).

OR Improvement of at least 0.1 from previous year Annual Measurable Objectives: Grad. Rate Graduation Rate as an “additional indicator” for AYP OR Improvement of at least 0.1 from previous year For our High Schools, Graduation Rate is also an indicator that goes into the AYP determination. There are three main methods by which a school may make AYP for Graduation Rate: Having the previous year’s graduation rate be above the status bar, showing a graduation rate growth of at least 0.1%, or having the latest two-year average be 0.2% more than the previous two-year average. Some schools with small numbers of 12th graders and graduates may be assigned the “District” graduation rate as a proxy for their school. This graph shows the status bar for graduation, which, like the proficiency targets, increases incrementally as we move toward 2013-2014. The rate for 2005, 2006, and 2007 is 82.9% OR Improvement in the rate of at least 0.2 in the average two-year rate

Safe Harbor Safe Harbor is one of several alternative ways to make the Annual Measurable Objective (AMOs) Other alternative ways of making an AMO really do not impact our elementary and middle schools as much as safe harbor. The two or three year averaging method sometimes helps our high schools with the graduation rate additional criteria.

Safe Harbor The general rule of thumb is that a subgroup has to improve by 10% In reality the calculation used is very sensitive to reducing the number of students who score “not proficient”. So, in cases of declining enrollment some subgroups may find “Safe Harbor” by a fairly small change in the percent proficient.

Safe Harbor Safe Harbor is calculated separately for each subgroup, so a whole school cannot be “In Safe Harbor” The Schoolwide category is also calculated to see if it meets Safe Harbor criteria On the proficiency charts which follow, subcategories that meet the Safe Harbor criteria are indicated in light green.

AYP Proficiency Prediction Reports

AYP Proficiency Prediction Reports

For more help contact REA REA Contact Phone Providing support to… Ben Atitya 457-3824 Holland Locker’s Schools Malati Gopal 457-3859 Amber Jacobo 457-3813 Elva Coronado’s Schools Cin Rogers 457-3828 Sue Smits’ Schools Dave Calhoun 457-3810 Eric Wenrick 457-3876 Mabel Frank’s Schools Paul Mesenheimer 457-3850 Carmen Rodriguez 457-3959 High Schools Philip Abode 457-3839 Rosylin Bessard’s Schools 11/13/2018