Ohio’s Experience with AYP

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.

Advertisements

Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.

USDE Decisions on 2006 Amendments to the Texas AYP Handbook.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.

Update on Data Reporting April LEAP Changes LEAP software will be released shortly. Final LEAP software will not be available before mid-July. We.

1 Test Data Review and Adequate Yearly Progress. 2.

Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.

AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.

Lessons Learned from AYP Decision Appeals Prepared for the American Educational Research Association Indiana Department of Education April 15, 2004.

How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data The New York State Education Department August 21, 2012.

Adequate Yearly Progress 2012 Comfort ISD. Measures Evaluated Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Reading/ELA.

Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.

1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.

Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.

How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data The New York State Education Department November 12, 2014.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Small/ASAM Schools and PI Categorical Program Director’s.

Large Scale Assessment Conference June 22, 2004 Sue Rigney U.S. Department of Education Assessments Shall Provide for… Participation of all students Reasonable.

Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.

Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.

Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.

Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.

SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.

1 STUDENT PROGRESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 2013 September 10, 2013 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.

AYP/SINA/DINA Iowa Statewide Data Conference Tom Deeter IDOE Bureau of Information & Analysis Geri McMahon IDOE Bureau of School Improvement August 10,

Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.

No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.

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.

Developing a Framework for Ensuring the Validity of State Accountability Systems Council of Chief State School Officers AERA San Diego April 15, 2004.

August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.

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.

AERA March 25, 2008 Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One.

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.

1 Mitchell D. Chester Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Report on Spring 2009 MCAS Results to the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and.

Goal 1: To successfully educate all students Objective 3 Identify subgroups and content areas which contributed Identify subgroups and content areas which.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.

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.

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.

NCLB. Introduction Increased federal mandates and requirements on states Increased federal funding to states by almost 25% from the previous year Movement.

School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.

AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives Office of Educational Accountability Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2012.

University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.

Graduation Rate: A Process; A Product New Hanover County Schools September 2012.

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.

1 AYP for 2007 Haywood County Schools George Chapman Superintendent.

- 0 - OUSD Results MSDF Impact Assessment State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API) The API is a single number, ranging from a low.

Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.

American Education Research Association April 2004 Pete Bylsma, Director Research/Evaluation/Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2004 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Implementation of the.

Update on Accountability March “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.

Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]

Accountability Report Example Elementary/Middle Level ELA Performance.

Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.

Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005

North Carolina’s NCLB Pilot Growth Model

Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]

Wade Hayashida Local District 8

Online Data Workshop SIP Office of Curriculum and Instruction Office of School Improvement.

Data Review CST (AYP) inserted into your SPSA by DTS

How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data

Marshall Public SchoolS MCA II Results

Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Shelton School District SY 11-12

Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?

Presentation transcript:

Ohio’s Experience with AYP April 12, 2004 Ohio’s Experience with AYP Presentation to the American Educational Research Association Mitchell D. Chester April 12, 2004 Mitchell D. Chester

Pre-Implementation Concerns Over-identification Accountability for students with disabilities Volatility of results

Presentation Outline Ohio’s accountability system 2002-03 AYP results Measures employed to increase validity and reliability Conclusions

Ohio’s Accountability System School and district rating criteria 2002-03 results

Ohio's Experience with AYP April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

Ohio's Experience with AYP April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

Ohio's Experience with AYP April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

Ohio's Experience with AYP April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

Ohio's Experience with AYP April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

District Designations

School Designations

2002-03 AYP Results AYP within rating categories School Improvement within rating categories Disentangling the AYP categories

AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

School Improvement within Ohio’s Rating Categories

AYP Categories

AYP Categories

AYP Categories

AYP Categories

AYP & Students with Disabilities Total Missing AYP Missed Solely Because of SWD Schools 808 42 / 5.2% Districts 317 180 / 56.8%

AYP & Limited English Proficient Students Total Missing AYP Missed Solely Because of LEP Schools 808 1 / 0.1% Districts 317 2 / 0.6%

Measures Employed to Increase Validity and Reliability Safe Harbor Averaging Other

AYP: Impact of Safe Harbor Total Meeting AYP Met Because of Safe Harbor Schools 2,407 52 / 2.2% Districts 292 19 / 6.5%

AYP: Impact of Averaging Total Meeting AYP Met Because of Averaging Schools 2,407 116 / 4.8% Districts 292 16 / 5.5%

Other Measures Tests of statistical significance Confidence intervals Minimum N

Conclusions 2002-03 AYP impact was lowest of pre-implementation estimates Participation was not an issue Need better understanding of false positives / false negatives

Conclusions (continued) Volatility of results needs careful attention Consequential validity is the “main event”