Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Elementary Principals Meeting Data Presentation August 6, 2010.
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’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.
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.
1 Cohort Graduation Rate October 1, 2010 Jonathan Wiens, Assessment and Accountability Greg Houser, Student Learning and Partnerships Oregon Department.
OCTOBER Accountability Updates. Annual Measurable Objectives Achievement AMOs Achievement Gap Closure AMOs Subgroup Improvement All AMOs are.
2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
Michigan’s Accountability Scorecards A Brief Introduction.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
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.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-7:00.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
Proposed Three Point Data Check System for Adequate Yearly Progress Dr. Charity Fleming Smith, Assistant Commissioner Arkansas Department of Education.
2010 CST DATA ANALYSIS 4 th Grade. 4 TH Grade Across the years- ELA.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-4:00.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
Understanding the Texas Accountability System. – 1979 Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (TABS) – 1985 Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS)
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.
Annual Student Performance Report September
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
Urbana School District #116 AYP Status Report 2009 Report to the Board of Education October 6, 2009 Donald Owen, Assistant Superintendent.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
ATHENS CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL IN GOOD STANDING!. ATHENS CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL PROFILE Safe school status Currently serves grade 6-8 Tonight’s school report is.
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.
WCPSS Student Achievement Evaluation and Research Dept. August 19, 2008.
- 0 - OUSD Results MSDF Impact Assessment State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API) The API is a single number, ranging from a low.
American Education Research Association April 2004 Pete Bylsma, Director Research/Evaluation/Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Alaska Superintendents Association Fall Meeting 2016
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
ABCs/AYP Background Briefing
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
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.
Ohio’s Experience with AYP
2009 California Standards Test (CST) Results
How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data
Analysis and Reporting, Accountability Services
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Shelton School District SY 11-12
MIMIC ACCOUNTABILITY USING BENCHMARK DATA ! ?.
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy Evaluation Oversight Subcommittee of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education March 13, 2008

Adequate Yearly Progress determined using five sets of calculations in the following order: Status Status plus Confidence Interval Safe Harbor Safe Harbor plus Confidence Interval Growth model (69 additional schools met AYP using the new growth model) Note: Schools’ final status is subject to 30 day appeals process. Appeals are reviewed by the ADE pursuant to the Arkansas Adequate Yearly Progress Workbook. 

Overall Statistics 947 schools assessed for AYP 475 did not make adequate progress 146 on Alert and 329 in School Improvement or School Improvement MS

Key Statistics on Subgroup Impact on Overall AYP status: 70% of all schools made AYP on 75% of subgroups 60% of the schools in Alert or School Improvement did not make adequate progress for at least 75% of the subgroup measures in 2007. 54% of schools in Alert or School Improvement did not make adequate progress for at least 75% of the subgroup measures in 2006.

Perception is schools are missing in only one subgroup 82% of the schools in Alert or School Improvement in 2007 did not meet AYP for 2 or more subgroups. 47 Alert schools and 36 SI schools missed one subgroup 93% of schools in Year 4 of School Improvement (54) in 2007 did not meet AYP for 2 or more subgroups. 95% of schools in Years 5, 6 and 7 of School Improvement (21) in 2007 did not meet adequate yearly progress for 2 or more subgroups. Schools in Years 6 and 7 in 2007 had 6 or more subgroups not make AYP.

Details: Schools That Did Not Meet Adequate Yearly Progress 83 missed AYP for one subgroup (8.5% of all schools and 18% of schools missing AYP) 113 missed AYP for two subgroups (11.6% and 23.8%) 279 missed AYP for three or more subgroups (29.5% and 58.7%) Subset of 146 Schools in Alert: 47 missed AYP for one subgroup (5% of all schools and 9.9% of schools missing AYP) 40 missed AYP for two subgroups (4.2% and 8.4%) 59 missed AYP for three or more AYP subgroups (6.2% and 12.4%) Details for Subset of 329 Schools in Improvement: 36 missed AYP for one subgroup: 36 (3.8% and 7.6%) 73 missed AYP for two subgroups: 73 (7.5% and 15.4%) 220 missed AYP for three or more subgroups: 220 (23.2% and 46.3%)

Key Statistics Subgroup Performance: Most schools (52%) did not meet AYP due to lack of adequate progress for the economically disadvantaged subgroup in literacy (249 schools). 32% of schools did not meet AYP due to lack of adequate progress for African American subgroup. 30% of schools did not meet AYP due to lack of adequate progress for the students with disabilities subgroup. Only 34 schools (10% of 475) missed AYP due to only Students with Disabilities subgroup. All missed for literacy. 79% of these schools were schools that served predominantly middle grades.

How may schools were held accountable based on minimum n? 67% and 61% of schools’ Students with Disabilities subgroups were not eligible for accountability due to group size (less than 40 students) in literacy and math, respectively. 59% of schools that missed AYP for only one subgroup did not miss for Students with Disabilities. 90% and 89% of schools’ Limited English Proficient Subgroups were not eligible for accountability due to group size (less than 40 students) in literacy and math, respectively.

Where subgroups met minimum n in Alert/SI schools: Economically Disadvantaged Literacy: 56% did not make AYP. 120 (SI) and 129 (A) of 442 schools. Math: 29.6% did not make AYP. 68 (SI) and 69 (A) of 463 schools. African American Literacy: 65.3% did not make AYP. 101 (SI) and 51 (A) of 248 schools. Math: 43.7% did not make AYP. 76 (SI) and 41 (A) of 268 schools. Hispanic Literacy: 58.8%  did not make AYP. 13 (SI) and 27 (Alert) of 68 schools. Math: 19.2% did not make AYP. 3 (SI) and 12 (Alert) of 78 schools. LEP Literacy: 84% did not make AYP. 9 (SI) and 33 (A) of 50 schools. Math: 50.1% did not make AYP. 2 (SI) and 25 (A) of 53 schools. Students with Disabilities Literacy: 70.8% did not make AYP. 109 (SI) and 35 (A) of 154 schools. Math: 66.9% did not make AYP. 68 (SI) and 53 (A) of 181 schools.