Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Future Ready Schools ABCs/AYP Background Briefing August 23, 2007 Lou Fabrizio, Ph.D. Director of Accountability Services NC Department of Public.
Advertisements

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) An Overview. Resources Policy Guidance NCLB Brochures
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
Federal Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress. TEA-USDE Flexibility Agreement
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
Federal Accountability/ AYP Update Special Education TETN January 6, 2010 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado TEA, Performance Reporting Division.
MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Information Session: Parent/Guardian Communications, NCLB School Choice and SES August 17, 2010.
MA Department of Education Calculating Graduation Rates Massachusetts Department of Education November 2006 Bob Bickerton, Senior Associate Commissioner:
Grade-level and Competency Portfolios for 2014 MCAS-Alt
The SCPS Professional Growth System
Accountability Reporting Webinar: Parent/Guardian Communications, NCLB School Choice and SES August 23, :00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Kenneth Klau.
Preparing for 2005 Mid-Cycle IV Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations Massachusetts Department of Education August, 2005.
No Child Left Behind The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the “No Child Left Behind Act,” will have.
Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003.
Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
North Santiam School District State Report Cards
‘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.
Instructions for Use This presentation slideshow is intended for school and district leaders to use to explain Adequate Yearly Progress to faculty, school.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information Session Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability & Targeted Assistance Massachusetts Department of.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2008.
Accountability Policy Update (Schools) Changes to Bulletin 111 From Sept 2003 – June 2004 Louisiana Department of Education.
The Special Education Leadership Training Project January, 2003 Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
NCLB Title I, Part A Parent Notification Idaho SDE Title I Director’s Meeting September 15, 2008 Cathryn Gardner, Senior Program Advisor Northwest Regional.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 17 &
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
AYP/SINA/DINA Iowa Statewide Data Conference Tom Deeter IDOE Bureau of Information & Analysis Geri McMahon IDOE Bureau of School Improvement August 10,
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Pittsfield Public Schools September 23, 2009.
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.
1 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Steve Martin, CMT Program Manager Bureau of Research, Evaluation, and Student Assessment Connecticut State Department.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient (LEP) and Immigrant Students  The purpose of Title III, Part A is to help ensure.
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.
AYP and Report Card. AYP/RC –Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. –Understand the purpose and role of the Report Card in Oregon.
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
ESEA Flexibility NCLB Waiver Discussion October 24, 2011.
1 No Child Left Behind: Identification of Program Improvement (PI) Schools and Districts July 2003.
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.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.
Preliminary AYP Preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Data.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
What is AYP? AYP stands for Adequate Yearly Progress
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
2012 Accountability Determinations
ABCs/AYP Background Briefing
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP and Report Card.
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Meeting the challenge Every Classroom Every Student Every Day
Presentation transcript:

Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability, Improvement Planning and Targeted Assistance

Massachusetts Accountability System Basics School Performance Ratings are Biannual (2002, 2004, 2006…), as required by state law Descriptive terms Ratings for Performance and Improvement Based on aggregate MCAS student results AYP determinations are Issued every year, as required by federal law For students in aggregate and for subgroups Based on four factors: participation, performance, improvement, and attendance (elementary and middle schools) or graduation rate (high schools)

Why Proficiency? Proficiency in core academic subjects is the gateway to: Opportunities for higher education Meaningful choices for employment in our 21 st -century high tech economy Full participation in community and civic life

Calculating the Composite Performance Index (“CPI”) Points awarded based on number of students performing at each level Different performance measures for students with significant cognitive disabilities participating in MCAS- Alt Just arithmetic! Multiply, add, then divide.

Massachusetts NCLB Performance Targets for ELA and Mathematics Cycle III

Composite Performance Index MA Performance and Improvement Ratings Critically Low Very Low Low Moderate High Very High On Target Declined No Change Improved, Below Target Above Target X X X X X Baseline B

What is AYP? AYP stands for Adequate Yearly Progress Means progress towards 100% of students achieving proficiency by 2014 Measures progress against specific expectations each year

Cycle III AYP Criteria 70% + CD Attainment B: Performance C: Improvement A: Participation D: Attendance Graduation Rate 95% CPI Baseline CPI Time (# of Cycles) or 92% or ^ 1% ELA: 75.6 Math: 60.8

Two Ways to Make AYP: (A+B+D) Participation + Performance (A+C+D) Participation + Improvement or + Attendance or Graduation Rate

New In 2004 Assessment results for LEP students in US schools for first year not included in calculation of CPI Minimum sample size for subgroups is greater of a) 40 or b) 5% of students assessed or 200 Additional indicator (attendance or graduation rate) considered in all AYP determinations

18 AYP Determinations Per School! Each school and district receives AYP determinations in ELA/reading and in mathematics for students in the aggregate and each NCLB subgroup

Preliminary AYP Data Review August 25 - August 31 Review preliminary 2004 End-of-Cycle III AYP data files for schools and for district as a whole (data files posted to MADOE security portal Attend explanatory workshops (optional) Identify and report any AYP data or determination discrepancies evident in preliminary data run. September 1 Notice to districts and schools on preliminary list of those identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring September 10 Preliminary list of districts and schools identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring released to public.

AYP Reporting Schedule September 29 - October 6 Districts preview End-of-Cycle School and District Accountability System (SDAS) reports (Cycle III performance and improvement ratings and 2004 AYP determinations) Identify and report any data or determination discrepancies for resolution prior to public release of Cycle III accountability reports. October 8 Public release of Cycle III Accountability reports.

Consequences When A School Does Not Make AYP Schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group must be “identified for improvement” All schools identified for improvement must develop a plan for improving student performance Title 1 schools identified for improvement must also –offer school choice (year 1 in improvement status) –offer supplemental services (year 2 if fail to make AYP in year 1)

Notice to Parents: School Choice and Supplemental Services Title 1 Schools identified for Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring must offer school choice if alternative assignment options exist. If school choice is required, parents must be notified, in writing, as soon as possible after districts receive notice of the designation.

Corrective Action and Restructuring Schools identified for improvement that fail to make AYP for 2 additional years must be identified for corrective action. Schools that did not make AYP in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 were identified for corrective action last fall. Schools in corrective action that fail to make AYP in 2004 are subject to restructuring.

Appeal Standards and Processes Objective is to render fair, reliable decisions Appeals may be filed to address perceived erroneous or unfair determinations where: –there are student enrollment data discrepancies –data is missing or misplaced –circumstances render the reported data invalid or unreliable –application of the standard rules would render a result inconsistent with statutory intent, public policy, or sound professional judgement –school or district provides evidence that it has taken specific action to improve the performance of an identified subgroup and MCAS results demonstrate significantly improved results for that subgroup in the following year.

School Accountability Steps 1.Performance Ratings & AYP Determinations 2.Panel Review 3.Determination of Under-performance 4.Fact-Finding 5.Performance Improvement Mapping 6.Improvement Plan Reviewed by Board 7.DOE Monitors Improvement Initiatives 8.Year 2 Follow-up Review 9.Determination of Chronic Under-performance

Link Between NCLB and Our State’s On-Site Performance Review Process Schools identified for corrective action or restructuring based on aggregate results undergo state panel review. Panel Review Questions: 1. Is there a sound plan for improving student performance? 2. Are the conditions in place for successful implementation of such a plan?

Where Can I Find Accountability Information When I Need It? Visit the Department of Education website, –Click on Assessment and Accountability to find explanatory materials about the MA School and District Accountability System –Go to “School and District Profiles” to find performance data for the state, a district or school. Send questions to: