Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) and State and Federal Accountability Elementary and Middle School Principals November 5, 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
South Dakota Accountability System – Year 2 School Performance Index Guyla Ness September 10, 2013.
Advertisements

Bureau of Indian 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.
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.
Courtney Mills. ESEA (Formerly AYP)  Federal Accountability  August  0 – 100, A – F  One per school (includes a breakdown by grade band)  Two Components:
Instructions for Use This presentation slideshow is intended for school and district leaders to use to explain Adequate Yearly Progress to faculty, school.
1 Union County School District Instructional Update 10 December 2007 Dr. David Eubanks Superintendent.
District Accountability Update May February 2007.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND Testing Requirements of NCLB test annually in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 test at least once in reading and mathematics.
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.
Accountability 101. State Accountability Federal Accountability # Students Met Standard # Students Tested If the Standard is not met: Apply Required.
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
KCCT Kentucky’s Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Overview of 2008 Regional KPR.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
Torrance Unified School District Annual Student Achievement Dr. George W. Mannon, Superintendent Dr. E Don Kim, Senior Director of Elementary Education.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
Charter Goals BECKIE DAVIS & COURTNEY MILLS. Is the goal S.M.A.R.T.? S pecific M easurable A mbitious & A ttainable R elevant & R esults-oriented T ime-bound.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
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.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
State and Federal Accountability Old English Consortium Assistant Principals’ Conference October 2009.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
1 Student Longitudinal Growth Project Jonathan Wiens Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Iowa School Report Card (Attendance Center Rankings) December 3, 2015.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.
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.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
1 Mississippi Statewide Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress Model Improving Mississippi Schools Conference June 11-13, 2003 Mississippi Department.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
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.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
June 5, 2014 Accountability Update. Accountability Updates 110% for At-Risk, Criterion #4 Accountability Manual Updates.
Accountability Overview Presented by Jennifer Stafford Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:pp: 12/11/2015.
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]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
Texas Academic Performance Report TAPR)
2017 State Assessment Highlights
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Michigan School Report Card Update
Lexington School District One
Education Briefings for Candidates for Office In 2008
Education Briefings for Candidates for Office In 2008
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
Presentation transcript:

Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) and State and Federal Accountability Elementary and Middle School Principals November 5, 2009

How are we held Accountable? Internal Measurements – MAP is an internal measure, and includes all students tested in the school. MAP data is available via the NWEA website and in Rock Hill via SAS. Internal Measurements – MAP is an internal measure, and includes all students tested in the school. MAP data is available via the NWEA website and in Rock Hill via SAS. State Tests = PASS, HSAP, and EOC Tests. State and District Test scores are available via the website. State Tests = PASS, HSAP, and EOC Tests. State and District Test scores are available via the website. Education Accountability Act (Revised June 2008): School Report Card (State) Education Accountability Act (Revised June 2008): School Report Card (State) Absolute performance: includes all students enrolled on the 45 th day/first day of testing who were “Met,” or “Exemplary” on PASS Absolute performance: includes all students enrolled on the 45 th day/first day of testing who were “Met,” or “Exemplary” on PASS Improvement rating: All students who were enrolled on the 45 th day/first day of testing who had a score from the previous year (Crosswoalk from PACT to PASS?) Improvement rating: All students who were enrolled on the 45 th day/first day of testing who had a score from the previous year (Crosswoalk from PACT to PASS?) EOC Accountability Handbook EOC Accountability Handbook NCLB: Adequate Yearly Progress (Federal)– Measures test takers enrolled on the 45 th day/first day of testing who scored “Met” or “Exemplary” range minus one standard error of measure – reported for all and for subgroups NCLB: Adequate Yearly Progress (Federal)– Measures test takers enrolled on the 45 th day/first day of testing who scored “Met” or “Exemplary” range minus one standard error of measure – reported for all and for subgroups Federal Accountability Workbook Federal Accountability Workbook

Calculating Absolute Ratings for School Report Cards (Grades 3-8)

PASS v. PACT and Cut Scores Below BasicAdvancedBasicProficient ExemplaryMetNot Met

PASS v. PACT and Cut Scores Points given for calculations – uncertain Points given for calculations – uncertain Below BasicAdvancedBasicProficient ExemplaryMetNot Met

MAP and PASS Correlation of MAP to PASS not yet done Correlation of MAP to PASS not yet done Use MAP scores to determine progress (Dynamic Reporting Suite) Use MAP scores to determine progress (Dynamic Reporting Suite) Some general correlation, e.g., Below Basic = Not Met Some general correlation, e.g., Below Basic = Not Met

1.Use cut scores in each subject area to assign weights to each student score: PACT = 5-Advanced, 4-Proficient, 3-Basic, 2- Below Basic 2, 1-Below Basic 1. Test scores for students who should be tested but were not are assigned a point value of zero. Application to PASS is not yet determined.

2. Multiply weights by the number of student scores falling into each category.

3. Divide the sum of the point scores by the number of students tested. 4. Repeat steps 1, 2, and 3 for each subject area.

5. Multiply the absolute index for each subject area by the appropriate weight from the table below. Add totals.

6. Round to the nearest tenth to determine your school’s absolute index. To find the associated rating, consult the chart below.

Calculating Improvement Ratings for School Report Cards (Grades 3-8)

1. Identify students who qualify for inclusion. These are students whose prior-year test scores are available and who were enrolled in your school by the 45 th day of the current year.

2. Calculate absolute indexes for each subject area for the current year and the prior year. Weights for these absolute indexes should be pulled from the EOC manual. A sample is provided below for ELA.

3. Add the totals to calculate an absolute index for each subject area in the current year. Repeat for the prior year. 4. Multiply the absolute index for each subject area by the appropriate weight from the table below. Do this for the current year and the prior year.

5. Subtract the index based on the longitudinally matched data for the prior year from the longitudinal index for the current year. Round to the nearest tenth. 6. Use the chart to determine improvement rating.

Individual Student Report

Adequate Yearly Progress The Federal legislation, “No Child Left Behind” requires the development of a measure of “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) that examines the performance of each subgroup within the district. The Federal legislation, “No Child Left Behind” requires the development of a measure of “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) that examines the performance of each subgroup within the district. In South Carolina, AYP is based on the percent of students in each subgroup category (n=40 or more) who demonstrated “Met” or “Exemplary” on PASS. Groups included in Rock Hill Schools are: In South Carolina, AYP is based on the percent of students in each subgroup category (n=40 or more) who demonstrated “Met” or “Exemplary” on PASS. Groups included in Rock Hill Schools are: All students All students African-American African-American Asian-Pacific Asian-Pacific Hispanic Hispanic American Indian American Indian Disabled Disabled LEP LEP Free/Reduced Lunch Free/Reduced Lunch Percent Tested - Must be at least 95% in every subgroup. Percent Tested - Must be at least 95% in every subgroup. Attendance – Must be 95.3% or better overall. (H1N1 and attendance?) Attendance – Must be 95.3% or better overall. (H1N1 and attendance?)

Adequate Yearly Progress Data used for the AYP analysis is demographic summary data based on the 45- day/first day of testing matched PASS 2009 data. Data used for the AYP analysis is demographic summary data based on the 45- day/first day of testing matched PASS 2009 data. If a group contained fewer than 40 matched students, the group was not included for AYP. If a group contained more than 40 students, but they were not matched, the group did not count for AYP. If a group contained fewer than 40 matched students, the group was not included for AYP. If a group contained more than 40 students, but they were not matched, the group did not count for AYP. Schools must meet AYP in all categories for all groups. AYP could be met in five ways: Schools must meet AYP in all categories for all groups. AYP could be met in five ways: Percent of students scoring “Met” or “Exemplary” equals or exceeds the objective. Percent of students scoring “Met” or “Exemplary” equals or exceeds the objective. Average (3 year) percent of students scoring proficient or advanced equals or exceeds the objective. Average (3 year) percent of students scoring proficient or advanced equals or exceeds the objective. Percent of students scoring less than the proficient declines by at least ten percent.* Percent of students scoring less than the proficient declines by at least ten percent.* Performance Index equals or exceeds the objective. Performance Index equals or exceeds the objective. Gain in the Performance Index is large enough so that if gains continue at the same rate until 2014, the index will equal 100. Gain in the Performance Index is large enough so that if gains continue at the same rate until 2014, the index will equal 100. AYP benchmark percentages increase every three years until reaching 100% in AYP benchmark percentages increase every three years until reaching 100% in 2014.

Spring 2009 Data Achievement standards (i.e., cut scores) are set after the first statewide administration. Achievement standards (i.e., cut scores) are set after the first statewide administration. Standard setting was conducted to determine the level of performance required for classifying students into levels of not met, met, and exemplary. Standard setting was conducted to determine the level of performance required for classifying students into levels of not met, met, and exemplary. Staff for the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) facilitated standard setting for PASS in August and the EOC approved standards during their meeting on October 5, Staff for the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) facilitated standard setting for PASS in August and the EOC approved standards during their meeting on October 5, 2009.

Spring 2009 Data Data Recognition Corporation (DRC) will post district data files and PDF files of the Individual Student Report (ISR) to eDIRECT on November 19. Data Recognition Corporation (DRC) will post district data files and PDF files of the Individual Student Report (ISR) to eDIRECT on November 19. DRC will send information directly to District Test Coordinators regarding accessing and downloading the files. DRC will send information directly to District Test Coordinators regarding accessing and downloading the files. Paper copies of the Individual Student Reports (ISRs) will arrive in districts on December 18. Paper copies of the Individual Student Reports (ISRs) will arrive in districts on December 18. District and School Report Cards not available before Februrary. District and School Report Cards not available before Februrary.

Questions Dr. Harriet L. Jaworowski