Impact of NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress on District Accountability in Colorado Carolyn Haug, Measured Progress Jonathan Dings, Boulder Valley School District.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Characteristics of Improving School Districts Themes from Research October 2004 G. Sue Shannon and Pete Bylsma Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Advertisements

Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
Assessing Student Growth to Foster School Excellence Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education Education Leadership Conference American Psychological.
Before IDEA One in five children with disabilities was educated. One in five children with disabilities was educated. More than 1 million children with.
Understanding No Child Left Behind (NCLB) NCLB Committee of Practitioners August, 2007.
1 The Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues of California’s Implementation of No Child Left Behind Coachella Valley Unified School District Dr. Paul Grafton.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
EDU 221.  Group Presentation Reflections due for 7 & 8  Quiz #2 (Tuesday, Nov. 16 th ) – Problem- based ◦ What makes an outstanding response? Referring.
Poway Unified Board of Education Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) October 15, 2012.
Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
Catherine Cross Maple, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary Learning and Accountability
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Module 4 TED 356 Curriculum in Sec. Ed.. Module 4 Explain the current official federal and state standards, including professional and accrediting groups.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
ESEA NCLB  Stronger accountability  More freedom for states and communities  Use of proven research-based methods  More choices.
High Stakes Testing EDU 330: Educational Psychology Daniel Moos.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Assessment in Early Childhood Legislation. Legislation for Young Children The need for measurement strategies and tests to evaluate federal programs led.
Keys to Closing the Gap in Florida: Accountability, Technical Assistance, and Targeted Resources Presentation to the National Governors’ Association John.
What is Title I ?  It is federal funding that is attached to NCLB/ESEA legislation  It is intended to help students who are falling behind.
Standards The Achievement Gap The Debate Continues.
Daniel H. Holloway Senior at Old Dominion University Coordinator of Database Services Gloucester County Public Schools.
Agenda (5:00-6:30 PM): Introduction to Staff Title I Presentation PTA Information Classroom visits (two 30 minute rotations)
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.
NCLB Federal Funding Planning Meeting Private Non Profit Schools LEA Date.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
Jackson Elementary School Title I Information
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
Marjorie Hall Haley, PhD - GMU1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The reauthorized elementary and secondary education act.
No Child Left Behind Tecumseh Local Schools. No Child Left Behind OR... 4 No Educator Left Unconfused 4 No Lawyer Left Unemployed 4 No Child Left Untested.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
Annual Student Performance Report September
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
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.
Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs): LEA Reports and Responsibilities Presented by the Pennsylvania Department of Education Bureau.
C R E S S T / U C L A Validity Issues for Accountability Systems Eva L. Baker AERA April 2002 UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
No Child Left Behind Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents Highland Renaissance Academy.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
EDU 4245 Class 5: Achievement Gap (cont) and Diagnostic Assessments.
C R E S S T / CU University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Design Principles for Assessment.
1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The reauthorized elementary and secondary education act.
- 0 - OUSD Results MSDF Impact Assessment State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API) The API is a single number, ranging from a low.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Discussion of W-APT, ACCESS Testing, Adequate Yearly Progress and Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
No Child Left Behind Application Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2 Virginia Department of Education March 2011.
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (NCLB) & THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) Transitioning from NCLB to ESSA: How School Counselors Can Help ROWLEY, 2016.
1 Annual Title 1 Parent Meeting Annual Title 1 Parent Meeting Wilson Elementary School.
SCHOOL REPORT NIGHT.
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Long Branch Public Schools Title I Presentation
Welcome to our SCHOOL’S Parents Are Connected (PAC) Meeting
KAESP 2012 Spring Retreat April 2, /15/2018.
NCLB and Title I Schools

Characteristics of Improving School Districts Themes from Research
Presentation transcript:

Impact of NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress on District Accountability in Colorado Carolyn Haug, Measured Progress Jonathan Dings, Boulder Valley School District

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Presentation Overview §Evaluation Framework §AYP Impact in Boulder Valley School District §Colorado Context of Multiple Accountability Systems §Toward an Improved Accountability System

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Accountability System Evaluation Framework (Baker & Linn, 2004) §builds staff capacity; §affects resource allocations; §supports high-quality instruction; §promotes student equity access to education; §minimizes corruption; §affects teacher quality, recruitment, and retention; and §produces unanticipated outcomes.

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Consequences §Of AYP Test-Score Driven Accountability §Apart from Consequences of Comprehensive Federal Title Funding Changes §Apart from Consequences of Colorado’s 3 rd -10 th Grade State Testing Program, which predates NCLB’s AYP

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Results of Incentives §Slight Increase in Attention to Student Groups in Improvement Planning, Testing All; District, Schools Already Engaged §Bookkeeping for Disaggregation and AYP Status Calculation (350 person-hours) §Morale(?)

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 AYP-Triggered Funding Impact §Apart from Broader NCLB/Title Funding Changes, Professional Development, Parent Engagement, Homeless Services §Expected Net Decrease in Discretionary $ §Further Professional Development §Dollars Reserved for Transportation, A Doubtfully Effective Use §Fewer Schools and Students Served

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 District Groups Not Making AYP in 2003 % of Targets Missed Overall 0 Asian 0 White 0 Black 0 American Indian 0 Hispanic33 English Language Learners83 Students With Disabilities33 Free/Reduced Lunch* (not in AYP) 17

Effects of Publicizing AYP Results Schools Fail Targets Banner Headline from Boulder Daily Camera Newspaper, 11/19/03

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Impact of AYP Ratings on the Media, Public, and Parents §Schools Fail Targets; Excellent Failures; Excellence Fails to Impress Feds (Boulder Daily Camera articles) §AYP status created dissonance about previously-held beliefs about some BVSD schools §Statewide, similar confusion prevailed: “The great power of AYP is that it doesn’t let Colorado’s best schools cover up with overall good scores those students being left behind.” (emphasis added)

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 AYP Competes with Other Colorado Accountability Systems: School Accountability Reports (SAR) and Accreditation §As a result of three separately-enacted laws, Colorado schools are subject to three different school accountability mechanisms: l AYP: federal law, enacted January 2002 l SAR: state school reform legislation, enacted July 2000 l Accreditation: state school reform legislation, enacted July 1998 §Subsequently, schools face potentially three different school ratings

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Complementary or Contradictory Systems?

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 SAR and Accreditation Ratings for Schools Failing AYP SAR Rating Based on Spring 2003 School Accreditation Status, School Year School AAverageFully Accredited School BHighFully Accredited School CHighFully Accredited School DLowAcademic Watch School EHighFully Accredited School FAverageFully Accredited School GExcellentFully Accredited School HLowFully Accredited School ILowFully Accredited

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Size Mattered: Most Large Schools Failed AYP SAR Rating Based on Spring 2003 School Accreditation Status, School Year School AAverageFully Accredited School BHighFully Accredited School CHighFully Accredited School DLowAcademic Watch School EHighFully Accredited School FAverageFully Accredited School GExcellentFully Accredited School HLowFully Accredited School ILowFully Accredited

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Conclusion: Toward an Improved Accountability System §Accountability is good when it accurately identifies schools and when consequences are reasonable §Results from 3 systems are not synthesized, which leads to serious confusion §Multiple systems yield multiple measures that could be combined to form one contextual, cohesive synopsis of school performance

AERA Annual Meeting 4/12/04 Next Steps §The next task is to design a useful, valid methodology for integrating data from AYP, SAR and accreditation that meets the intended purposes of each of the 3 systems: l providing schools with useful feedback about performance in order to improve the school, and l school accountability. §Rather than solely a school-shopping device, a school’s rating would provide information, and therefore opportunities for improvement.