IE 2 and CHARTER SYSTEMS Accountability Comparison Sources of Information Governor’s Office of Student Achievement website Georgia Department of Education.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
Advertisements

South Dakota Accountability System – Year 2 School Performance Index Guyla Ness September 10, 2013.
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
IE 2, CHARTER, AND STATUS QUO SCHOOL SYSTEMS Flexibility Options Comparison F EBRUARY 26, 2015 Ken Thompson Chief Financial Officer.
GaDOE Charter School Board Training Requirements Dr. Lynn Plunkett GCCA CEO WKSP January 23, 2015 TCSG’s Office of College & Career Transition Specialized.
Pennsylvania State Board of Education. The Facts A n achievement gap exists when groups of students with relatively equal ability fail to achieve at the.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
Forsyth County Schools Overview of the Proposed IE 2 Partnership Contract.
School System Operating Models and Flexibility Options Advisory Committee Meeting August 28, 2014.
2014 Recruitment & Retention Plans The Office of Charter Schools and School Redesign.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
November 7,  Provisos are in annual Appropriations Bills  Proviso 1A.60 included in bill  Very prescriptive.
Education in Delaware: ESEA Flexibility Renewal Community Town Hall Ryan Reyna, Office of Accountability.
Making Demonstrable Improvement: Request for Feedback (Updated) July 2015 Presented by: Ira Schwartz Assistant Commissioner of Accountability.
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.
State Charter Schools Commission of Georgia SCSC Academic Accountability Update State Charter School Performance
Agenda (5:00-6:30 PM): Introduction to Staff Title I Presentation PTA Information Classroom visits (two 30 minute rotations)
July,  Congress hasn’t reauthorized Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  U.S. Department.
Factoring Growth Models Into Administrator and Teacher Performance Evaluations -- a presentation for -- Henderson, Mercer, and Warren Counties Regional.
What is a Title I? Title I is Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of This program provides financial assistance to states.
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.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
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.
Richard Woods, Georgia’s School Superintendent “Educating Georgia’s Future” gadoe.org Richard Woods, Georgia’s School Superintendent “Educating Georgia’s.
CCRPI AND BEATING THE ODDS Charter School Performance Goals 11/9/20151 GCSA Leadership Conference at Lake Oconee Academy January 31, 2014.
What is a Charter System?
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction January 2015 Jenny Singh, Administrator Academic Accountability.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
Sonoraville Elementary Parent Meeting February 3, 2015.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Miller County School System STRATEGIC WAIVERS SCHOOL SYSTEM (IE2) FY17-23.
What is a Title I School? Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C et seq.) is amended to read as follows: TITLE.
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.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
Spence Agee, Superintendent AUTAUGA COUNTY SCHOOLS Every Student a Graduate; Every Graduate a Success.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
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.
BARROW COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM Haymon-Morris Middle School NEEDS ASSESSMENT ANNUAL PLANNING FY 2016 Title I Title II-A Title III Professional Learning.
RICHMOND COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMUNITY MEETING WESTSIDE HIGH SCHOOL JANUARY 12, 2015 School System Flexibility Options.
Overview Plan Input Outcome and Objective Measures Summary of Changes Board Feedback Finalization Next Steps.
Data Overview Faculty Meeting-October 14,2014 Mission Possible: MOTIVATE, EDUCATE, GRADUATE!!!
Accountability Overview Presented by Jennifer Stafford Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:pp: 12/11/2015.
RICHMOND COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMUNITY MEETING GLENN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL JANUARY 7, 2015 School System Flexibility Options.
So, what exactly is the Opportunity School District? 1.The Opportunity School District (OSD) is a proposed state level bureaucracy that will be created.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
Strategic Waivers School System/IE2 Application Process
Welcome to our SCHOOL’S Parents Are Connected (PAC) Meeting
Jackson County Schools Strategic Waiver School System Decision
January 2015 Jenny Singh, Administrator Academic Accountability Unit
Academic Report 2007/2008 AYP.
Texas Academic Performance Report TAPR)
Support and Intervention
ESEA Waiver: Summary of Key Provisions
Participation in State Assessments State and Federal Policy
Texas State Accountability
PRESENTATION GUIDE Dear School District Administrator,
Waivers OF State Law Granted to School Districts
A-F Accountability and Special Education
Support and Intervention
UNDERSTANDING LCFF & LCAP LCAP Priorities: Conditions of Learning
Quality Education Commission Presentation to the Senate Committee
Starting Community Conversations
Presentation transcript:

IE 2 and CHARTER SYSTEMS Accountability Comparison Sources of Information Governor’s Office of Student Achievement website Georgia Department of Education website

Acronyms College and Career Ready Performance Index - CCRPI Georgia Office of Student Achievement – GOSA Georgia Department of Education – GaDOE Investing in Educational Excellence – IE 2 Local Board of Education – LBOE State Board of Education – SBOE

Investing in Educational Excellence (IE 2 )

ALL SCHOOLS: CCRPI On CCRPI, without the inclusion of Challenge Points, the school shall annually increase by 3% of the gap between the baseline year CCRPI score and 100 – The baseline year will be – This baseline year applies to districts entering contracts effective in both and IE 2 Accountability 10 IE 2 Accountability

ALL SCHOOLS: CCRPI (continued) Example 1: Assume a school’s baseline CCRPI without Challenge Points is 60.0 – Gap between baseline and 100: 100 – 60 = 40 – 3% of 40 = 1.2 points = annual increase from the baseline – Five-Year Targets (Baseline – 60.0) Year Year Year Year Year IE 2 Accountability

ALL SCHOOLS: CCRPI (continued) Example 2: Assume a school’s baseline CCRPI without Challenge Points is 84.2 and the top quartile is 81.5 (not actual numbers) – The school must remain in the top quartile, continually working to improve its CCRPI 6 IE 2 Accountability

ALL SCHOOLS: CCRPI (continued) Schools with initial CCRPI scores in the top quartile of the state within each grade cluster will be required to maintain or improve that level of performance Targets for schools that reach this threshold in any year will remain at that same threshold 7 IE 2 Accountability

8 IE 2 Accountability: Sample Data Challenge Points are removed from the CCRPI score.

ALL SCHOOLS: “SECOND LOOK” If a school fails to meet its CCRPI target score, the school will be deemed as meeting its yearly performance target if the school is determined to be “beating the odds” through an analysis that compares the school’s CCRPI to its expected performance as determined by comparison with schools statewide having similar characteristics (e.g., economically disadvantaged, English Learners, Student with Disabilities, school size, student/teacher ratio, etc.) 9 IE 2 Accountability

ALL SCHOOLS: CCRPI (continued) Schools demonstrating a trend of improvement, and meeting the equivalent of three years of targeted improvement by the end of the contract, will be deemed as meeting the accountability requirements of the contract. 10 IE 2 Accountability

The SBOE shall mandate the loss of governance of one or more of an IE 2 System’s nonperforming schools…Such loss of governance may include, but shall not be limited to: 1.Conversion of a school to charter status with independent school level governance and a governance board with strong parental involvement; 2.Operation of a school by a successful school system, as defined by GOSA, and pursuant to funding criteria established by the SBOE; or 3.Operation of a school by a private entity, nonprofit or for profit, pursuant to a request for proposals issued by the GaDOE. 11 IE 2 Consequences

In addition to the loss of governance options specified in the statute that could be imposed at the end of the IE 2 contract term, the following options for loss of governance could be implemented during or at the conclusion of the IE 2 contract term. 4.Nonperforming schools could have governance reduced by being required to submit a remedial action plan for LBOE approval before the school can implement necessary changes. For this option, the District could specify the general requirements such a plan a must meet or let the school submit a draft based on its own analysis. IE 2 Loss of Governance Options (Consequences) 20

5.The school could be required to make leadership and faculty/staff changes, including replacing leaders/faculty/ staff and/or an aggressive professional development program. 6.The school could be required to implement reconstitution if necessary to ensure performance improvements. 7.The school could be required to develop individual student achievement plans and implement programs such as after school and/or Saturday tutoring programs that provide additional time on task in subject areas specified in the individual plans. 8.Other options for loss of governance not listed above that address the specific reasons for a school’s failure to meet its targets could be proposed in an IE 2 application. IE 2 Loss of Governance Options (Consequences)

Charter Systems

Charter schools (System) will be measured by their performance on two factors: 1.CCRPI (College and Career Readiness Performance Index) 2.Beating the Odds Charter System Accountability 15

Goal 1: During each year of its first five-year charter term, the Charter System shall “beat the odds” as determined by a formula measuring expected student growth. 16 Charter System Accountability, Goal 1 Student-based FactorsSchool-based Factors % African American % Hispanic % White % Other % Free/Reduced Lunch % Students with Disabilities % English Learners % Gifted School Size Student/Teacher Ratio School Configuration/CCRPI Score Type (i.e. Elementary, Middle, High) Locale Type (i.e. City, Town, Rural) District Performance (Fixed Effect) In general terms, a school “beats the odds” when it does as good as or better than all the schools in Georgia that are similar to that school.

Charter System Accountability, Goal 2 Goal 2: During each year of its first five-year charter term, each System Charter School shall “beat the odds” as determined by a formula measuring expected student growth. If each System Charter School fails to beat the odds in Year 1 of the charter, the Charter System shall decrease the number of System Charter Schools not beating the odds during Years 2 and 3 at a rate so that all System Charter Schools will beat the odds in Year 4. 17

Goal 3: The Charter System will demonstrate proficiency and/or improvement on the CCRPI. Measure 1: For new Charter Systems first converting in 2015 or later, using Year 1 of the charter term to establish a CCRPI baseline, the Charter System’s CCRPI score shall be equal to or better than the State in Year 2, and better than the State in Years 3-5 of the charter contract. Charter System Accountability, Goal 3 18

Measure 2: If the Charter System’s first- year CCRPI score is lower than the State, the Charter System shall have until the end of Year 2 of the charter term to close the gap between the Charter System and the State. Measure 3: In Years 3-5 of the charter term, the Charter System’s CCRPI score shall be better than the State. Charter System Accountability, Goal 3 19

Charter System Accountability: Sample Data 20

Charter System Consequences 21 Charter status revoked and school system reverts to Status Quo at the end of the term. Possible fiscal impact when converting from Charter System to Status Quo due to loss of flexibility