District Accountability Update May 2006 - February 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Advertisements

Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Accountability Policy Update (Schools) Changes to Bulletin 111 From Sept 2003 – June 2004 Louisiana Department of Education.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Accountability 101. State Accountability Federal Accountability # Students Met Standard # Students Tested If the Standard is not met: Apply Required.
Carolyn M. Wood - Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability, Assessment, and Data Systems October 31,
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Title I Annual Meeting Presented by: SCHOOL NAME HERE.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Accountability Policy Update (Districts) Changes to Bulletin 111 From Sept 2003 – June 2004 Louisiana Department of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Assessing California Standards Test (CST) Data.
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.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status School Committee Presentation September 24, 2013.
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.
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
School Accountability Update July 2005-March 2006.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Analysis of the Mathematics Section of the California Standards Test (CST) Data Elementary.
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.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
Fall District Test Coordinators Meeting Alexandria, LA November, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Education Week
State and Federal Accountability Old English Consortium Assistant Principals’ Conference October 2009.
School Accountability Update Fall 2006 – Summer 2007.
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.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
School Accountability Update September 2006 – April 2007.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
MDE Accountability Update SLIP Conference, January 2016.
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.
District Accountability Update July 2004-March 2005.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
HSA, Dropouts, Graduation and AYP Report to the Board of Education October 25, 2011.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
703 KAR 5:225 Next-Generation Learners Accountability System Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:cw,ko.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
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!
School Accountability and Grades Division of Teaching and Learning January 20, 2016.
Update on Accountability March “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015: Highlights and
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
2012 Accountability Determinations
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Wade Hayashida Local District 8
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
AYP and Report Card.
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

District Accountability Update May February 2007

District Accountability Results  Districts provided three sets of accountability results  District Performance Score (DPS) – calculated in same manner as a School Performance Score  District Responsibility Indicators – three separate indicators  District Subgroup Component – used to determine if the district’s subgroups made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Bulletin 111, Chapter 43

District Performance Scores Bulletin 111, Section 4317 ♦Calculated in the same manner as School Performance Scores ♦Do not include assessment results for students displaced by the hurricanes ♦Include one year of assessment data ( ) and one year of attendance and dropout data ( )

District Performance Score Labels Performance LabelDPS Five Stars140 and above Four Stars Three Stars Two Stars One Star Academically Unacceptable Below 60.0 Bulletin 111, Section 4311

District Responsibility Indicators  For the 2006 District Accountability results, the District Responsibility Index (DRI) and the labels associated with it have been eliminated  Three separate District Responsibility Indicators have been added Teacher Certification Indicator 8 th Grade Persistence Indicator Financial Risk Indicator Bulletin 111, Sections 4301

Teacher Certification Indicator  Based on the percentage of state core classes taught by three categories of teachers Standard Teaching Certificate for area of assignment Non-Standard Teaching Certificate – Out of Field or Temporary Authority (OFAT, TAT, TEP) No Authority to Teach (No Certification) Bulletin 111, Section 4302

Teacher Certification Indicator  Two Indices calculated Low Performing schools (1 Star or Academically Unacceptable) Not Low Performing (2 Stars or above) Bulletin 111, Sections 4302

Teacher Certification Indicator  Percentages of state core classes taught by teachers in each category weighted and converted to point using the following weighting factors: 1.0 times % of classes taught by teachers with Standard Certificates 0.5 times % of classes taught by teachers with Non-Standard Certificates 0.0 times % of classes taught by teachers with No Authority to Teach Bulletin 111, Sections 4302

Teacher Certification Indicator  Weighted points are summed for Low Performing schools and again for Non-Low Performing schools  Total points for Low Performing schools are weighted by 75%  Total points for Non-Low Performing schools are weighted by 25%  Indicator value is the sum of the weighted total points for Low and Non-Low Performing schools Bulletin 111, Sections 4302

Teacher Certification Indicator LabelValue Exceptional100 – 97.0 Adequate96.9 – 94.0 Marginal93.9 – 90.0 UnacceptableLess than 90.0 Bulletin 111, Section 4302

8 th Grade Persistence Indicator  Based upon a district’s success in keeping 8 th grade students enrolled (not drop out)  Uses two years of data (2006 results are based on data from the years and ) Bulletin 111, Sections 4302

8 th Grade Persistence Indicator  Enrolled Count – students who were enrolled in the district at least one full day during an academic year, less those students who left for legitimate reasons  Returned Count – prior year enrolled students who are also enrolled at least one full day of the next academic year Bulletin 111, Sections 4302

8 th Grade Persistence Indicator  Sum enrolled counts from the two years  Sum returned counts from the two years  Divide the total returned counts by the total enrolled counts Bulletin 111, Sections 4302

8 th Grade Persistence Indicator LabelValue Exceptional100 – 99.0 Adequate98.9 – 98.0 Marginal97.9 – 97.0 UnacceptableLess than 97.0 Bulletin 111, Section 4302

Financial Risk Indicator  Created by Education Finance in to quantify a district’s financial risk  Currently being revised by BESE  Will be used in subsequent years once revisions are complete Bulletin 111, Sections 4302

District Subgroup Component AYP  For the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) percent proficiency analysis, ELA and math assessments from grades 3-8 and 10 are included  For the “Safe Harbor” percent proficiency improvement comparison, only 4 th, 8 th and 10 th grade ELA and math results are used Bulletin 111, Section 4310

District Subgroup Component AYP  Students displaced by the hurricane were placed in a separate subgroup and removed from all other subgroups  The Displaced Students subgroup were only evaluated on their Participation If the Displaced Students subgroup failed the Participation evaluation for a particular grade cluster, the district failed Subgroup Component AYP Bulletin 111, Section 4310

District Consequences  Since DRI labels have been eliminated from District Accountability, d istrict consequences only apply to failure to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the Subgroup Component for all three Grade-Clusters in the same subject, Bulletin 111, Section 4313

Districts Exiting District Improvement  Districts exit District Improvement if they pass the Subgroup Component AYP in the same subject for which they entered District Improvement in the same cluster for 2 consecutive years. Bulletin 111, Sections 4313

Districts Exiting District Improvement  Example: District fails Subgroup Component AYP in ELA for all three grade clusters two consecutive years and is placed in District Improvement District then passes the Elementary Cluster for ELA for two consecutive years District is no longer in District Improvement Bulletin 111, Sections 4313

District Academically in Crisis  District is labeled Academically in Crisis if More than 30 schools in the district are Academically Unacceptable OR More than 50% of the district’s enrollment attends Academically Unacceptable schools Bulletin 111, Sections 4901

District Accountability Hurricane Considerations  Districts are considered “Severe Impact” districts and receive a one-year waiver from accountability labels and decisions if, due to a disaster: Closed for 18 or more consecutive school days Gained or lost 25% of testing population before Oct. 1 Have 25% or more of their schools granted a one-year waiver or classified as new schools Bulletin 111, Section 4503

Questions?  