Conditions Required to Make AYP include the following: Participation Rate on the State Assessment Graduation Rate Performance Levels * Minimum Targets.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Advertisements

Jamesville-DeWitt School Report Card Presented to the Board of Education May 10, 2010.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
High Stakes Testing and Other Traditional School Assessments Gary L. Cates, Ph.D., N.C.S.P.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
1 Joe Serna, Jr. Charter School Annual Report Lodi Unified School District Board of Education November 16, 2010 Michael Gillespie, Principal.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Alaska’s New Accountability System for Schools 1.
 Assessing Student Achievement New Teacher Induction Program.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
TUSCALOOSA COUNTY SCHOOLS Where Students Learn, Grow, and Achieve.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
JUNE 26, 2012 BOARD MEETING Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT “CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES - MORE THAN PSSA AND AYP”
New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) Summary of October 2011 Results Developed for the Providence School Board February 27, 2012 Presented by:
Cohort Graduation Rate: Compared to Leaver Rate Muscogee County School District April 2012.
The Bucks County Montessori Charter School PSSA Results, Local District Comparisons, and Year to Year Progressions.
LOUISIANA STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION JOHN WHITE Tracking Readiness: Measuring High School Effectiveness in Louisiana National Conference on Student.
* AYP stands for Adequate Yearly Progress. As a part of the No Child Left Behind Act, schools are held accountable for their students reaching certain.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
Instruction, Assessment & Student Achievement Presented: September 23, 2013 Bessie Weller Elementary School.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
Assessment in Early Childhood Legislation. Legislation for Young Children The need for measurement strategies and tests to evaluate federal programs led.
Salt Creek School District 48 Annual ISBE School Report Card Board of Education Report October 30, 2012.
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
AYP Prediction By Diagnostics in the Educational Data Warehouse.
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.
Welcome and Introductions H.O.B. – Helping Our students “BE” successful!
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.
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.
Annual Student Performance Report September
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
Urbana School District #116 AYP Status Report 2009 Report to the Board of Education October 6, 2009 Donald Owen, Assistant Superintendent.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Academic Excellence Indicator System Report For San Antonio ISD Public Meeting January 23, 2006 Board Report January 23, 2006 Department of Accountability,
The School Improvement Process LaSalle County ROE #35
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
School Monitoring and OEPA Greg Miller MEL – 540 School Resource Management Spring 2015.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
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.
February 2016 Our School Report Cards and Accountability Determinations South Lewis Central School District.
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.
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.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
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.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Bixby Public Schools OCCT Data and AYP/API December 12, 2011.
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
Academic Report 2007/2008 AYP.
WELCOME.
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
WELCOME!!! Triple I Conference November 19, 2005
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Presentation transcript:

Conditions Required to Make AYP include the following: Participation Rate on the State Assessment Graduation Rate Performance Levels * Minimum Targets * 95% Confidence Interval * Safe Harbor Presentation The purpose of this presentation is to address questions from the Board of Education regarding the process the Illinois State Board of Education uses to determine if districts and schools make AYP. There were also specific questions regarding Lisle High School making AYP and how it compares to other area high schools in academic performance. These items will be addressed during this presentation.

P ARTICIPATION R ATE F OR THE S TATE A SSESSMENT 95% OF THE “A LL ” G ROUP AND E ACH S UBGROUP MUST PARTICIPATE IN TAKING THE TEST

P ARTICIPATION /G RADUATION R ATE S TATE T ARGETS YearParticipationGraduation %80% %78% %75% %72% Lisle High School Rates YearParticipationGraduation %94.8% %93.7% %95.5%

AYP L EVELS OF C ALCULATIONS FOR M EETING /E XCEEDING T ARGETS Safe Harbor 95% Confidence Interval Minimum Target 2009= 70% 2010= 77.5% 75% Confidence Interval for Safe Harbor and 2% Flexibility Rule for IEP Subgroups applied

P ERFORMANCE L EVELS Students in the ALL group and each subgroup must have performance levels of at least 77.5% for 2010 meeting/exceeding standards for reading and math. (70% = 2009) For any group with less than 77.5% for 2010 meeting/exceeding, a 95% Confidence Interval will be applied, which may enable the group to meet AYP. Subgroups, which must be 45 students or higher, may also meet this condition through Safe Harbor provisions.

L ISLE H IGH S CHOOL AYP S CORES YearReadingMath %64% %65% %59% YearState Target % % % % Minimum Targets Set by the State

What is the 95% Confidence Interval ? “The 95% Confidence Interval is a calculated variance level that is used statistically and approved by the U.S. Department of Education. The confidence interval is a moving target and that is why we shoot for the AYP target. The only consistent number is the AYP target. Testing is a one day snap shot that is not a true measure of children’s performance; therefore this confidence interval is applied. There was a similar range of scores used on he IGAP test so this is not a novel idea and is supported statistically.” The above quote is from Jim Rosborg, a professor from McKendree University hired by the State Board of Education to address the 95% Confidence Interval.

The Formula for Calculating the 95% Confidence Interval

The 95% Confidence Interval Targets for Performance State Target: 70% (2009)State Target: 77.5% (2010) Group Size 95% Confidence Interval Subgroup Minimum Performance (70 minus 95% Confidence Interval) 95% Confidence Interval Subgroup Minimum Performance (77.5 minus 95% Confidence Interval)

S AFE H ARBOR C ALCULATIONS Decreasing by 10% the percentage of students who do not meet/exceed standards from the previous year. For subgroups that do not meet their Safe Harbor targets, a 75% confidence interval will be applied, which may enable the subgroup to meet AYP.

IEP 2% F LEXIBILITY C ALCULATIONS IEP Subgroups: For schools not making AYP solely because the IEP subgroup does not have the minimum percentage Meeting/Exceeding standards, 14% will be added to the percent Meeting/Exceeding in accordance with the federal 2% flexibility provision.

White Subgroup for Reading on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % 61 59% 12 11% (2 No Score) 5 4% 34 29% 63 55% 12 10% % 25 24% 57 55% 17 16% White Subgroup for Math on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % 26 25% 56 55% 17 16% (2 No Score) 7 6% 32 28% 58 50% 17 15% % 38 36% 52 49% 13 12%

IEP Subgroup for Reading on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meets Standards Exceeds Standards % 5 50% 3 30% (2 No Score) 6 40% 4 26% 5 33% % 4 30% 5 38% 1 1% YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meets Standards Exceeds Standards % 2 20% 3 30% (2 No Score) 6 40% 7 46% 2 13% % 8 62% 1 1% 0 IEP Subgroup for Math on PSAE

Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup for Reading on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % 6 43% 7 50% % 4 25% 3 19% 2 12% % 5 50% 2 20% 0 Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup for Math on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % 8 57% 4 28% 1 07% % 5 31% 3 19% 2 12% % 3 30% 3 30% 0

LEP Subgroup for Reading on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % % 00 LEP Subgroup for Math on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % % 00

Black Subgroup for Reading on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % 3 33% 2 22% % 2 22% 2 22% % 4 57% 2 28% 0 Black Subgroup for Math on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % 5 55% 1 11% % 3 33% 3 33% % 1 14% 2 28% 0

Asian Subgroup for Reading on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % 1 25% 2 50% (1 No Score) 02 18% 6 54% 3 27% % 4 66% 0 Asian Subgroup for Math on PSAE YearTotal NumberAcademic Warning Below Standards Meet Standards Exceeds Standards % 1 25% 2 50% (1 No Score) % 5 45% % 3 50% 1 16%

Comparison of High Schools in our Conference Percent Meeting/Exceeding in Reading and Math

Comparison of DuPage High Schools Percent Meeting AYP in Reading and Math

Assessment Program : EPASS System includes the following assessments to track student progress in grades 8-12: Explore 8 th Grade * NWEA MAP Plan 9 th Grade * Common Assessments Practice ACT 10 th and 11 th Grades RtI Process: Building leadership team working together to analyze data and determine groups of students in need of support to improve academic and social/emotional learning. Interventions are identified as well as criteria for participation in programs and exiting out of programs. Monitoring student performance is a continuous process throughout the school year. Interventions include: Mentoring Program Mentored Study Hall Student Ambassadors Program Curriculum Course Work: Consultants supporting the curriculum mapping process for math and literacy Rewards English Course Study Skills Course Compass Learning Technology Software Dual Credit Course Opt-In Program

District Goals School Improvement Plans Building Professional Learning Communities RtI Process Assessment Programs Data Analysis District Professional Learning Community Curriculum Mapping and Course Work Systems for Lisle District 202 to Increase Student Achievement