New DC OSSE ESEA Accountability. DC OSSE ESEA Accountability Classification Overview I. DC OSSE Accountability System II. Classification of Schools III.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Accountabil ity System Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performanc e Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Overview.
Advertisements

Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
1 Accountability System Overview of the Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.
Accountability preview Major Mindshift Out with the Old – In with the New TEPSA - May 2013 (Part 2) Ervin Knezek John Fessenden
Accountability Updates Testing & Evaluation Department May 21, 2014 Mission High School MISSION CISD DEIC MEETING.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 6, 2011.
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
Subtitle Title I Federal School Accountability Office of School Improvement and Turnaround Indiana Department of Education March 2012.
4 Principles of ESEA Flexibility 1 January College-and-Career-Ready Expectations for All Students ( ) 2.State-Developed Differentiated Recognition,
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
February 27, 2012 Division of Elementary and Secondary Education.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
School Progress Index 2012 Results Mary Gable- Assistant State Superintendent Division of Academic Policy Carolyn Wood - Assistant State Superintendent.
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.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress Fresno Unified School District 2005 Data Review.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
Loudon County Schools Student Achievement Data Results
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-7:00.
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.
Principal Professional Learning Team August 2012.
Timmerman Public Hearing February 4, :00-4:00.
2015 Texas Accountability System Overview and Updates August 13, 2015.
Accountability: Current Issues Friday, April Region 4 ESC Accountability Update Richard Blair Sr. Education Specialist Federal/State Accountability.
1 Results for Students with Disabilities and School Year Data Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide Meeting May 2010.
What are the STAAR Performance Standards? Copyright 2013 by Region 7 Education Service Center. All rights reserved.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
2015 Texas Accountability System La Porte Independent School District August 5, 2015.
1 Requirements for Focus Schools Contractors’ Meeting March 4, 2013 Presenter: Yvonne A. Holloman, Ph.D.
ESEA Renewal What does it Mean for Title I? Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Title I Administrative Meeting September 17, 2015.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
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.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
Fall Regional Curriculum and Instruction Meeting September 2015.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Welcome to Abbett Elementary! Curriculum Night 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.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
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.
703 KAR 5:225 Next-Generation Learners Accountability System Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:cw,ko.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
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.
HISD Becoming #GreatAllOver 1 Accountability Rating System Commissioner’s Final Rules 2014.
Erlanger-Elsmere Independent Schools Assessment Results.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
NORTH CAROLINA ESEA Flexibility Request Globally Competitive Students (GCS 1) 1Wednesday, February 1, 2012.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
Where Are We Now? ESSA signed into law December 10, 2015
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Sustaining and building on the excellence of LCPS
2012 Accountability Determinations
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
Fall Regional Curriculum and Instruction Meeting
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
November 09, 2012 Suzanne M. Wright Joe Prather
Presentation transcript:

New DC OSSE ESEA Accountability

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability Classification Overview I. DC OSSE Accountability System II. Classification of Schools III. Accountability Targets IV. Support V. Next Steps 2

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability System 3 DC OSSE Accountability Model: Takes both proficiency levels and growth into account Classifies schools into one of five classifications to differentiate levels of support, resources and flexibility. Shared Goal: 75% proficient in 5 years (reading, math and graduation) Growth is expected for ALL students Individualized targets tailored for each school and LEA (released August 17) Flexibility in use of Title I funds 32% of schools are identified for intensive support -22 Focus Schools, 9 Focus LEAs -32 Priority Schools, 6 Priority LEAs

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability - Introduction What are the changes in the Accountability Workbook? Accountability Reporting Excludes: – Schools with fewer than 40 students – Schools with subgroups fewer than 25 students – Students in the country for less than 1 year – Students tested outside their regular grade level Accountability Reporting Includes: – Full Academic Year (FAY) students – Students who exited ESL or Specialized Education programs in the past 2 years 4

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Classification Process 5 Priority: Schools needing intense support to address low performance of all students School Index Score of 25 points or below Tier I or Tier II School Improvement Grant Graduation rate less than 60% for 2+ consecutive years (2011, 2010) Participation rate <95% for 2+ consecutive years Previously ID’d as Priority School & without 3 years of progress Focus: Schools needing targeted support to address large specific groups of students Not Priority Disproportionate Subgroup Performance Significant Within School Subgroup Gap Previously ID’das Focus School & without 2 years of progress Reward: Schools with the highest levels of student performance and growth Not Focus or Priority School Index Score 80+ Graduation rate >60% Participation rate 95%+ Ranking in top 5% in the state in composite annual growth Rising/ Developing: Schools needing support to continue growth Not Priority, Focus or Reward Developing: School Index Score 45+ Rising: School Index Score All Schools Criteria What it means LEAs reserve 20% Title I Funds Schools develop intervention plan Quality monitoring Professional development LEAs reserve 20% Title I Funds Schools develop intervention plan Quality monitoring Professional development Public recognition Invitations to special program participation Eligibility for reward funding Professional development Ongoing guidance and technical assistance

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Classification 6 SEA Engagement with DCPS/PCSB LEA/School Autonomy over Activities LEA/School Flexibility in Use of Federal Funds Priority SchoolsVery HighLower Focus SchoolsHighModerate Developing SchoolsModerateHigh Rising SchoolsModerateHigh Reward SchoolsLowVery High

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – Index Values To determine student proficiency level, find the applicable grade level, subject, and raw score for a student. – For example, Peter, a 5 th grade student, has a math score of 557. Using the table below, we can determine that Peter’s proficiency level for math for 2012 is: Basic High. 7 Math Cut Scores & Ranges GradeBelow Basic LowBelow Basic HighBasic LowBasic MiddleBasic HighProficientAdvanced

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – Index Values Let’s look at Peter again. 1. In 4 th grade last year, Peter’s level was Basic Middle. 2. This year in math, Peter’s level is Basic High. 3. Using the Index Value table, we can find that Peter’s Index Value is Minimum N = 25Current Score Prior ScoreBelow BasicBasic ProficientAdvanced LevelGroup LowLowHighLowMiddleHighAll Below Basic Low High Basic Low Middle High Proficient All Advanced All No Prior Score Alternate Assessment

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Index Scores The School Index Score is calculated based on the Index Values of all Full Academic Year (FAY) students. FAY students will have an Index Value for each exam he or she took. – A student who took both the ELA DC CAS and the math DC CAS will have two Index Values. All Index Scores are averages of Index Values, and are calculated using the same process. 1. Count the number of all the applicable Index Values (n) 2. Sum all of the applicable Index Values (sum) 3. Divide the sum of all the applicable Index Values by the number of all applicable Index Values. sum / n = Index Score For the School Index Score: sum all FAY Index Values, and divide the sum by the total number all FAY Index Values. 9

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Index Scores Example: Peter attends School A. He took both the ELA and math DC CAS. – Therefore, Peter has two Index Values. School A has 50 FAY students. All FAY students took both the ELA and math DC CAS. – Therefore, School A has 100 Index Values The sum of all values (math & ELA) is 6, Divide the sum of all values by ,650/100 = is School A’s School Index Score. Students at School AMath Values ELA Values Peter (Student 1)2040 Student Student 300 (Students 4-47)…… Student 4880 Student Student Sum of scores3,5603,090 3, ,090 = 6,650

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Index Scores 11 Students scoring proficient and above Students scoring advanced Students showing growth from previous year School Index Value

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – Subgroup Index Scores 12 Average all these scores for each subject to calculate the All Students Subject Score Average just these scores for each subject to calculate the African American Subject Scores

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – Subgroup Index Scores Peter at School A identifies as African American and Economically Disadvantaged. Peter’s Index Values will be included in both the African American and Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup Subject Scores 13

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – Subgroup Subject Index Scores State Average Index Score by Subgroup by Subject 14 SubgroupELAMath African American Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learners Special Education

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability –Focus School classification: based on subgroup performance Disproportionate Subgroup Index Score (each bar= 1 school) 15 Schools with Disproportionate Subgroup Subject Index Scores  Focus Schools Economically Disadvantaged Math Scores

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Classification 16

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Classification 17

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Classification 18

DC OSSE ESEA Accountability – School Classification 19

DC ESEA Accountability – Summary Schools receive differentiated levels of support, resources, flexibility and monitoring based on these categories. Next steps: – Release of school level targets on Aug 17 – When Title I intervention plans due for priority & focus schools 20