Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04

Why Did We Start Over? Federal legislation signed January 2002 (NCLB) Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 Delaware merged the existing state accountability processes with federal requirements for

What Our System Allows Ensure more valid and reliable accountability determinations Monitor various subgroups progress at the school, district and state level Support our value of continuous improvement

Accountability Based on the performance of students taught in the school/district/state DSTP – assessments used at grades 3,5,8, and 10 in reading, writing and math Grades 4,6,8 and 11 science and social studies included in state progress determination

Calculations System compares the % of students that meet/exceed DE content standards each year to previous years for ELA and math Nine possible subgroups reviewed Subgroup included for accountability decisions if there are 40 or more students

Subgroups All students (the school as a whole) American Indian Asian American African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Limited English Proficient

Performance Target % of students meeting the standards is compared to a State target of 57% in ELA, 33% in math (explained on the next slide) Beginning in 2004, if performance target for subgroup is not met, a confidence interval is calculated

How do you determine Progress for the Performance Target? Current year’s test data OR Average of the current year and the previous year of test scores **use the higher of the two measures**

Safe Harbor To see if some change in lowest achieving students Cell shows a 10% decrease in the % of students not meeting the standards not meeting the standards as compared to the previous year, AND Cell shows progress on the Other Academic Indicator

Other Academic Indicators Beginning in 2004, the Other Academic Indicator for elementary and middle schools is determined by improvement of the average scale scores of the students performing at PL1&2 in reading and math combined OR A decrease in the % of students performing at PL1 in reading and math A confidence interval is used in the comparisons is used here also

AYP: a school, district or the state must meet -- Participation Targets in ELA and math Performance Targets in ELA and math, or attaining Safe Harbor Maintain or show progress toward the Other Academic Indicator

AYP Status Beginning in 2004, AYP status is expressed in terms of— Above Target Meets Target Below Target

State Progress Determination Calculated by formula Reading, math, science, social studies included equally Compares current year to last year

State Progress Determination Beginning in 2004, State Progress status is expressed in terms of – Above Target Meets Target Below Target

State Progress Determinations Above -- growth of 6 points OR -- composite score of 75 or higher Meets -- composite score of : point growth points growth Below -- composite score of less than 45 OR --did not meet growth target

Ratings Beginning in 2004, the overall rating in determined by a combination of AYP and State Progress determination Various combinations or Above, Meets, and Below Target (for State and AYP) yield the overall rating

Ratings Superior Commendable Academic Review Academic Progress --Under Improvement Academic Watch – Under Improvement

How to be Classified as Under Improvement Two consecutive years not meeting AYP in same content area --ELA --Math --Other Academic Indicator

How to Move Out of Under Improvement Must meet two conditions: --All targets must be met for two consecutive years in the content area(s) or other indicator that placed under improvement --Can fall below target in other content area(s) or other indicator for two consecutive years

Questions/Comments