Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.

Slides:



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

South Dakota Accountability System – Year 2 School Performance Index Guyla Ness September 10, 2013.
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
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.
Accountability Scorecards An Early Orientation to the Future of Michigan School Accountability.
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.
Feeder Student Data File Instructions for Filtering & Usage Guidelines.
Accountability Programs MICHIGAN SCHOOL TESTING CONFERENCE FEBRUARY 19, 2014.
How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data The New York State Education Department August 21, 2012.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
Nevada Transitioning from measuring status and reporting AYP, to measuring growth and reporting on School Performance.
How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data The New York State Education Department November 12, 2014.
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data The New York State Education Department November 12, 2014.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Carolyn M. Wood - Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability, Assessment, and Data Systems October 31,
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
ESEA ACCOUNTABILITY JAMESVILLE-DEWITT
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
ESEA Flexibility: Gap Reduction Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 5 of 8.
What are the STAAR Performance Standards? Copyright 2013 by Region 7 Education Service Center. All rights reserved.
ESEA Flexibility: School Progress Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 2 of 8 1.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
1 Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System pending legislative approval Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. March 16, 2011.
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.
Annual Student Performance Report September
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
1 Student Longitudinal Growth Project Jonathan Wiens Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
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.
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.
The Michigan School Report Card Michigan Department of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
Accountability Scorecards Okemos Board of Education September 2013.
MDE Accountability Update SLIP Conference, January 2016.
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.
Update on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
1 Mississippi Statewide Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress Model Improving Mississippi Schools Conference June 11-13, 2003 Mississippi Department.
Accountability Scorecards Top to Bottom Ranking February 2016.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.
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.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
- 0 - OUSD Results MSDF Impact Assessment State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API) The API is a single number, ranging from a low.
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.
Accountability Overview Presented by Jennifer Stafford Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:pp: 12/11/2015.
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
NYS School Report Card & Spring 2014 NYS Assessment Results Orchard Park Central School District Board of Education Presentation August 26, 2014.
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
Michigan School Report Card Update
AYP and Report Card.
Presentation transcript:

Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer 2012

What’s New for ? Proficiency targets aligned with MEAP and MME College and Career Ready cut scores –Still need to reach 100% proficiency in unless Michigan is granted flexibility with ESEA – targets reset to 20 th percentile of MEAP/MME proficiency keyed to CCR cut scores District report cards treated like school report cards –District is treated as one large building –Graduation is used in lieu of attendance

What’s New for ? Graduation rates calculated and used for all valid subgroups –In previous years the subgroup rates were displayed but not used in determining AYP EdYES letter grades are lower overall this year –Achievement scores keyed to new cut scores without a change to the EdYES grading scale –The accreditation system can only be updated through legislative mandate 3

4 Adequate Yearly Progress Participation - 95% tested MEAP, MME, MI-Access, or MEAP-Access Achievement - Proficiency Meet state objective or “safe harbor” target for improvement –Participation and Proficiency Must meet in both Math and Reading Must meet for whole school and subgroups Additional Academic Indicator Graduation Rate – 80% - high schools Attendance – 90% - elementary and middle schools

5 Student Groups for AYP Racial/Ethnic Groups –Black or African American –American Indian or Alaska Native –Asian, Hawaiian Native, or Pacific Islander –Hispanic or Latino –White –Multi-racial Limited English Proficient Students With Disabilities (Special Education) Economically Disadvantaged (Free & Reduced Lunch)

6 Michigan AYP Targets

7 50 “cells” for AYP

8 AYP Participation Aggregate percent tested across all grades tested at the school Total Number Tested (grades 3+4+5) Total Number Enrolled (grades 3+4+5)

9 Full Academic Year Students enrolled in the school for the three most recent semi-annual official count days –MME uses four most recent count days Prior Enrollment lookup is used Less than full academic year excluded for achievement (proficiency), not for participation

10 Feeder Codes Because the Elementary and Middle School assessment window is in the fall, feeder codes are used to attribute scores to the school where the student was enrolled in MSDS was used to look-up enrollment in for the student

11 Feeder Codes Feeder codes are used for PROFICIENCY –Participation is based on the school where the student tested –All full academic year students should have feeder codes Feeder codes used for school AYP, not for district AYP

12 AYP Targets MDE has set separate statewide AYP targets for each grade A Proficiency Index is used to combine the grade level proficiency data and grade level targets to make an AYP decision across the grades

13 Grade Level AYP Targets

14 Proficiency Index Reading

15 Group Size ALL schools are given an AYP status Group Size applies to subgroups – NOT to all students

16 Group Size Minimum Group Size – Across Grades Tested is 30 If total enrollment is more than 3,000 –1% Percent of Total Enrollment –District AYP –Maximum subgroup size is 200

17 AYP Reliability - Margin of Error –Measurement Error Would the student score the same if tested again? Standard Error of Measurement – Provisional Proficient Two times the standard error >= grade level cut score

18 Progress/Growth AYP proficient/provisional proficient classifies a student at a single point in time (status) Teachers often work students and make improvements in achievement Status models alone do not allow student improvement, which may be attributable to teacher intervention, to be tracked Growth Model gives credit in the AYP decision for growth from year-to-year by demonstrating that improvement in the student’s achievement is on a trajectory such that the student is expected to attain proficiency within the next three years.

19 MEAP Progress Value Table

20 “On Trajectory” Toward Proficiency

21 Growth Model Message Focus on “improvement” –Don’t work only with “bubble” students –Getting from 4-L to 3-L is enough improvement to be “on trajectory” The growth model provides modest adjustments

22 Safe Harbor An additional way to meet the AYP achievement target School/district must reduce the percent of FAY students not proficient by 10% of the prior year’s percent not proficient –A school that had 50% of its students as not proficient in would need to have 45% of its students not proficient in for Safe Harbor Only used after multi-year proficiency indices are calculated

23 Student Attendance Student attendance is taken from the End-of- Year MSDS submission of the prior school year Attendance is computed by summing the scheduled and actual days of attendance and then dividing the sum of the actual by the sum of scheduled

24 NCLB Graduation Rate NCLB requires that AYP include a graduation rate based on the percentage of students that –Receive a REGULAR high school diploma –In the STANDARD number of years AYP (including a graduation rate) is required for ALL schools

25 Graduation Rates for AYP The Graduation/Dropout Review and Comment Application from CEPI provides the graduation rates used for AYP for the class of 2011 The application was open in late summer of 2011 Appeals only through GAD

26 Five/Six Year Graduation Rates 2011 cohort ( th graders) four-year grad rate >= 79.5% 2010 cohort five-year grad rate >= 79.5% 2009 cohort six-year grad rate >= 79.5% Graduation rate “Safe Harbor” using four year cohort rates

27 AYP and Graduation Rate The AYP target graduation rate will remain at 80% 3-step improvement calculation: – 1.) calculate gap: 80 – previous 4-year rate – 2.) calculate improvement target: (gap x 0.25) + previous 4-year rate = improvement target – 3.) compare improvement target with current 4-year rate: current 4-year rate >= improvement target

28 MI-Access All students taking current MI-Access assessments are counted as tested Cap of 1% on MI-Access proficient scores Cap is district-wide –Some schools might exceed the cap

29 MEAP-Access 2% cap applies to “Modified Achievement Standards” –reflect reduced breadth or depth of grade- level content –Starts in States are NOT allowed to approve exceptions to the 2% cap