The federal “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) law requires that all children be proficient in reading and math by the 2013-14 school year. It places pressure.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
Advertisements

1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
Newport News Public Schools Information on Title I Funding
Newport News Public Schools Information on Title I Funding E.S.E.A. (Elementary And Secondary Education Act)
Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
No Child Left Behind Act © No Child Left Behind Act ©Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special Education.
No Child Left Behind Act January 2002 Revision of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Education is a state and local responsibility Insure.
Before IDEA One in five children with disabilities was educated. One in five children with disabilities was educated. More than 1 million children with.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
1 Supplemental Educational Services Office of Elementary and Secondary Education June 2002.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
AN OVERVIEW OF TRENDS IN CMT AND CAPT DATA CALI PARTNER AND SUPPORTED DISTRICTS HEATHER LEVITT DOUCETTE EDUCATION CONSULTANT BUREAU OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND.
Catherine Cross Maple, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary Learning and Accountability
1 Interdistrict Magnet Schools in Connecticut Barbara Q. Beaudin, Ed. D. Division of Evaluation and Research Connecticut State Department of Education.
Designing and Implementing An Effective Schoolwide Program
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TITLE I PARENT MEETING PRESENTATION.
1 Children At Risk Program Legislative Audit Bureau April 2005.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
No Child Left Behind and Students with Disabilities Presentation for OSEP Staff March 20, 2003 Stephanie Lee Director, Office of Special Education Programs.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Acquiring English Proficiency in the Torrington Public Schools Programs, Process, and Student Progress Cheryl F. Kloczko.
Assessment in Early Childhood Legislation. Legislation for Young Children The need for measurement strategies and tests to evaluate federal programs led.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Title I Schoolwide Program Proposal for Change. What is Title I  Title I — A Federal Program with the goal of Improving The Academic Achievement Of the.
Virginia Department of Education Division Leadership Liaison Meeting January 7, 2013.
SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation.
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.
1 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Steve Martin, CMT Program Manager Bureau of Research, Evaluation, and Student Assessment Connecticut State Department.
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.
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.
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
No Child Left Behind Tecumseh Local Schools. No Child Left Behind OR... 4 No Educator Left Unconfused 4 No Lawyer Left Unemployed 4 No Child Left Untested.
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.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Race to the Top Application State Board of Education Meeting January 6, 2010 January 6, 2010.
1 No Child Left Behind: Identification of Program Improvement (PI) Schools and Districts July 2003.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
No Child Left Behind Application 1 Title I, Part A Part 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 Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
Adequate Yearly Progress By Allyson, Brette, and Riley.
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents Highland Renaissance Academy.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
No Child Left Behind Title I Newport News Public Schools.
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.
The Every Student Succeeds Act Highlights of Key Changes for States, Districts, and Schools.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
Anderson School Accreditation We commit to continuous growth and improvement by  Creating a culture for learning by working together  Providing.
Cora Howe Annual Title I Meeting and Open House Understanding Title 1 Support for Schools September 12, 2013.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Aim: Does the US need to reform the educational system? Do Now: Make a list of the best aspects of the education you receive and make a list of the worst.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
2012 Accountability Determinations
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Texas Literacy Initiative (TLI)
Analysis of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Chapter 8 (key issues for Special Education)
Title I, Part A Virginia Department of Education
Presentation transcript:

The federal “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) law requires that all children be proficient in reading and math by the school year. It places pressure on states to improve student achievement and close academic gaps among students of different racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds. The law also provides for corrective actions that must take place for schools/districts that fail to improve. In August 2003 the State Department of Education notified 149 elementary and middle schools in 34 districts that they did not make “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) in reaching the goal of all students being proficient in reading and math by the school year. Districts need to make the AYP list for two consecutive years before the district receives a designation of “In Need of Improvement”. The consequence for schools being designated as “In Need of Improvement” is a five-year cumulative set of corrective actions ranging from public school choice to alternative governance. In an effort to help schools/districts to face the challenge offered by NCLB, Governor Rowland is proposing a comprehensive plan that offers strategies designed not only to intervene in districts that have been designated as not making “Adequate Yearly Progress”, but also to proactively ensure that pre-school children in poor performing districts will be prepared to succeed in school. The cornerstone of his plan is the continued expansion of access to quality pre-school programs for all children. Recent research has shown the significant role pre-school plays in preparing children to become successful learners and in closing the achievement gaps among Connecticut’s students, regardless of socio-economic background. Expanded pre-school programs will be supplemented with the expansion of Early Reading Success programs for children in grades K – 3, which combine both proactive strategies through offering reduced class sizes and full-day kindergarten, and intervention strategies through intensive reading programs, including after-school and summer school programs. In addition, summer school programs will be expanded to further assist districts in helping their children become proficient students. Targeted aid will be provided for the sixteen schools currently designated as “in need of improvement” for failure to make “adequate yearly progress” for at least 2 years. Those schools will receive School Improvement Grants to be used for specific immediate educational purposes identified by a needs assessment as critical to the immediate improvement of academic achievement in the school. Students in the 42 elementary and middle schools that did not make “adequate yearly progress” and had whole school academic deficiencies in Math and Reading will be eligible to apply for the newly created Equal Opportunity Scholarships. These scholarships can be used for tuition, books, and uniforms at non-public schools. In addition to current public school choice options this will provide approximately 500 children with an additional opportunity for a diverse, high-quality educational experience. In addition to the steps outlined above, the Governor will continue his commitment to the existing public school choice options: Magnet Schools, Charter Schools, OPEN Choice, and the Regional Vocational-Technical School System. To address the ongoing funding issue facing RESC operated Magnet Schools, legislation will be proposed to require districts participating in these schools to pay a more equitable share of the operating costs.

Overview “No Child Left Behind”

“No Child Left Behind” Consequences of Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress Year 1 – Public Identification Year 2 – Designated “In Need of Improvement” Consequences for TITLE I Schools/Districts Identified in Year 2 as “In Need of Improvement”:  Year 1 – Public School Choice Option  Year 2 – Supplemental Services Must be Made Available  Year 3 – Corrective Action  Year 4 – Develop Restructuring Plan  Year 5 – Alternative Governance

Criteria for Making Adequate Yearly Progress  Percent of students proficient on the CMT and CAPT Reading Subtest and Mathematics Subtest:  Whole School and Subgroups, including:  Major Racial/Ethnic Subgroups  Students with Disabilities  English Language Learners  Economically Disadvantaged (Free and Reduced-Lunch)  Based on Scoring Levels of:  Advanced  Goal  Proficient  Basic  Below Basic  Elementary and Middle Schools – Writing: 70% At Basic or Above or Annual Improvement  High Schools – 70% Graduation Rate or Annual Improvement  95% Participation of School and Subgroups on Standard, Out of Level, or CMT/CAPT Checklist Source: State Dept. of Education

Federal Starting Point for CT Accountability (using CMT and CAPT Results) CMTCAPT 65%59%Proficient in Mathematics 57%62%Proficient in Reading 95%95%Participation in Testing Target by :  100% Proficient in Math and Reading  Minimum of 95% Participation Source: State Dept. of Education

Connecticut Schools Designated as “In Need of Improvement” Under NCLB (as of August 2003) District# of SchoolsEnrollment Designation Bridgeport2 Elementary Schools 1,431Corrective Action 2 High Schools 2,949Public School Choice Hartford3 Elementary Schools 1,547Corrective Action 1 High School 1,294Public School Choice New Haven2 Elementary Schools 1,318Corrective Action 1 Middle School 446Corrective Action 1 High School 188Public School Choice RVTSS4 High Schools 2,493Public School Choice TOTAL16 Schools11,666 Students

Summary of Governor’s Education Initiative to Close the Achievement Gap

Plan Highlights Programs: Targeted School Improvement Grants Equal Opportunity Scholarships Expand Access to Quality Pre-school Programs Provide Additional Resources to Early Reading Success and Summer School Programs Continue Expansion of Public School Choice Options: –Magnet Schools –Charter Schools –OPEN Choice –Regional Vocational-Technical Schools New Funding: $ 1,200,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 61,639,217 $ 17,832,000 $ 10,640,000 $130,814,882

Targeted School Improvement Grants The Governor’s plan will provide School Improvement Grants to districts that are in the first three years of the designation of “in need of improvement” using the criteria the federal “No Child Left Behind” law. This state grant ($75,000 per school) would be provided to school districts after a comprehensive needs assessment was conducted by an outside review team comprised of Department of Education staff and other qualified individuals. The grant can be used for specific immediate educational purposes identified by the needs assessment as critical to the immediate improvement of academic achievement in the school district. Local school districts must match each $75,000 grant with $25,000 in local funds. Eligible District/No. of SchoolsGrant Bridgeport – 4 Schools$ 300,000 Hartford – 4 Schools$ 300,000 New Haven – 4 Schools$ 300,000 RVTSS - 4 Schools$ 300,000 TOTAL GRANT$1,200,000

Equal Opportunity Scholarships  Students who attend one of the 42 schools identified, as of August 2003, as having “whole school achievement deficiencies” in math and reading under the NCLB criteria will be eligible to apply for “Equal Opportunity Scholarships”. Each scholarship will total $4,000 and can be used for tuition, books, and uniforms at both private and parochial schools.  The State will dedicate $1.5 million in new funds to be used for these scholarships. These state funds shall be given out in amounts of $3,000 per eligible student. Legislation will also be proposed requiring the districts containing these schools to match the State’s $3,000 with $1,000 in local funding. This will bring the total scholarship amount to $4,000 per student. In addition, the district must provide these students with transportation to the private/parochial school at the district’s expense as long as the alternative school is within the student’s town or in an abutting town.  In addition to current public school choice options this will provide approximately 500 children with an additional opportunity for a high quality educational experience.

Expand Access to Quality Pre-School Programs The Governor’s plan will add $14 million in funding to expand pre-school slots in all current Priority School Districts, 11 of which have schools identified in August 2003 as having schools “not making adequate yearly progress” with “whole school achievement deficiencies” under the criteria of NCLB. Slots will be offered first to 4 year-olds, who will be entering kindergarten the following school year. In the school year, the average percentage of children who attended pre- school in the municipalities that make up Education Reference Group (ERG) A was 85%, while in ERG I the average percentage was 58%. All 11 districts identified as having schools “not making adequate yearly progress” with “whole school achievement deficiencies” are currently designated as Priority School Districts and fall into ERG designations H and I. The current school readiness program provides funding for nearly 6,300 children. The additional funding recommended in the Governor’s plan would allow for 2,000 new full-time, full-day slots.

Educational Reference Groups ERG A:ERG B: Avon Bethel Darien Brookfield Easton Cheshire New Canaan Fairfield Redding Farmington Ridgefield Glastonbury Simsbury Granby Weston Greenwich Westport Guilford Wilton Madison Woodbridge Marlborough Region 9 Monroe New Fairfield Newtown Orange South Windsor Trumbull West Hartford Region 5 ERG H:ERG I: Ansonia Bridgeport Bristol Hartford Danbury New Britain Derby New Haven East Hartford New London Killingly Waterbury Meriden Windham Middletown Norwalk Norwich Putnam Stamford West Haven Norwich Free Academy Highlighted Districts were identified as having schools designated as “in need of improvement: and having “whole school achievement deficiencies” under NCLB.

Expand Early Reading Success and Summer School Grant Programs Early Reading Success:  The Governor’s proposal would add $1million in funding to the existing Early Reading Success Program targeted to the current Priority School Districts, 11 of which have schools identified as of August 2003 as “not making adequate yearly progress” with “whole school achievement deficiencies” in accordance with NCLB criteria. These funds will complement the approximately $13 million in federal “Reading First Initiative” funds the State has received, which are to be dedicated to the same purpose. The state currently spends about $20 million on Early Reading Success. The Early Reading Success program is designed to implement a three-year plan to improve the reading skills of students in grades kindergarten to three, who are in Priority School Districts. Funds can be used for: (1) establishing full day kindergartens; (2) reducing class size in grades kindergarten to three; and (3) establishing intensive early intervention reading programs, including after-school and summer programs, for students identified as being at risk of failing to read by the end of first grade, and students in grades one to three, inclusive, who are reading below grade level. Summer School: The Governor’s proposal would add $1 million in funding to the existing Summer School Program. As with the Early Reading Success Program, these funds will also be dedicated to the current Priority School Districts.

Current Public School Choice Options Interdistrict Magnet Schools – For the school year, 36 magnet schools serve 11,335 students statewide. These programs are designed to support racial, ethnic, and economic diversity while offering a high quality, special curriculum. Charter Schools – For the school year, 12 charter schools serve 2,281 students statewide. They offer innovative educational programs and are another vehicle for reducing the racial and economic isolation in Connecticut’s public schools. OPEN Choice – The OPEN Choice program allows urban students to attend public schools in nearby suburban towns and vice versa. The program includes Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven and their surrounding districts. For the current school year an estimated 1,559 students are participating in the program. Regional Vocational-Technical School System – The Regional Vocational-Technical School System operates 17 high schools and 2 satellite programs statewide. Current secondary enrollment is 11,377 while the adult day programs enroll an additional 622 students.

History of State Expenditures for Public School Choice Programs

History of Enrollment in Public School Choice Programs