Elementary Principals Meeting 2009-2010 Data Presentation August 6, 2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Students with Disabilities in New AYP Targets Reading % 28.4% Math % 11.4% Reading % 30.8% Math % 15.8%
Advertisements

North Elementary School Free/Reduced, AMOs and Percent Proficient data includes Alternate Assessments and Retest One. All EOG Regular Assessment.
Title I Data Presentation All served Title I students School-wide and Targeted Combined.
1 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY IN DELAWARE July 31, 2009 For the School Year.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
CELEBRATE OUR SUCCESS! School Year 1 st Year of Transformation.
All You Ever Wanted to Know about Graduation, Completion, and Dropout Rates System Support Team Region XIII © 2011 Region XIII.
Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance.
PVAAS (The Pennsylvania Value Added Assessment System )
School Improvement Advisory Committee October 15, 2008 Welcome!
Title I School Improvement in North Carolina. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determines if a Title I school goes into Title I School Improvement.
OGISD Board of Trustees September 19, 2011 Orange Grove Elementary Accountability Report.
Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.
School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.
Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.
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.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Bailey Elementary Title I Parent Information Meeting Tuesday, September 27, 2011.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
The New York State Accountability System: Simplified Emma Klimek April 16, 2009.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
Loudon County Schools Student Achievement Data Results
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
AYP/SINA/DINA Iowa Statewide Data Conference Tom Deeter IDOE Bureau of Information & Analysis Geri McMahon IDOE Bureau of School Improvement August 10,
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
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.
Annual Student Performance Report September
Rev ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS Section 1. “All effective accountability systems are dynamic.” “Accountability is not about measurement; it is about.
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Benvenue Elementary Title I Parent Information Meeting Monday, October 3rd, 2011.
AERA March 25, 2008 Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
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.
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.
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.
 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). About AYP  Initiated by NCLB  Student performance and participation rates on ISTEP+ in English/language arts and mathematics.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
Preliminary AYP Preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Data.
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.
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
Connecticut Mastery Test Fourth Generation Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Connecticut Academic Performance Test Third Generation Grade 10 Presented to the.
Barrow County Schools AYP Results AYP Results out of 13 schools met AYP System did not meet AYP out of 13.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Check 95% participation rate for all students and each subgroup. Check 95% participation rate for all students and each subgroup. Check percent proficient.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
ABCs/AYP Background Briefing
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
AYP and Report Card.
Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

Elementary Principals Meeting Data Presentation August 6, 2010

RETENTIONS

Comparison to 08/09: Total No. of Prof. X2 Scores +69 Total No. of X2 Tests Taken +108 % of Prof X2 compared to whole +.5 Total % of X2 +.7

10/11 Target 71.6%

10/11 Target 88.6%

AYP – Important Things to Note: Retest 1 scores are now used in the calculations. When an existing SWD subgroup did not make AYP, exited students (within 2 yrs) were included in the calculations. (LEP also.) You must meet 95% tested in each subgroup, in each subject first. You must then meet the targets for reading and math in each subgroup. You must then meet the threshold or show progress towards the other academic indicator (attendance). The threshold is 90%. Safe harbor is the first provisional status calculation applied. (Subgroup has reduced the percent of students not proficient by 10% from the preceding year and met the OAI.) Confidence interval is the second provisional status calculation applied. (This is a similar concept to the 1SE for students.) Targeted Assistance Schools have 3 options available to them for determining AYP: 1) using all students within the school, 2) using students actually served in the TAS program, or 3) using students eligible to be served in the TAS program. If a school meets using any of these 3 methods, DPI will use the method that allows the school to meet AYP. Trajectory growth is the fourth provisional status calculation. Students who are on trajectory to be proficient within the allotted time will be added to the number of proficient students and used in the AYP calculations. This option can not be used in combination with safe harbor or confidence interval.

Title I School Sanctions for not making AYP: The 1st year a school does not make AYP, they are on the watch list. No sanctions are applied. If a school does not make AYP for 2 consecutive years in the same subject area, they go into School Improvement and sanctions are applied. The more years a school does not meet AYP in the same subject, the more severe the sanctions become. Title I schools exit School Improvement after 2 consecutive years of making AYP in the same subject area that identified them for School Improvement. If a school makes AYP in the subject area that identified them for School Improvement, they are making progress towards exiting and do not move to the next level of sanctions. AYP – Important Things to Note continued:

- 2.0%

- 1.6%

+0.8% Highe st Goal

-1.6%

-0.3% Lowes t Goal

-0.7

-3.2%

-2.0%

+0.1%

+1.9% Highe st Goal

+/-0.0% Lowes t Goal

-3.2%

-0.6

+1.8% 08/09 3 rd 75.0% + 5.3% cohort

+1.8% Highe st Goal

-0.4% Lowes t Goal

-1.2%

+3.3%

+0.3

-3.3% 08/09 3 rd 90.1% - 1.9% cohort

-1.1%

+2.9%

-2.1% Highe st Goal

+0.2%

-0.8% Lowes t Goal

-0.1

+3.4% 08/09 4 th 78.5% - 2.6% cohort

+2.1%

+1.1% Highe st Goal

+0.7%

+4.3% Lowes t Goal

+0.5

+1.8% 08/09 4 th 91.5% - 3.3% cohort

+1.3% Lowes t Goal

+3.0%

+0.7%

+4.0% Highe st Goal

+2.9%

+0.9

+8.1%

+5.0% Highe st Goal

+1.9%

-0.2% Lowes t Goal

+4.1%

+1.7

Questions??