Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
Advertisements

Preparing for 2005 Mid-Cycle IV Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations Massachusetts Department of Education August, 2005.
Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.
‘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.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
Poway Unified Board of Education Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) October 15, 2012.
Instructions for Use This presentation slideshow is intended for school and district leaders to use to explain Adequate Yearly Progress to faculty, school.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2008.
2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.
Alaska’s New Accountability System for Schools 1.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT “CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES - MORE THAN PSSA AND AYP”
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 17 &
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
1 Measuring growth in student performance on MCAS: The growth model.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District.
MCAS REPORT Spring 2013 Presented to the Hingham School Committee November 18, 2013 by Ellen Keane, Assistant Superintendent.
School & district accountability reporting Title I Technical Assistance & Networking Session October 17, 2013.
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.
ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status School Committee Presentation September 24, 2013.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Pittsfield Public Schools September 23, 2009.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
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.
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.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Merrymount Elementary School PTO Assessment Presentation December 4, 2014.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Annual Student Performance Report September
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
ESEA Flexibility NCLB Waiver Discussion October 24, 2011.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
MCAS Results Merrymount Elementary School “The toughest thing about success is that you’ve got to keep on being a success.” -Irving Berlin.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
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.
1 Mississippi Statewide Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress Model Improving Mississippi Schools Conference June 11-13, 2003 Mississippi Department.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
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.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
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.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
Braintree Public Schools Spring 2007 MCAS Tests Braintree High School.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
2012 Accountability Determinations
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
AYP and Report Card.
Meeting the challenge Every Classroom Every Student Every Day
Presentation transcript:

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations

2 Adequate Yearly Progress – Facts AYP reports show the progress schools and districts are making toward having all students reach proficiency by the year 2014 – the principal goal of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). School and district AYP determinations are issued separately for English language arts/reading and for mathematics each year.

3 Adequate Yearly Progress – Facts For each subject there are multiple AYP determinations - for all students and for student subgroups. Students are counted in each student group to which they belong. District AYP determinations are based on grade-span results (3~5; 6~8; 9~12). Positive results for all groups in any grade-span yields a positive AYP determination. Schools and districts that do not make AYP for two or more consecutive years in the same subject are identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to focus efforts on improving student performance.

4 The CPI is: a metric used to measure school and district performance and improvement; a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in standard MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in the MCAS-Alt. MCAS Performance LevelScaled Score Range MCAS-Alt Performance Level Points Per Student Proficient or Advanced240 – 280Progressing100 Needs Improvement High230 – 238Emerging75 Needs Improvement Low220 – 228Awareness50 Warning / Failing High210 – 218Portfolio Incomplete25 Warning / Failing Low200 – 208Portfolio not Submitted0 OR Composite Performance Index (CPI)

CPI: Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performance level, then divide the total number of points by the total number of students (example below) MCAS Performance Level MCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics Points Per Student# StudentsPoints Proficient or Advanced / Progressing100101,000 Needs Improvement High / Emerging75201,500 Needs Improvement Low / Awareness50402,000 Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not Submitted050 Totals90 students4,875 Points 4,875 ÷ 90 = 54.2

6 Four Factors Determine AYP A ParticipationDid at least 95% of students participate in MCAS in 2011? B PerformanceDid the student group perform at or above the 2011 State Performance Target? C ImprovementDid the student group meet its own 2011 Improvement Target? D Additional Indicator Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)? A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

7 A + (B or C) + D = AYP PerformanceDid the student group perform at or above the 2011 State Performance Target? Performance targets established between 2001 and 2014, as required by NCLB Targets set separately for ELA and for math Performance expectations increase every 2 years Performance is measured using CPI AYP determinations based on one year of data each year

8 A + (B or C) + D = AYP PerformanceDid the student group perform at or above the 2011 State Performance Target? ELA Math

State Performance Targets, (Composite Performance Index) 9

10 A + (B or C) + D = AYP (B) Performance NCPIMet Target (85.4) Aggregate Yes Lim. English Prof Special Ed Low Income No Minimum “N” Size Rules: 20 in the aggregate 40 for subgroups (and at least 5% of total; subgroups of 200+ are always included) PerformanceDid the student group perform at or above the 2011 State Performance Target?

11 A + (B or C) + D = AYP ImprovementDid the student group meet its own Improvement Target? Performance…Improvement… Is an absolute measure.Is a relative measure. Is measured by comparing a group’s CPI with respect to a fixed State Performance Target for a given year. Is measured by looking at a group’s CPI change from one year to the next. Answers the question, “How did the group perform with respect to the 2011 State Performance Target?” Answers the question, “How did the group perform with respect to itself (from 2010 to 2011)?”

12 A + (B or C) + D = AYP ImprovementDid the student group meet its own 2007 Improvement Target? School A does not meet State Performance Target. In Math, School A had CPI scores of 52.0 in 2006 and 60.0 in (baseline) 60

13 A + (B or C) + D = AYP ImprovementDid the student group meet its own 2007 Improvement Target? School A meets its Improvement Target = 48 (points to go before 2014) 48÷8 = 6 (points to gain this year) School A’s 2007 improvement target was 52+6 = (baseline) 60

14 A + (B or C) + D = AYP Additional Indicator Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance)? Student groups in schools and districts serving grades 1-8 must: Have an attendance rate of 92% or higher, or Improve by at least 1 percentage point from the previous year

15

16

State Performance Targets, (Composite Performance Index) 17

18

19 NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions (School Level) Years Not Making AYP NCLB Accountability StatusRequired Actions 0 – 1No StatusNone 2Improvement (Year 1)Parent/Guardian notification, Planning, School Choice* 3Improvement (Year 2)Above requirements plus SES* 4Corrective ActionAbove requirements plus district takes 1+ corrective actions

20 NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions (District Level) Years Not Making AYP NCLB Accountability Status Required Actions 0 – 1No StatusNone 2Improvement (Year 1)Parent/Guardian Notification Planning 10% set aside of Title I funds for P.D. Limitations on transferability of federal funds 3Improvement (Year 2)Same as above 4+Corrective ActionAbove requirements plus: Prohibition on transfer of federal funds State Takes 1+ Corrective Actions

What is growth? MCAS –Shows how each student is achieving relative to state standards Growth –Measures change in an individual student’s performance over time

Calculating Growth Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning/Failing 80 to to to to 39 1 to 19 SGP Gina  % 65% SGPs between 40 to 59 are typical

Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning/Failing Calculating Growth Harry  % 75%

Interpreting student growth percentiles Gina’s SGP was 35. This means her SGP in grade 7 was higher than 35 percent of her academic peers (and less than 65 percent). –Is that amount of growth typical? 35 Percent of students Lower growthHigher growthTypical growth

Things to Remember Growth is distinct from achievement Each student is compared only to their statewide academic peers, not to all students statewide Growth is subject-, grade-, and year-specific The percentile is calculated on the change in achievement, not the absolute level

English Language Arts

Mathematics

NES Master Schedule 28