Safe Harbor A Method of Calculating AYP October 15, 2008 Information for this presentation are adapted from CDDRE (2008) handouts. Title I 2008 OBJECTIVES.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Future Ready Schools ABCs/AYP Background Briefing August 23, 2007 Lou Fabrizio, Ph.D. Director of Accountability Services NC Department of Public.
Advertisements

Elementary Principals Meeting Data Presentation August 6, 2010.
Construction Careers Center Charter High School CCC Career Coaching Participants.
September 10, Overview The purpose of the presentation is to provide an update on the status of the opening of school. The purpose of the presentation.
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION UPDATE DECEMBER 7, 2011 AYP DETERMINATIONS ESEA WAIVER.
Federal NCLB Regulations
WESTEST 2 School Reports 1. WESTEST 2 SCHOOL REPORTS WESTEST 2 school reports are used to make programmatic level decisions Use other data and information.
AYP Changes for 2007 K-20 Videoconference June 11, 2007 Presented by: JoLynn Berge OSPI Federal Policy Coordinator.
Student Performance Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 3 – State Assessment Performance, 7 – Early Childhood Outcomes.
1 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY IN DELAWARE July 31, 2009 For the School Year.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Closing the Achievement Gap Using Safe Harbor To Target Students Not Making AYP October 23, 2008 Information for this presentation are adapted from CDDRE.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
1 School Grades and Adequate Yearly Progress 2004 and Beyond.
1 School Grades and Adequate Yearly Progress Changes 2005 and Beyond.
AYP Plan Performance Reporting Division Texas Education Agency TETN Accountability Update November 14, 2006.
Federal Accountability/ AYP Update Special Education TETN January 6, 2010 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado TEA, Performance Reporting Division.
Performance Reporting Division Texas Education Agency TI ESC Meeting September 18, AYP Update.
2007 ITBS/ ITED Results Cedar Rapids Community Schools.
The Continuous Improvement Classroom Level II
MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
CELEBRATE OUR SUCCESS! School Year 1 st Year of Transformation.
SPRING CREEK ELEMENTARY Title I For additional information contact the school at
All You Ever Wanted to Know about Graduation, Completion, and Dropout Rates System Support Team Region XIII © 2011 Region XIII.
School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
School and District Report Cards Validation WebEx Jon Wiens Office of Assessment Oregon Department of Education
A-F Report Card Update Tommi Leach and Kelly Arrington, ODCTE.
Chief Research Officer Ohio Department of Education
No Child Left Behind The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the “No Child Left Behind Act,” will have.
North Carolina ABCs AYP and NCLB. What Do You Know? Discuss and Share NCLB NC ABCs AYP Testing Report Cards.
Test scores Can be manipulated to tell a variety of stories Based on the best of three opportunities on one test (HSA) Are the DOE’s accountability measures.
School Improvement Advisory Committee October 15, 2008 Welcome!
Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003.
AYP: Making Adequate Yearly Progress in Washington State Spring 2012.
1  Janet Hensley  Pam Lange  Barb Rowenhorst Meade School District.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Track Performance Division of Performance Accountability.
AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013 Thank you to Nancy Katims- Edmonds School District for much of the content of this presentation Ben Gauyan.
Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.
Arkansas ESEA Flexibility Flexibility Amended in October, 2012 Louis Ferren, School Performance Public School Accountability.
Alaska’s New Accountability System for Schools 1.
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.
1 School Designation Detailed Methodology Reward Identify the “highest-performing schools” and “high-progress schools” based in all-students group over.
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.
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
1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
AYP Prediction By Diagnostics in the Educational Data Warehouse.
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 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.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
Annual Measurable Objectives (trajectory targets).
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
1 School Grades and AYP for New Accountability Coordinators.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
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.
American Education Research Association April 2004 Pete Bylsma, Director Research/Evaluation/Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
Wade Hayashida Local District 8
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

Safe Harbor A Method of Calculating AYP October 15, 2008 Information for this presentation are adapted from CDDRE (2008) handouts. Title I 2008 OBJECTIVES Discuss the procedures for SAFE HARBOR Estimate Safe Harbor and AMO Targets

Critical Numbers* 65 30/99/ and , +1 * Details to make better decisions about targeting students, school grades, AYP and student learning.

School or district makes AYP if the following criteria are met: METHOD REQUIREMENTCRITERIA Meet Benchmarks Regular AYP A.Participation95% B. Reading Proficiency65% ( ) C. Math Proficiency68% ( ) D. Other Criteria Improve Writing (3.0 for AYP) Improve graduation rate School grade 1% or 90+% 1% or 85% in current year Grade not D or F Safe Harbor E.A + D F.Reduction in % who are non-proficient 10% Growth Model G.A + D H.% of students on track to be proficientAMO (benchmarks) Source: 2007 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), TAC 2007 Look at handout: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report – Page 2

Flow Chart of Qualifying for Safe Harbor 95% participation rate in each subgroup and whole school Graduation rate: 1% improvement or 85% or higher School grade not D or F WRITING 90, +1 90% to 100% or 1% growth (0% to 89%) SUBGROUPS 1+8, 30/99/ or more students, OR 15% of total tested if NOT less than 30 % scoring below proficient decreased by 10% NO Made AYP Did not make AYP STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 YES

Example 1: Reading - Qualifying for Safe Harbor Group No. Tested 30/99/ 15 Reading Tested 95% of the students 58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? Improved performance in Writing by 1% 0r 90%+ % of Students below grade level in reading (10% decrease) Safe Harbor Reading 2008Y/N2008Y/N Y/N Y/N TOTAL284100Y68Y9190Y3433NA WHITE32100Y BLACK221100Y64Y9390Y4036NA HISPANIC12 ASIAN7 AM INDIAN 0 ECON DIS205100Y63Y9290Y4037NA LEP3 SWD6498Y45N90 Y6255?

Example 2: Math - Qualifying for Safe Harbor Group No. Tested 30/99/ 15 Math Tested 95% of the students 62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1% 0r 90%+ % of Students below grade level in math (10% decrease) Safe Harbor Math 2008Y/N2008Y/N Y/N Y/N TOTAL426100Y79Y8990Y3433NA WHITE198100Y84Y BLACK190100Y58N8789Y4142? HISPANIC11 ASIAN10 AM INDIAN 0 ECON DIS153100Y52N9185N3948? LEP5 SWD59100YNA

Example 3: 10% Decrease % of students proficient (score 3+) in reading = 20% % of students proficient (score 3+) in reading = 27% Percent non-proficient in reading = Percent non-proficient in reading = 73 Does 80% to 73% represent a 10% reduction? YES NO 80 *.10 = – 8.1 = 71.9

How can a school use safe harbor information? EXAMPLE: How many of your students are at Level 3 in Writing? 30 out of 50 students = 60% 50 *.90 = 45 students15 more students (2 and 3 surveys) Need 15 students in Writing to be able to use safe harbor (90+% ) Identify students (use information from Survey 2) to determine which students will be included in calculations. Set targets for subgroups not making AYP Help to close the achievement gap by targeting groups to ensure that each subgroup continues to make adequate yearly progress.

Example 4: Reading - Qualifying for Safe Harbor Group No. Tested 30/99/ 15 Reading Tested 95% of the students 58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? Improved performance in Writing by 1% 0r 90%+ % of Students below grade level in reading (10% decrease) Safe Harbor Reading 2008Y/N2008Y/N Y/N TOTAL WHITE BLACK ECON DIS SWD Did this school make AYP? 2.Did it meet the Writing criteria of 90% or +1? (Did it meet the graduation criteria of 1% or 85%) 3.Which subgroup(s) did not make AYP? 4.Does the subgroup(s) meet the 30/99/15 requirement? 5.Did the subgroup(s) decrease the non-proficient group by 10%

Qualifying for Safe Harbor 1.Meet AYP in Writing 2.95% participation rate in each subgroup and whole school 3.School has met the graduation rate criterion. 4.School is not D or F SAFE HARBOR requires a 10% reduction in the number of students who were non-proficient in the previous year.

Practice: AYP and AMO Targets Materials Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report, page 2 2.Current enrollment by subgroup 3.Worksheet

Contact Information Carolyn Spooner Gail Ogawa