Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the 2003-2004 Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.

Slides:



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

Federal Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress. TEA-USDE Flexibility Agreement
Bureau of Indian Education
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.
‘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.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 6, 2011.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Testing Overview 2012, 2013, 2014 Presenter – Guyla Ness.
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.
1 Utah Performance Assessment System for Students U-PASS Accountability Plan Judy W. Park Assessment & Accountability Director Utah State Office of Education.
Accountability 101. State Accountability Federal Accountability # Students Met Standard # Students Tested If the Standard is not met: Apply Required.
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.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
PEIMS and Accountability. Clear System of Data Quality Documentation (Enrollment, Special Program, etc.) PEIMS Data Entry Pearson Data File Answer Documents.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
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.
DLT September 28, State Indicators and Rating for OFCS (have) Key Factors and Points to Keep in Mind (have) This power point presentation (will.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
Adequate Yearly Progress Kansas State Department of Education 2007 Fall Assessment Conference Judi Miller,
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.
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.
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.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
Annual Student Performance Report September
AYP Accountability Participation Proficiency Attendance Rate Graduation Rate AAI Subgroups Safe Harbor Uniform Averaging Confidence Interval School Improvement.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
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 Importance of MSIS Data for Assessment Reporting and Accountability Office of Research & Statistics Mississippi Department of Education July 2004.
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.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
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.
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.
Accountability Training Review Agenda for Today: Review of calculation changes and what’s new In depth review of Closing Gaps calculations Graduation Rates.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Getting Started with the INDIVIDUAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT SYSTEM Segment 1 (revised July 1, 2006)
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
Update on Accountability March “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Verifying Yearend Accountability Data
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
Every Student Succeeds Act Update
Presentation transcript:

Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004

Data collected in EMIS during the 2003/2004 school year will be the results on the Local Report Card mailed in the fall of 2005.

District Ratings on the LRC are determined by the number of State Indicators that are met. Excellent17-18 Effective14-16 Continuous Improvement 9-13 Academic Watch 6-8 Academic Emergency 0-5

The Local Report Card ratings for schools and districts are based on multiple measures: 1. Adequate Yearly Progress 2. Performance Index Scores 3. Growth of the Performance Index over three years 4. State Report Card Indicators

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) The final goal is that all students reach the proficient level in reading and mathematics by The final goal is that all students reach the proficient level in reading and mathematics by Until then, yearly goals are set requiring a specific percentage of students in select groups to reach proficiency in the tested subjects. Subgroups include; ethnic affiliation ethnic affiliation LEP students LEP students students with disabilities students with disabilities economically disadvantaged economically disadvantaged The Participation Rate is also be used to determine AYP. Every district and building must test 95% of all students. The Participation Rate is also be used to determine AYP. Every district and building must test 95% of all students. For the school to meet AYP, goals for each student group must be met. If any goal is missed, the school does not meet AYP for the year.

Performance Index Score The Performance Index Score represents the average score of all students in grades 3, 4 and 6 in all tested subjects. Schools will have a Performance Index Score based on the tested grades in their building.

Growth of Performance Index (Temporary Measure) A District can move from: Academic Emergency to Academic Watch Academic Emergency to Academic Watch Academic Watch to Continuous Improvement Academic Watch to Continuous Improvement If the performance index score shows growth: two years of improvement two years of improvement at least 10 total points at least 10 total points at least 3 points in most recent year at least 3 points in most recent year

State Indicators 16 of the 18 state indicators are determined by the district’s ability to reach a minimum requirement for the percentage of students at or above the proficient level of testing. 16 of the 18 state indicators are determined by the district’s ability to reach a minimum requirement for the percentage of students at or above the proficient level of testing. The remaining two indicators are determined by the The remaining two indicators are determined by the Graduation Rate and Attendance Rate. Graduation Rate and Attendance Rate.

18 Possible Indicators in FY04: 3 rd grade - Reading Achievement (75% state standard) 4 th grade - Reading, Writing, Math, Citizenship and Science (75% state standard) (75% state standard) 6 th grade - Reading, Writing, Math, Citizenship and Science (75% state standard) (75% state standard) 10 th grade - (who need to take 9 th grade Proficiency) Reading, Writing, Math, Citizenship and Science (85% state standard) (85% state standard) Attendance Rate (93%) Attendance Rate (93%) Graduation Rate (90%) Graduation Rate (90%)

Attendance Rate Indicator Includes attendance for students who:  Are enrolled in the building for 120 or more consecutive days  Are enrolled in the building during October Count Week  District level includes students in grades K-8 only.  Building level includes all students enrolled in the building (regardless of grade level) that meet the full academic year criteria.

Graduation Rate Indicator  The Graduation Rate identifies ‘on time’ graduates - those students that take only 4 years to graduation.  Grade 13 students will only count in the denominator.  Students who are considered “Proficiency Only” will not longer be included in either the numerator or denominator  Will be calculated for buildings and districts with grades 9–12 inclusive. (Buildings with only will not have building level graduation rate)

Graduation Rate Calculation Grad Rate = Grad Rate = # of FY2003 Graduates (includes students that graduated prior to the start of the 03/04 school year) # of FY2003 Graduates (includes students that graduated prior to the start of the 03/04 school year) _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ (# of Gr 13 Students + # of FY2003 Graduates + # of Gr 9 Dropouts in FY # of Gr 9 Returning Withdrawals + # of Gr 10 Dropouts in FY # of Gr 10 Returning Withdrawals + # of Gr 11 Dropouts in FY # of Gr 11 Returning Withdrawals + # of Gr 12 Dropouts in FY # of Gr 12 Returning Withdrawals) – (12 th grade students coded as previous dropouts) X 100 Note: Grade 13 students (5 th year seniors) are in the denominator but not the numerator.

What can EMIS Coordinators do to prepare for Yearend Reporting?

March March  Be aware of critical test dates  Maintain Student demographic data Handicapping conditions Handicapping conditions Grade levels Grade levels Admission/Withdrawal dates Admission/Withdrawal dates Ethnic Affiliation Ethnic Affiliation LEP status LEP status  Maintain Staff data  Maintain Building data and District data  Maintain student Program Records (Academic, Intervention, Title I, Extracurricular, etc.)

April April  Continue to maintain student records  Identify students that did not take required tests  Identify students that enrolled after testing dates  Maintain the Accountability IRN for students who will count at a building other than the attending building.  Maintain Staff data

May  Be aware of test results coming back from testing companies  Verify student test taking status and coding  Verify reports as they are returned from ODE  Continue to maintain all EMIS data elements  Review Accountability Workbooks provided by ODE  Be aware of critical submission deadlines

June/July/August  Review Accountability Workbook and testing data with District personnel  Finalize Student data testing data testing data graduation data graduation data  Finalize Staff data  Comply with Final Submissions and Accountability Sign-offs

Final yearend submission for FY04 EMIS data will be August 6, Data Accuracy Signoff deadline is September 10, 2004.

Additional information:  EMIS Processing:  Accountability:  Local Report Card:  NCLB: