Annual Student Performance Report October 2012. Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Advertisements

Title I School Improvement in North Carolina. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determines if a Title I school goes into Title I School Improvement.
Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
‘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.
Coal City Unit District #1 Title I Parent Meeting.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 6, 2011.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 20, 2011.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
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.
Data for Student Success Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report “It is about focusing on building a culture of quality data through professional development.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.
Catherine Cross Maple, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary Learning and Accountability
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
* AYP stands for Adequate Yearly Progress. As a part of the No Child Left Behind Act, schools are held accountable for their students reaching certain.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
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!
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 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.
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.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
Annual Student Performance Report September
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.
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.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
RECYCLE Jenkins Independent District Data STATE NCLB DATA 103 of 175 school districts (58.9%) met 100% of their No Child Left Behind (NCLB) AYP goals.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
Accountability Scorecards Okemos Board of Education September 2013.
Completed forms may be placed in the box at the back of the room or mailed to C/SAC, Office of Staff Development. Questions? See Dixie at the registration.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
On the horizon: State Accountability Systems U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2002 Archived Information.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents Highland Renaissance Academy.
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.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
- 0 - OUSD Results MSDF Impact Assessment State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API) The API is a single number, ranging from a low.
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.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2004 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Implementation of the.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP and Report Card.
Presentation transcript:

Annual Student Performance Report October 2012

Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps

No Child Left Behind Act and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Overall goal is 100% proficiency in Reading and Math by 2014 Targets increase nearly every year Recent target proficiencies: 2010: 77.5% 2011: 85% 2012: 85% (Illinois waiver) 2013: 92.5%

No Child Left Behind Act and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Making AYP: Subgroups Target must be met by all subgroups: Ethnic group Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities Limited English proficiency Applies to all subgroups with at least 45 members

Making AYP: Overall Requirements Three overall requirements: 1. At least 95% of students in each subgroup must be tested in reading and math. 2. At least 85% (in 2012) of students must meet or exceed standards in the subject. If the percentage is less than 85%, the 95% confidence interval is applied. If a subgroup did not make AYP the previous year, but decreased the percentage not meeting standards by at least 10%, the Safe Harbor provision will allow it to meet the conditions. 3.School must have at least a 91% attendance rate.

Making AYP: Additional Factors Annual target percentages are lowered in specific circumstances: 95% confidence interval based on group size Safe Harbor provision of 10% decrease in percent not meeting from one year to next

Making AYP: Complicating Factors Home school versus serving school May 1 attendance cutoff Some students in multiple subgroups

Reading ISAT

Math ISAT

2012 AYP Status Eight schools made AYP in both subjects Two schools did not make AYP in one or both subjects for one or more subgroups One failed for the second consecutive year One failed for the third consecutive year The District as a whole did not make AYP for the second consecutive year

2012 AYP Status: District 97 Subgroups Making AYP in Math SubgroupMATH % meeting or exceeding 95 % Confidence Target ALL students (3337)92.7% (3095) 84.0% (2804) White students (1894) 96.9% (1836) 83.7% (1586) Black students (817) 82.1% (671) 82.9% (678) Hispanic students (154) 89.0% (137) 80.3% (124) Asian students (137)97.1% (133) 79.8% (110) Two or more races (333) 94.9% (316) 81.7% (273)

2012 AYP Status: District 97 Subgroups Making AYP in Reading SubgroupREADING % meeting or exceeding 95 % Confidence Target ALL students (3335)90.8% (3027) 84.0% (2802) White students (1895)95.7% (1813) 83.7% (1587) Black students (817) 77.6% (634) 82.9% (678) Hispanic students (153) 87.7% (135) 80.3% (123) Asian students (135)94.8% (128) 79.8% (108) Two or more races (333) 94.6% (315) 81.7% (273)

2012 AYP Status: District 97 Subgroups not Making AYP SubgroupREADINGMATH % meeting or exceeding Safe Harbor Target % meeting or exceeding Safe Harbor Target Students with Disabilities (579) 62.9% (364) 66.7% (387) 71.6% (414) 73.7% (444) Economically Disadvantaged Students (673) 74.4%* (501) 75.8% (511) 79.9% (539) 81.3% (549) *met AYP target

2012 AYP Status Update SCHOOL Not Making AYP: Subjects and Subgroups 2011 State Status2012 State Status 2012 Federal Status BeyeReading and Math: Black students Academic Early Warning: Year 1 Choice HolmesMade AYP in all subgroupsAcademic Early Warning: Year 1 BrooksReading and Math: Economically disadvantaged students Academic Early Warning: Year 1 Academic Early Warning: Year 2 JulianReading and Math: Economically disadvantaged students Academic Early Warning: Year 1

Federal and State Requirements for Schools not Making AYP First year: No consequences Second consecutive year: Complete a School Improvement Plan and receive change in status: Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (Choice) State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 1 Third consecutive year: Complete a School Improvement Plan and receive change in status: Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (SES) State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 2

Student Progress: Reminders: AYP compares different sets of students from year to year Vast majority of students do improve from one year to next District focus is on student growth

Next Steps: Response to AYP Status School improvement planning at all ten schools using new Rising Star tool West 40 engaged as consultants to process

School Improvement Planning: Characteristics of Rising Star Continual monitoring Student outcomes and effective practices Combines several initiatives in one comprehensive plan Focus on all schools, not just Title I Completely online; increased record-keeping requirements

School Improvement Planning with Rising Star Required webinar to gain system access prior to Oct. 4 Initial overview with West 40 consultants: Oct. 4 Each school assembling team of 6-8, creating calendar, and gathering data Smart Start and Smart Data indicators recorded: Nov. 1 Smart Plan indicators recorded: Dec. 14 On-going West 40 support throughout school improvement planning process

School Improvement Planning: Summary Plans completed online following required format Goal: all plans (SIP, Title I, and Technology) working together to improve student achievement by using best practices Intent: classroom focus changes from “I taught…” to “The students learned…”; all teachers and administrators utilize effective practices Duration: on-going