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