Testing & Accountability Update TAKS, EOC, & STAAR.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
No Child Left Behind Public School Choice. Federal/State Requirements Federal System No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Choice Supplemental Educational Services.
Advertisements

Delaware Statewide Title I Conference 1 School Improvement – The Ever-Changing Landscape – Part I June 29, 2010 Bill McGrady U. S. Department of Education.
Roles and Responsibilities. Collaborative Efforts to Improve Student Achievement Guidelines for developing integrated planning and decision making processes.
AYP Regional Meetings In Need of Improvement Schools and Districts MDE School Improvement Division and Regional Service Cooperatives August/September 2010.
1 Overview: What is “No Child Left Behind”?. 2 Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“ESEA”) of ’65 Money to states for specific.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Program Improvement Year 3 Corrective Action.
No Child Left Behind The New Age: No Child Left Behind.
No Child Left Behind Act © No Child Left Behind Act ©Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special Education.
System Safeguards and Campus Improvement
Components of the 2015 Texas Assessment Program State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) –STAAR Spanish –STAAR A –STAAR L –STAAR Alternate.
Accountability Updates Testing & Evaluation Department May 21, 2014 Mission High School MISSION CISD DEIC MEETING.
STAAR Alternate is the state assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities.
2015 SpEd Assessment Updates TETN Event # Presented June 5, 2013 TEA’s Student Assessment Division.
Components of the 2014 Texas Assessment Program State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) –STAAR Spanish –STAAR L –STAAR Modified –STAAR.
Assessment Implications of HB 5 William Kelly Coordinator of Assessment and Evaluation.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information Session Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability & Targeted Assistance Massachusetts Department of.
2015 Accountability Commissioner’s Final Decisions KIM GILSON SENIOR CONSULTANT, DATA AND ACCOUNTABILITY REGION 10 ESC
Overview of MCAS Results and Adequate Yearly Progress Determinations 2006 Brockton School Committee November 21, 2006.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SIP). AYP INDICATORS, COMPONENTS AND STANDARDS  Reading/ELA  Performance: 87% Proficiency Rate  Participation: 95% Participating.
Implementation of the North Carolina Read to Achieve Program May 7, 2013.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County May 2011.
Spring 2015 TELPAS Holistic Rating Training System
Staar Trek The Next Generation STAAR Trek: The Next Generation Performance Standards.
STAR (Support through Assistance & Reforms) Report.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
A Guide to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County April 2010.
The New Age: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) By Don Bertucci, Chaffey Unified School District ROP.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
1 Title IA Online Coordinator Training School Improvement.
Title I School Improvement Committee of Practitioners Bridgeport Conference Center June 9, 2008.
2015 Texas Accountability System Overview and Updates August 13, 2015.
May 25,  MSP scores are compared against a uniform bar.  The MSP scores compared against the uniform bar are not representative of individual.
Implementation of the North Carolina Read to Achieve Program CCSA March 25, 2013.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation.
Title I Faculty Presentation (Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation) 1 Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
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.
Warren Roane Mary Kay Gianoutsos Humble ISD Warren Roane Mary Kay Gianoutsos Humble ISD Best Laid Plans: EOC Projections, Results and Consequences Best.
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.
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.
2015 Texas Accountability System La Porte Independent School District August 5, 2015.
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.
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.
Ware County High School State of the school. 12 th grade 448 students entered the 9 th grade in 2003/ students have left the county or state 243.
Appoquinimink School District A Bright Horizon for MHS Corrective Action Plan 3 Year Plan December, 2007.
Fall District Test Coordinators Meeting Alexandria, LA November, 2005.
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
1 No Child Left Behind: Identification of Program Improvement (PI) Schools and Districts July 2003.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
January 15, Utilization of the Personal Curriculum.
GUIDANCE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Region VII Comprehensive Center The University of Oklahoma 555 Constitution Street Norman, OK David.
Stage 4 Restructuring Stage 5 Alternative Governance.
Springs 2006 and 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Results Potential Challenges with 2008 Annual Measurable Objectives & District Corrective Action.
Coordinator’s Academy Local District 6 Program Improvement Thursday October 27, 2005.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
Preliminary AYP Preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Data.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
The State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness January 2012.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
State of the District Data Review.  Review data  Review effectiveness of initiatives  AYP  AYP Status  Plan for
Federal Programs Q &A’s Presented by: Dr. Shawnrell Blackwell Director of Federal Programs and School Improvement.
Ellie Gearhart August Campus Improvement Plan Revise plan Parents School staff LEA Outside experts.
OVERVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY BECCA MARSH, DIVISION OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND SUPPORT TEA, CHARTER SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION ©2013.
School Report Card and Identification Progression
Weslaco East High School
Federal Accountability/ AYP Update
Roles and Responsibilities
Campus Improvement Planning
Chapter 8 (key issues for Special Education)
Presentation transcript:

Testing & Accountability Update TAKS, EOC, & STAAR

GPISD – Stage II School Improvement  Missed AYP due to the cap in SPED Reading/ELA for the 3 rd year in a row  14% points improvement without a cap  1% dropped with the cap applied  Missed AYP due to the cap in SPED Math for the 2 nd year in a row  22% points improvement without a cap  3% improvement with the cap applied (needed 4%)

Stage II Consequences  Notify all parents  Implement the District Improvement Plan that was revised when we were in Stage I  10% of all Title I funds must be spent in staff development in areas that impact AYP  Be 100% HQ or  Not be able to hire any additional paraprofessionals  Will be required to implement an Accountability Agreement with TEA and jointly develop a professional development program  Less district Title II funds

Stage III Consequences  Everything from Stage II plus :  Must contract with Region IV to conduct a District Snapshot to determine most effective professional development and to select one of the following:  Reduce Administrative funds for the district  Fully Implement a new curriculum  Replace personnel who are relevant to the failure to make AYP

After Snapshot  Must share District Snapshot with the campuses  Submit a summary of the results and the choice of corrective action to TEA by deadline  TEA will review our summary and either approve our corrective action or require a more appropriate corrective action  Share corrective action with campuses  Begin implementation of corrective action upon receipt of approval from TEA and continue for the following school year

Stage III for a 3 rd year  TEA can:  Remove some schools from GPISD’s jurisdiction and make alternate arrangements for public governance and supervision of such schools  Appoint a trustee to administer the affairs of GPISD in place of the superintendent and BOT  Abolish or restructure GPISD  Authorize students to transfer to other districts with us providing transportation, in conjunction with carrying out at least one of the other corrective actions

If a School goes into SIP  Stage I  Notify parents – must be mailed  Revise CIP with outside experts  Spend 10% of Title I of staff development  Receive Technical Assistance from the District  Incorporate a Teacher Mentoring Program  District must have a peer review process and approve the revised CIP  Offer School Choice with transportation  Principal must attend TEA staff development

School Improvement  Stage II – Add Supplemental Educational Services  Stage III – Corrective Action  Replace school staff who are relevant in failure to Make AYP  Fully implement a new curriculum  Significantly decrease management authority at the campus level  Appoint an outside expert to advise the campus on its progress toward making AYP  Extend the school year or school day for the campus  Restructure the internal organizational structure of the campus

More School Improvement  Stage IV - The LEA must prepare a plan and make necessary arrangements to carry out one of the following restructuring options if the school moves into Stage 5 in the following school year  Reopen the school as a charter school, following the requirements described in the Texas Education Code  Replace all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the failure to make AYP  Contract for a private management company of demonstrated effectiveness to operate the public school.  Turn the operation of the school over to the State  Any other major restructuring of school governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms

This is serious! We all need to be on the same page. Our students and community are counting on us!

Accountability & What do we know?  State Accountability minimum size for subgroups prior to 2013:  30 & 10% or >50  Federal Accountability minimum size for subgroups prior to 2013:  50 & 10% or >200  All STAAR assessments will count towards state accountability in 2013  No exemptions from testing for any ELLs (or any other group of students)  Students in grades 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 will attend summer review courses if they have not met standard on a SSI, EOC, or Exit Level TAKS assessment.  Do you realize our high schools will have review courses providing accelerated instruction for at least 10 separate EOC assessments?  High schools will still have review courses for students needing to pass a TAKS Exit Level assessment.

Accountability & What do we know? cont.  Students achieving the Level II score requirement are considered passers  This coming January, we will receive CSRs for students who took STAAR in grades 3-8 as well as results for students who took STAAR Alt or STAAR-M in the spring of  We might receive the state accountability manual as early as March  We do not expect to receive the AYP accountability until June  We can expect to receive accountability results on August 8 th, 2013.

Accountability & What do we think/hope?  ELLs- progress monitoring will be the tool used to determine accountability for ELLs in US schools for 3 years or less  This means the accuracy of Years in US Schools is VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!  AYP will use the January results for STAAR to compare the 2013 results for Safe Harbor  Summer EOC retests will likely count towards state and federal accountability  Getting students to attend summer review courses and testing will be very important!!!!  The state will likely want to see how many students made progress towards the Level II standard

Accountability & What are we clueless about?  What are we clueless about?  Will 10 th grade have a TAKS-Bridge study standard?  Will 10 th grade English EOC writing assessments be used for federal accountability along with the English EOC reading assessments?  What EOC subjects will be used for federal accountability?  What model will be used for state accountability (standards based or performance index)?  Will the minimum size requirement for federal accountability change to match the state minimum size requirement?

Stay tuned! We will let you know more as we learn more! For now, we can all work on 100% of our students being successful!