Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Analysis of the Mathematics Section of the California Standards Test (CST) Data Elementary.

Slides:



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

MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
Using Data to Meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Middle School Principal’s Breakout Session November 16, 2005.
Pennsylvania’s Continuous Improvement Process. Understanding AYP How much do you know about AYP?
Poway Unified Board of Education Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) October 15, 2012.
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.
2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
District Accountability Update May February 2007.
2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.
ON TARGET WITH AMAOS 1, 2, 3 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS September 29, 2009 Welcome.
Assessment & Accountability TEP 128A March 7, 2006.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
California Standards Test and CAHSEE Correlation Use of Student Data for Targeted Preemptive Intervention November 1, 2006 Dr. Janis Fries-Martinez, Principal.
Title I Coordinators’ Meeting: Guiding Students to Proficiency December 07, 2005.
MELROSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS MELROSE VETERANS MEMORIAL MIDDLE SCHOOL OCTOBER 2013 MCAS Spring 2013 Results.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Assessing California Standards Test (CST) Data.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress Fresno Unified School District 2005 Data Review.
Michigan’s Accountability Scorecards A Brief Introduction.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
Torrance Unified School District Annual Student Achievement Dr. George W. Mannon, Superintendent Dr. E Don Kim, Senior Director of Elementary Education.
Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
1 STUDENT PROGRESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 2013 September 10, 2013 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Understandin g the API & the AYP APLUS+ Annual Conference October 2010 Del Mar, California Diane Grotjohn
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.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
Spring 2012 Testing Results. GRANT API HISTORY
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
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)
Your High School Name 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.
Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.
MCAS 2007 October 24, 2007 A Report to the Sharon School Committee and Dr. Barbara J. Dunham Superintendent of Schools Dr. George S. Anthony Director of.
How Do Students with Disabilities Participate in the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program? September 29, 2010.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Parents as Partners: How Parents and Schools Work Together to Close the Achievement Gap.
How Do Students with Disabilities Participate in the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program? December 9, 2009.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Meeting AYP and Generating API: Preventing “Leakage”
California Standards Test (CST) and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results, Oakland Unified School District Division of Student Achievement.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.
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.
Sample Elementary School 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
2007 – 2008 Assessment and Accountability Report LVUSD Report to the Board September 23, 2008 Presented by Mary Schillinger, Assistant Superintendent Education.
Response to Intervention Does it work for ELL & Poverty Children Highland Pacific Elementary School San Bernardino City Unified School District CASP March.
1 Testing Various Models in Support of Improving API Scores.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions
Using Data to Drive Your School’s Instructional Program
Wade Hayashida Local District 8
Key Concepts & Questions Adequate Yearly Progress
Academic Achievement Alameda County School Districts
Academic Achievement Report for Meadow Homes Elementary School
Academic Achievement Report for Washington Manor Middle School
Presentation transcript:

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Analysis of the Mathematics Section of the California Standards Test (CST) Data Elementary Mathematics Coaches October 26, 2006

Purpose of the Session: 1.To establish the direct relationship between Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Academic Performance Index (API) and the California Standards Test (CST). 2.To accurately assess California Standards Test (CST) results so a school may make tactical changes in classroom practice and customize interventions.

Adequate Yearly Progress No Child Left Behind Testing Accountability: Required Elements

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) All Title I Schools must meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) school wide. Failure to meet AYP for two consecutive years in a single curricular area or AYP component will move a school into Program Improvement (PI) status. Curricular Areas: Language Arts and Math

1. Participation Rate: 95% participation rate must be met in CSTs (and CAPA) for all 2 nd -5 th graders and for each “significant” sub group. AYP Criteria Elementary: Participation Rate

AYP Criteria Elementary: Annual Measurable Outcomes (AMO) ELA ’06= 24.4% ’07= 24.4% ’08= 35.2% Mathematics ’06= 26.5% ’07=26.5% ’08=37.0% 2. Testing Proficiency (AMO): Minimum Percentage of students at Proficient to Advanced levels of the California Standards Test (CST)

Figure #1- California Standards Test (CST) Levels: Mathematics Far Below BasicBelow BasicBasicProficientAdvanced 150 to to to to to 600 State Target for All Students

3. Academic Performance Index (API): Minimal School API Score of 590 Or Increase of 1 API point per year AYP Criteria Elementary: Academic Performance Index (API)

Schoolwide Title I Schools are accountable for significant subgroups If a Schoolwide Title I School has a subgroup population which is: 100 students or greater who are to be STAR tested, or 99 to 50 students which represent at least 15% of the total number of students to be tested, the subgroup must meet: Participation Rate and Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) Proficiency Rates.

What About Academic Performance Index? API

Academic Performance Index (API) Criteria: Quintile Rankings based on Math CST (30% Weight) Quintile API Weights Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic

Academic Performance Index (API) Criteria: Quintile Rankings based on Math CST Quintile API Weights Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic Numbers of Students

Academic Performance Index (API) Criteria: Quintile Rankings based on Math CST Quintile API Weights Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic 10% 20% 40% 10% 20% % of students in each quintile

Academic Performance Index (API) Criteria: Quintile Rankings based on Math CST Quintile API Weights API Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic 10% 20% 40% 10% 20% % of students in each quintile

Academic Performance Index (API) Criteria: Quintile Rankings based on Math CST Quintile API Weights API Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic 10% 20% 40% 10% 20% % of students in each quintile Total:675 API for ELA CST

Academic Performance Index (API) Criteria: Quintile Rankings based on Math CST Quintile API Weights Gain in API Weight N/A Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic

Figure #2- California Standards Test (CST) Levels: Mathematics Far Below BasicBelow BasicBasicProficientAdvanced 150 to to to to to 600 State Target for All Students API For Academic Performance Index (API), greatest gains will occur when moving students from the lowest CST levels due to weighting factors.

Key to Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Increasing Academic Performance Index (API): Positive Annual Gains

Goal: Move One Testing Level Per Year regardless of assessed level.

Figure #3- California Standards Test (CST) Levels: Mathematics Far Below BasicBelow BasicBasicProficientAdvanced 150 to to to to to 600 State Target for All Students

How Do We Get Them To Proficiency? First step is to accurately assess California Standards Test (CST) Math results so a school may make tactical changes in classroom practice and customize interventions.

Procedure: 1. Use STAR Master List to assess individual CST Reporting Clusters by each separate grade and quintile level 2. Use the Introduction/CST Test Release Questions as a tool for assessing the summarized weaknesses to: 1. Determining the need for any tactical changes in classroom practice. 2. Better customized targeted interventions.

CST Assessment Protocol: Simplifying the Data Use STAR Master List to assess individual CST Reporting Clusters: 1. Number Sense 2. Number Sense 3. Algebra and Functions 4. Measurement and Geometry 5. Statistics, Data Analysis, and Probability

CST Assessment Protocol: Simplifying the Data Use STAR Master List to assess by each Quintile Level: 1. Advanced: ADV 2. Proficient: PRO 3. Basic: B 4. Below Basic: BB 5. Far Below Basic: FBB

Figure #3- California Standards Test (CST) Levels: Mathematics Far Below BasicBelow BasicBasicProficientAdvanced 150 to to to to to 600 State Target for All Students

CST Assessment Protocol: Simplifying the Data In each Reporting Cluster, simplify the percentage correct by rounding to the nearest single digit number. 76% is 8; 35% is 3.5; 64% is 6

CST Assessment Protocol: Simplifying the Data Record the rounded single digit representation on the CST Analysis Form under the proper Reporting Cluster for the first 10 students in the same grade and quintile level. Add all simplified scores. Divide by the total number of students recorded (10 students). Calculate score for each Reporting Cluster

Work Period 10 minutes

Analysis of Data

CST Assessment Protocol: Narrowing the Focus Read Test Release Questions Introduction Reporting Cluster Description and Standards. Key observations in job alike groups: Refer to the Test Blue Print Page for the first Number Sense Strand/Reporting Cluster. Which sub-strand/standard has the greatest number of questions asked within the first Number Sense Strand/Reporting Cluster? Which sub-strand/standard has the least number of questions? Refer to the Test Release Questions Page 1:Which Reporting/Strand Cluster has the greatest number of questions asked on the test? The least number of questions?

CST Assessment Protocol: Narrowing the Focus Within the first Number Sense Reporting Cluster/Strand: Use Test Release Questions, Test Release answer key and Testing Blue Prints to match sample questions with the standards.

CST Assessment Protocol: Narrowing the Focus Using the Testing Blue Print page, prioritize Standards which comprise the first Number Sense Reporting Cluster/Strand by number of questions asked: Highest to Lowest

CST Assessment Protocol: Narrowing the Focus Insert sample questions under corresponding Standard.

Work Period 15 minutes

Analysis of Information

CST Assessment Protocol: Strategizing by Recording Cluster and Quintile Ranking Select a Reporting Cluster/Strand Select a Quintile Ranking Begin brainstorming to determine the need for any tactical changes in classroom practice. Begin with analysis of your core program implementation. Exhaust all core program resources and materials first.

Purpose of the Session: 1.To establish the direct relationship between Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Academic Performance Index (API) and the California Standards Test (CST). 2.To accurately assess California Standards Test (CST) results so a school may make tactical changes in classroom practice and customize interventions.

Wade Hayashida Title I Coordinator, Local District