Developing a Framework for Ensuring the Validity of State Accountability Systems Council of Chief State School Officers AERA San Diego April 15, 2004.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
Advertisements

Summary of Final Title 1 Regulations District Test Coordinator Training February 27, 2009 Anchorage, Alaska.
Federal Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress. TEA-USDE Flexibility Agreement
Bureau of Indian Education
No Child Left Behind Act © No Child Left Behind Act ©Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special Education.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Determining Validity For Oklahoma’s Educational Accountability System Prepared for the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Oklahoma State.
Lessons Learned from AYP Decision Appeals Prepared for the American Educational Research Association Indiana Department of Education April 15, 2004.
School District of University City Jackson Park Elementary School SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Joylynn Wilson, Superintendent Monica Hudson, Principal.
N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND Testing Requirements of NCLB test annually in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 test at least once in reading and mathematics.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Small/ASAM Schools and PI Categorical Program Director’s.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS October 5, 2011.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
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.
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.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
1 No Child Left Behind Critical Research Findings For School Boards Ronald Dietel UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center.
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
State Test Results & AYP Status Shelton School District SY Pam Farr, Director of Teaching & Learning Gail Straus, Director of ECE & Federal Programs.
Adequate Yearly Progress Kansas State Department of Education 2007 Fall Assessment Conference Judi Miller,
Will Growth Models Improve School Accountability and NCLB/AYP? Results From New Research Survey and Analysis of Current AYP Growth Proposals Kimberly O'Malley.
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.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
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.
AYP and Report Card. AYP/RC –Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. –Understand the purpose and role of the Report Card in Oregon.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
AYP Accountability Participation Proficiency Attendance Rate Graduation Rate AAI Subgroups Safe Harbor Uniform Averaging Confidence Interval School Improvement.
AERA March 25, 2008 Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
Growth Model: A Way to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) The Effective Use of Data to Make AYP AERA CCSSO April 13, 2007.
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 Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools.
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.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
C R E S S T / CU University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
American Education Research Association April 2004 Pete Bylsma, Director Research/Evaluation/Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Diane Mugford – Federal Accountability, ADAM Russ Keglovits – Measurement and Accountability, ADAM Renewing Nevada’s ESEA Waiver Flexibility Request.
OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS ADVISORY TEAM MEETING WELCOME Brenda B. Blackburn, Superintendent Berkeley County School District November 17, 2015, 5:30 pm.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
1. Every Student Succeeds Act ESSA December
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
A Brief History Data-Based School & District Improvement
2012 Accountability Determinations
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
CCSSO Work with States on NCLB Accountability
AYP and Report Card.
Summary of Final Regulations: Accountability and State Plans
Ohio’s Experience with AYP
Maryland State Board of Education October 25, 2011
Presentation transcript:

Developing a Framework for Ensuring the Validity of State Accountability Systems Council of Chief State School Officers AERA San Diego April 15, 2004

Council of Chief State School Officers Non-profit organization representing state superintendents of public K-12 education Through Leadership, Advocacy and Service assist chief state school officers and their organizations in achieving the vision of an American education system in which all children succeed in school, work, and life.

Support for State Accountability Communication among states to identify solutions and challenges Targeted technical assistance through group problem-solving On-going analysis: January:Workshop on accountability plan submission Summer: On going analysis of state plans, challenges, and solutions September: Workshop on implementing AYP in state accountability systems

State Strategies for Reliability Minimum student group size (4/9/04) Variation: 0 to 200, under certain circumstances Differentiation By subgroup:3 By students with disabilities: 5 By LEP students: 1

State Strategies for Reliability Statistical Tests Confidence Intervals, Standard error of measurement Applications Other Academic Indicator Safe Harbor Participation Rate

Full Academic Year Fall date: enrollment count, start of school, etc. One test administration to the next Snapshot of one day

State Strategies with AYP  “Two Look System”  Includes an NCLB accountability system as the primary method of identifying schools; a secondary, more rigorous, state system then takes a second look at the schools.  Weighting Assessments  Writing (10%) and English/Language Arts (90%)  Uniform averaging  Comparing a school’s current year results to the most recent two- and three-year average

State Strategies with AYP  Same indicator for two consecutive years  (1) Reading percent proficient and participation; (2) Math percent proficient and participation; (3) Other Academic Indicator  Use of Index systems  Accounting for students who move from below basic to basic  Proxy indicators for graduation rate disaggregation  Used for the disaggregation of the graduation rate for purposes of safe harbor

Recent Changes to State Plans Use of Confidence Intervals Uniform Averaging Standard number of years for graduation determined by a student’s IEP New flexibility on participation rate, LEP issues

Current Issues for States in AYP Forming a single statewide accountability system-blending AYP with state systems Balancing Type I and Type II error Evaluating consequences of accountability systems What data to collect and how to determine the validity of AYP/Accountability system.

Resources for States

Additional Information ROLF BLANK, CCSSO NCLB Website:

Areas of State Creativity