AYP Accountability Participation Proficiency Attendance Rate Graduation Rate AAI Subgroups Safe Harbor Uniform Averaging Confidence Interval School Improvement.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reading and Interpreting the AYP Status Report. ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIV ES Percentage of Proficient Students (ARMT & AHSGE Baseline Standards)
Advertisements

Bureau of Indian Education
Cohort Graduation Exit Code Review December 18, 2014.
The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate is the number of students who graduate in four year with a regular diploma divided by the number of students.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.
No Child Left Behind Act January 2002 Revision of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Education is a state and local responsibility Insure.
‘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.
Update on Data Reporting April LEAP Changes LEAP software will be released shortly. Final LEAP software will not be available before mid-July. We.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
Parents’ Right to Know Their Child’s and School’s Achievement.
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.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Carolyn M. Wood - Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability, Assessment, and Data Systems October 31,
Sara Leonard Parent Academic Liaison Mira Mesa High School.
OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT “CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES - MORE THAN PSSA AND AYP”
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Accountability Policy Update (Districts) Changes to Bulletin 111 From Sept 2003 – June 2004 Louisiana Department of Education.
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.
PEIMS and Accountability. Clear System of Data Quality Documentation (Enrollment, Special Program, etc.) PEIMS Data Entry Pearson Data File Answer Documents.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
Update on Middle Level Accountability May “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality.
1 Mobile County Public School System 2008 Accountability Report September 18, 2008.
State & AYP Accountability Ratings Highlights District Ratings by Rating Category (including Charter Operators) ACCOUNTABILITY RATING 2009 CountPercent.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
The Many Meanings of “Multiple Measures” Susan Brookhart Volume 2009, Volume 67:3 ASCD, November 2009, pp
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
Student Answer Documents: Accuracy & Accountability.
Adequate Yearly Progress Kansas State Department of Education 2007 Fall Assessment Conference Judi Miller,
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.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
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.
Developing a Framework for Ensuring the Validity of State Accountability Systems Council of Chief State School Officers AERA San Diego April 15, 2004.
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
AERA March 25, 2008 Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
Parents as Partners: How Parents and Schools Work Together to Close the Achievement Gap.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
Accountability Scorecards Okemos Board of Education September 2013.
ASSESSMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY Morgan County School System November 2008.
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 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
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.
HSA, Dropouts, Graduation and AYP Report to the Board of Education October 25, 2011.
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.
Preliminary AYP Preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Data.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
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.
FIRST CHOICE ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES OF THE FUTURE Curriculum and Instruction Alabama Department of Education FIRST CHOICE ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES.
» Students who meet the passing standard on STAAR must still meet all promotion requirements outlined in the district policy. We will review.
Update on Accountability March “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
A Brief History Data-Based School & District Improvement
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
AYP and Report Card.
Navigating the Maze of Assessment and Accountability Reporting
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

AYP Accountability Participation Proficiency Attendance Rate Graduation Rate AAI Subgroups Safe Harbor Uniform Averaging Confidence Interval School Improvement

Trips, Traps, and Troubles with AYP Assessment and Accountability Summer 2008 Summer 2008

Purposes To review foundational tenets of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) To review foundational tenets of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) To discuss 2008 amendment to the Accountability Workbook To discuss 2008 amendment to the Accountability Workbook To identify the trips and traps that have caused troubles with AYP To identify the trips and traps that have caused troubles with AYP To review areas that have caused trouble To review areas that have caused trouble To discuss potential changes to NCLB To discuss potential changes to NCLB

Tenets of NCLB Assess the areas of reading and mathematics Assess the areas of reading and mathematics Must evaluate one additional indicator other than academics Must evaluate one additional indicator other than academics 95% participation rate 95% participation rate All students must be proficient by All students must be proficient by Must report by demographic subgroups Must report by demographic subgroups

AYP School Report

AYP School Report (Continued)

AYP School Report

AYP System Status Report

Reading Grades 4, 6, 8, and 11 Mathematics Grades 4, 6, and 11

Reading Grades 3, 5, and 7 Mathematics Grades 3, 5, 7, and 8

2008 Amendment to Accountability Workbook 2% Flexibility Option 2% Flexibility Option 2% Flexibility Option is a method for making AYP in proficiency. 2% Flexibility Option is a method for making AYP in proficiency. 2% Flexibility Option can only be used if special education Proficiency Index is the sole reason a school or system does not make AYP. 2% Flexibility Option can only be used if special education Proficiency Index is the sole reason a school or system does not make AYP. 2% Flexibility Option allows the State to calculate an adjustment for the proficiency for this group of students in determining AYP. 2% Flexibility Option allows the State to calculate an adjustment for the proficiency for this group of students in determining AYP.

Trips, Traps, and Troubles Four key areas Four key areas Demographics and Coding Demographics and Coding Participation Participation Proficiency Proficiency Verification and Certification of Information Verification and Certification of Information

DemographicsandCoding

The Trip The school did not confirm and correct the LEP status for the students with limited-English proficiency in STI. The school did not confirm and correct the LEP status for the students with limited-English proficiency in STI. The school did not properly identify LEP 1 students during the Online Correction Process. The school did not properly identify LEP 1 students during the Online Correction Process.

The Trap If LEP 1 students have participated in ACCESS, they are not required to participate in the reading portion of ARMT. If LEP 1 students have participated in ACCESS, they are not required to participate in the reading portion of ARMT. LEP 1 students’ ACCESS scores are used in the participation calculations. LEP 1 students’ ACCESS scores are used in the participation calculations. LEP 1 students’ ACCESS scores are not included in proficiency calculations. LEP 1 students’ ACCESS scores are not included in proficiency calculations. If a student is not identified as LEP 1, the student is expected to have a score for ARMT If a student is not identified as LEP 1, the student is expected to have a score for ARMT Without an ARMT score, a student is considered to not have participated. Without an ARMT score, a student is considered to not have participated.

The Trouble The school did not make AYP.

Demographics and Coding Check for accuracy of STI demographics Check for accuracy of STI demographics Name Name Grade Grade Ethnicity Ethnicity Gender Gender Social security number Social security number Meal status Meal status Special education status Special education status LEP status LEP status Foreign exchange student status Foreign exchange student status

Demographic and Coding Code withdrawn students accurately and in a timely manner Code withdrawn students accurately and in a timely manner Revisit the status of students throughout the year Revisit the status of students throughout the year

Participation

The Trip The school did not administer makeup tests to students since attendance indicated that the school never had less than 95% participation each day. The school did not administer makeup tests to students since attendance indicated that the school never had less than 95% participation each day.

The Trap The school did not consider the attendance rate of any group other than the All Students subgroup. The school did not consider the attendance rate of any group other than the All Students subgroup. Each subgroup must have at least a 95% participation rate. Each subgroup must have at least a 95% participation rate.

The Trouble The school did not make AYP.

Participation N-counts at the school roll up to the system level N-counts at the school roll up to the system level Students are included in more than one subgroup Students are included in more than one subgroup 95% participation rate applies to each subgroup 95% participation rate applies to each subgroup Administer assessments to all students Administer assessments to all students Administer appropriate subtests Administer appropriate subtests Administer make-up tests Administer make-up tests Student must have valid test results to count for participation Student must have valid test results to count for participation

Proficiency

The Trip The school did not consider the additional academic indicator for any group other than the All Students group. The school did not consider the additional academic indicator for any group other than the All Students group. The additional academic indicator at the subgroup level becomes important for Safe Harbor. The additional academic indicator at the subgroup level becomes important for Safe Harbor.

The Trap In order to invoke safe harbor, the following is required: In order to invoke safe harbor, the following is required: Must have a 95% Participation Rate. Must have a 95% Participation Rate. Must have at least a 10% decrease in those not proficient in the previous year. Must have at least a 10% decrease in those not proficient in the previous year. Must have met the additional academic indicator for the subgroup. Must have met the additional academic indicator for the subgroup.

The Trouble The school did not make AYP. The school did not make AYP.

Proficiency Administer all parts of a subject-area test Administer all parts of a subject-area test ARMT score is derived from Stanford 10 and ARMT, Part 2 ARMT score is derived from Stanford 10 and ARMT, Part 2 Rely on proficient students (Level III and Rely on proficient students (Level III and Level IV) to make proficiency Level IV) to make proficiency Level II AAA students do not count toward proficiency Level II AAA students do not count toward proficiency Subgroup must make its AAI in order to invoke safe harbor Subgroup must make its AAI in order to invoke safe harbor

VerificationandCertification

The Trip For multiple years, the school did not complete the Final Status Report For multiple years, the school did not complete the Final Status Report Final Status Report allows schools the opportunity to ensure that students are given credit for passing portions of the graduation exam across multiple administrations. Final Status Report allows schools the opportunity to ensure that students are given credit for passing portions of the graduation exam across multiple administrations. This is especially important for students who may have taken an early administration for mathematics or science This is especially important for students who may have taken an early administration for mathematics or science

The Trap The school did not complete the Final Status Report; therefore, students who had successfully passed the mathematics portion during the 9 th grade had not received credit for the early attempt. The school did not complete the Final Status Report; therefore, students who had successfully passed the mathematics portion during the 9 th grade had not received credit for the early attempt.

The Trouble The school did not make AYP.

Verification and Certification Verify to account for all students Verify to account for all students May graduates May graduates Summer graduates Summer graduates Exited students Exited students Transfer students Transfer students Retained students Retained students Dropouts Dropouts

Verification and Certification Review, correct, and certify Review, correct, and certify Online corrections Online corrections K-8 K-8 Matchback opportunities Matchback opportunities Final status for AHSGE Final status for AHSGE Early takers for mathematics and biology Early takers for mathematics and biology