AERA March 25, 2008 Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Elementary Principals Meeting Data Presentation August 6, 2010.
Advertisements

1 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY IN DELAWARE July 31, 2009 For the School Year.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
A comparison of NCLB Accountability Models: What schools are being identified? Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Jennifer L. Dunn Measured.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.
2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.
Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
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.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Fall Testing Update David Abrams Assistant Commissioner for Standards, Assessment, & Reporting Middle Level Liaisons & Support Schools Network November.
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status School Committee Presentation September 24, 2013.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
Will Growth Models Improve School Accountability and NCLB/AYP? Results From New Research Survey and Analysis of Current AYP Growth Proposals Kimberly O'Malley.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
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.
Developing a Framework for Ensuring the Validity of State Accountability Systems Council of Chief State School Officers AERA San Diego April 15, 2004.
Appoquinimink School District A Bright Horizon for MHS Corrective Action Plan 3 Year Plan December, 2007.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
Annual Student Performance Report September
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
AYP Accountability Participation Proficiency Attendance Rate Graduation Rate AAI Subgroups Safe Harbor Uniform Averaging Confidence Interval School Improvement.
Annual Measurable Objectives (trajectory targets).
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
MERA November 26,  Priority School Study  Scorecard Analyses  House Bill 5112 Overview.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
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.
Growth Model: A Way to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) The Effective Use of Data to Make AYP AERA CCSSO April 13, 2007.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
Accountability Scorecards Okemos Board of Education September 2013.
Adequate Yearly Progress DE/AEA Mini Summit.
Completed forms may be placed in the box at the back of the room or mailed to C/SAC, Office of Staff Development. Questions? See Dixie at the registration.
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.
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.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
2007 – 2008 Assessment and Accountability Report LVUSD Report to the Board September 23, 2008 Presented by Mary Schillinger, Assistant Superintendent Education.
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
North Carolina’s NCLB Pilot Growth Model
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Meeting the challenge Every Classroom Every Student Every Day
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

AERA March 25, 2008 Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One

Background Information Invitation for states to submit proposals to use a growth model Pilot project – up to ten states Model must demonstrate that it can raise student achievement and enhance school accountability “Bright Line” principles of NCLB upheld DE first submitted proposal in March 2006 – was denied DE revised/resubmitted proposal September 2006 USED approved for use in with one condition –Cannot use Confidence Interval Calculate AYP by original and growth models Report both original and growth models

Why did we submit? To ensure more valid and reliable accountability determinations To monitor various subgroups progress To support our value of continuous improvement and longitudinal student growth

What model did we propose? Value Table Model –Maintains emphasis on performance levels (standards based achievement) –Values longitudinal student growth –Gives schools credit for moving students towards proficiency –Values growth especially below the standard

Who chose Delaware’s model? Committee of Stakeholders –District administrators, school administrators, teachers, parents, community

How do value tables work? Values are placed in a table to indicate points earned from one year to the next Calculate the average growth value for the school and each subgroup in reading and math Compare average growth to the target

Value Table for Grade 3 Grade 3 Level Grade 2 Level Level 1A Level 1B Level 2A Level 2B Proficient Below Meets

Value Table for Grades 4-10 Year 2 Level Year 1 Level Level 1A Level 1B Level 2A Level 2B Proficient Level 1A Level 1B Level 2A Level 2B Proficient

Growth Value Targets Table ReadingMath

Delaware’s Accountability System: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2006 Participation (ELA, Math) Performance (ELA, Math) –Total School Original Status / Safe Harbor –Subgroup Original Status / Safe Harbor Other Academic Indicators 2007 Participation (ELA, Math) Performance (ELA, Math) –Total School and Subgroup Growth Original Status / Safe Harbor Other Academic Indicators

How to meet AYP Meet Growth Value Targets or Original Status Targets in ELA and math Meet Participation Targets in ELA and math Meet the Other Academic Indicator

Ratings Ratings are determined by the combination of: AYP Determination State Progress Determination Accountability History

Ratings Table AYPSTATE PROGRESS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY DETERMINATION AFTER 2 CONSECUTIVE YEARS AASuperior AM ABCommendable MASuperior MMCommendable MB Academic Review BA Academic Progress BMAcademic ReviewAcademic Progress BBAcademic ReviewAcademic Watch Schools facing appropriate consequences per NCLB

How to be classified as Under Improvement Two consecutive years not meeting AYP in same content area -- ELA -- Math -- Other Academic Indicator

What Happened in 2007? 193 Schools with ratings –146 schools (76%) used growth model for rating 89 schools (46%) used growth model and made AYP 57 schools (30%) used growth model and did not make AYP –47 schools (24%) used original model for rating (all made AYP)

Comparison of Growth to Original 82 schools (42%) made both growth and original 57 schools (30%) did not make growth or original 7 schools (4%) made growth but not original 41 schools (21%) made original but not growth 6 schools used original model only – K, K-1, K-2 schools – no growth available

Correlation of Growth and Original Models – A look at those schools that did not make AYP (57 schools) Missed reading in growth model also missed reading in original model for same subgroups Missed math in growth model may or may not have missed math in original model for same subgroups Missed special education in reading or math in growth model also missed in original model

A look at Reading for Those Schools That Only Made Original Model (47 schools) SubgroupMet OM TargetCISafe HarborSafe Harbor CI All Students 87%11%2%0% Black 57%40%3%0% Hispanic 84%8%0%8% White 98%0% 2% Special Education 4%21%42%33%* Low Income 65%28%5%2%

A Look at Math for Those Schools That Only Made Original Model (47 schools) SubgroupMet OM TargetCISafe HarborSafe Harbor CI All Students 99%0%2%0% Black 89%8%1%0% Hispanic 92%8%0% White 100%0% Special Education 17%33%29% Low Income 86%12%0%

Some Observations Growth model results will be similar to Original –Principles of NCLB, 100% proficient by –Different models produced similar determinations Growth models only help when real growth is occurring –Showing growth in low achieving students but rate of improvement is differs by subgroups If AYP was not met: –½ of the students maintained their level from previous year –1 in 4 improved –1 in 4 regressed –Similar pattern across subgroups

Contact Information Robin Taylor –