Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Title I School Improvement in North Carolina. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determines if a Title I school goes into Title I School Improvement.
Advertisements

‘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.
Accountability Programs MICHIGAN SCHOOL TESTING CONFERENCE FEBRUARY 19, 2014.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATES Division of Accountability Services Office of Evaluation, Strategic Research and Accountability (OESRA) & Office.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
April 14, Title III Updates Shereen Tabrizi, Ph.D. Manager, OFS Special Population Unit, MDE April 26, 2011.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
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.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together.
A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.
1 ELPA Initial Screening Policies and Procedures ELPA Initial Screening Policies and Procedures Fall 2009 Michigan Department of Education.
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations Presentation for LEP SCASS/CCSSO May 7, 2008.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update Joseph A. Martineau, Interim Director Office of General Assessment & Accountability Michigan Department of.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
ELPA, MEAP, and MME Reporting Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability (OEAA) 2006 OEAA Fall Conference Marilyn Roberts – Director, Office of.
2013 Fall Forum State Assessment Update November 5, 2013 Linda Howley - OSA Joanne Winkelman - OSE.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Section 6: Assessment – Participation and Provisions Podcast Script Laura LaMore, Consultant, OSE-EIS August 4,
Creating a Good Title III Plan Title III & Migrant Directors’ Meeting Lansing, Michigan April 26, 2011 Shereen Tabrizi, Ph.D. Manager, Special Populations.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.
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)
Connecticut’s Performance on Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives, Presentation to Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English.
Successfully “Translating” ELPA Results Session #25 Assessment and Accountability Conference 2008.
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.
ELL AMAO and Grad Rate Data ELL Outcome Improvement Group Oregon Department of Education July 21, 2015.
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.
An Introduction to the English Language Proficiency Assessment Brian Ciloski, Analyst Assessment of English Language Learners.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
The Michigan School Report Card Michigan Department of Education.
Using Assessments to Plan for Learning MEAP and MME Data Collection.
MDE Accountability Update SLIP Conference, January 2016.
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.
Update on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
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.
E L P A. ELPA Understand the definition and purpose of the English Language Proficiency Assessment Administer ELPA appropriately Objectives.
Accountability Scorecards Top to Bottom Ranking February 2016.
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.
Anderson School Accreditation We commit to continuous growth and improvement by  Creating a culture for learning by working together  Providing.
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
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
OEAA Accountability Update
Michigan School Report Card Update
English Language Proficiency Assessment
E L P A Last updated: 08/31/09.
E L P A Last updated: 08/31/09.
E L P A.
English Language Proficiency Assessment
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together
Presentation transcript:

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski 2008 Conference

2 Today, We Will Cover Limited English Proficient (ELL or LEP) Students Students with Disabilities (Special Ed) Economically Disadvantaged Students (Free or Reduced Lunch)

3 Student Demographic Information All student demographics are copied from the SRSD collection closest to the assessment window –Fall – September –Spring - February Any changes made to student demographic information during Tested Roster apply to the assessment data, not to the enrollment data

4 Schools with Measurable Groups

5 Participation in Assessment NCLB requires 95% participation both for the school as a whole and for any measurable subgroup This is a validity check for the subgroup achievement data, to make sure that the right students are counted A school might have a measurable subgroup for participation and not for achievement

6 English Language Learners (LEP) ELPA participation (or Initial Screener) counts toward 95% AYP participation rate in ELA Only exempt from one administration of ELA portion of MEAP Student must take Mathematics portion Scores on both assessments do not count for AYP proficiency due to LTFAY status

7 Formerly LEP Students Formerly LEP students can be counted as part of the LEP student group for up to 2 years after exiting Formerly LEP students do not create a subgroup when there otherwise would not be a measurable group MDE searches SRSD to find formerly LEP students that tested at the school or district

8 Title III AYP If the district is a Title II recipient or is a part of a Title III consortium, AYP for the LEP student group is part of the Title III AMAO

9 Students With Disabilities The legal definition of a student with disabilities is any student with an active IEP during the assessment window Students with disabilities count as tested with MEAP, MME or MI-Access

10 AYP and Students with Disabilities Federal Rules – 2003 –1% cap Federal Flexibility – 2005 –2% proposed Additional Federal Rules –2% - Modified Achievement Standards

11 MI-Access All students taking current MI-Access assessments are counted as tested Cap of 1% on MI-Access proficient scores Cap is district-wide –Some schools might exceed the cap

12 MI-Access FI Progress Value Table

13 “On Trajectory” Toward Proficiency Fall 2006 ELA Achievement Fall 2007 ELA Achievement Emerging LowMidHigh Emerging Low Mid 176 High Attained Low High Surpassed Low Mid High

14 “On Trajectory” Toward Proficiency Fall 2006 Math Achievement Fall 2007 Achievement Math Emerging LowMidHigh Emerging Low Mid 131 High Attained Low High Surpassed Low Mid High

15 Flexibility Option 1 The target is reduced by 15% points in cases where the ONLY reason that a school does not make AYP is the proficiency of students with disabilities Cannot count provisionally proficient students when using Option 1 Used in ; not in

16 Option 1 - SWD Six Ways to AYP Single Year, Two Year and Three Year Averaging –Proficient and On Trajectory – Option 1 Targets –Proficient, On Trajectory and Provisionally Proficient – regular targets Use Safe Harbor if school is still not making AYP

17 New Federal Rules 2% cap applies to “Modified Achievement Standards” –reflect reduced breadth or depth of grade- level content –Starts in States are NOT allowed to approve exceptions to the 2% cap

18 Formerly Special Ed Students Formerly Special Ed students can be counted as part of the SWD student group for up to 2 years after exiting Formerly LEP students do not create a subgroup when there otherwise would not be a measurable group MDE searches SRSD to find formerly LEP students that tested at the school or district

19 Economically Disadvantaged Information about student eligibility may change between SRSD and Tested Roster Changes made in Tested Roster will need to be reconciled as an AYP appeal

20 Grad Rate and Spec Pops Subgroup analysis of Attendance and the Graduation Rate are only used for AYP if the Safe Harbor is used for Achievement in ELA or in Math for that Subgroup

21 Contact Information Paul Bielawski Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Michigan Department of Education PO Box Lansing, MI (517)