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.

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.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
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 September 20, 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.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
New DC OSSE ESEA Accountability. DC OSSE ESEA Accountability Classification Overview I. DC OSSE Accountability System II. Classification of Schools III.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
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.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
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.
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.
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.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Training on the Use of the Academic Performance Index.
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.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
1 How to Maximize API Riverside County Assessment Network September 10, 2010 Wes Scott.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2013 Assessment and Accountability Information Meeting State.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Analysis of the Mathematics Section of the California Standards Test (CST) Data Elementary.
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.
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.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind California Department of Education Policy and Evaluation Division July 2003.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Daniel Melendez. School Demographics  Language  English Learners  7% (55 students)  Socio-Economic  35% qualify for free or reduced lunch (276) 
Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
Sample Elementary School 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.
Ross Valley School District STAR, API and AYP Summary Toni Beal, Director of Student Services September 27, 2011.
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.
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.
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.
2007 – 2008 Assessment and Accountability Report LVUSD Report to the Board September 23, 2008 Presented by Mary Schillinger, Assistant Superintendent Education.
2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012.
1 Testing Various Models in Support of Improving API Scores.
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
2012 Accountability Determinations
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
Wade Hayashida Local District 8
Madison Elementary / Middle School and the New Accountability System
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
AYP and Report Card.
Presentation transcript:

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 CAHSEE equal a proficient score?  How many different significant sub groups are there? List as many as you can.  Students moving from FBB to B increases AYP T or F  You can meet AYP through Safe Harbor?  What does CAPA stand for?  Who is eligible to take the CMA?  Students with testing modifications scores are not considered valid T or F  Do students who enroll after Thanksgiving count in your school’s scores?  What tests count towards AYP at the high school level?  Do all schools who do not meet AYP targets fall into Program Improvement?  What does a similar school rank of 5 represent? 2

 Two systems that convert test results into different measures of academic performance  California measure: the Academic Performance Index (API) looks at growth in school performance  Federal measure: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) looks at the percentage of students proficient or above 3

 Defined in the same manner for both the state and federal accountability systems  Definition  100 students or more with valid STAR Program Scores OR  50 students with valid STAR Program Scores that make up at least 15% of the total number of students tested 4

 Participation rate  Based on enrollment on the first day of testing  Percent proficient  Based on the number of valid test scores  Schools or LEAs with fewer than 100 students will not have any numerically significant subgroups 5

 All major racial/ethnic groups  Socioeconomically disadvantaged  Defined as participating in the Free or Reduced Price Lunch Program or neither parent has a high school diploma  English Learners  An English Learner based on the results of the CELDT or  A reclassified English-Proficient (RFEP) student who has not scored at proficient level or above in CST-ELA more than 3 times since being reclassified 6

 Students with disabilities  A student who receives special education services, has a valid disability code or  Previously identified as SWD but who is no longer receiving services for two years after exiting 7

8

 Created by the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) in 1999  Single number ranges from  Based on student performance on statewide assessments across multiple subject areas  Requires subgroup accountability to address achievement gaps  Used to rank schools 9

 Cross-sectional look at student achievement - does not track individual student progress  Based on the performance of the students at the school who were enrolled for a “full academic year” (Mobility tracking)  The API from one year is compared to the API from the prior year to measure growth 10

 New tests are added or new weights are given to the tests with the Base API  Within one reporting cycle, the Base and Growth APIs must have the same tests with the same weights – only valid way to compare results 11

 California Standards Tests (CSTs)  English-language arts (grades 2-11)  Mathematics (grades 2-11)  Science (grades 5, 8, 9-11)  History/Social Science ▪ Grade 8 ▪ Grade 11 (U.S. History) ▪ Grades 9-11 (world history)  California Modified Assessment  ELA 3-9 th ) and Math 3-7 and Algebra, Science 5, 8, 10  California Alternative Performance Assessment  ELA and Math 2-11 and Science 5, 8, 10  California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)  10 th grade ELA and Math  11 th and 12 th (if passed anytime during school year) 12

 Required by EC Section  Statewide Rank  Establishes a ranking of schools from highest to lowest  Calculated separately by school type  Compares to all schools statewide with same school type  Similar School Rank  Calculated separately by school type  Compares a school to 100 other schools that are similar on key variables 13

 Ranks are established by deciles (10 equal groups)  Range from 1 to 10  1 is low  10 is high  Ranks improve when the API score increases  Dependent upon API increases of other schools statewide 14

1. Obtain demographic data, Base APIs, and school type 2. Calculate a School Characteristics Index (SCI) for each school based on more than 20 variables 3. Rank SCIs from high to low separately by school type. Identify 50 schools with SCIs just above and 50 schools with SCIs just below the “target” school 4. Sort by APIs and determine similar schools rank 15

 Rank 1 means the school is comparable to the lowest 10 schools of the 100 similar schools  Rank 10 means the school is better than at least 90 of the 100 similar schools  Schools often do not “look” like my school  Based on similar challenges 16

 Measure performance of schools and determine improvement  Determine eligibility for awards and interventions programs  Charter school renewal  Component of federal AYP system 17

18

 Federal accountability requirement enacted by No Child Left Behind (2001)  Methodology must be annually approved by the U.S. Department of Education  Must meet annual targets that increase over time  Goal is 100% of students proficient in ELA and mathematics by  Annual determination for schools and LEAs 19

1. Participation rate  ELA and math 2. Percent proficient (Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)  ELA and math 3. API as an additional indicator 4. Graduation rate  High schools only 20

21 True

 Participation rate  Up to 11 different student subgroups  Two content areas  22 ways  Percent proficient  Up to 11 different student subgroups  Two content areas  22 ways  API  High school graduation rate 22

 Elementary and Middle Schools  CSTs  CMA  CAPA  High Schools (grade 10 only)  CAHSEE  CAPA 23 CST = California Standards Test CAPA = California Alternate Performance Assessment CAHSEE = California High School Exit Exam Participation rate and percent proficient calculations based on

 High schools  Based only on Grade 10 CAHSEE results  Student enrollment and performance will differ if you compare STAR, API, and AYP results 24

 Must be 95% or greater  In ELA and math  For the school or LEA and all numerically significant subgroups  Students tested with modification are not counted as participating  Numerically significant subgroups based on enrollment on the first day of testing 25

 Each state can set their own definition of “proficient”  Also called Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)  Annual target by school type  ELA and math 26

 Targets are the same for  LEAs  Schools  Subgroups  Numerically significant subgroups are based on the number of valid test scores 27

 API  Schools must grow by at least one point or have an API score at or above the annual target (680)  Graduation Rate  For high schools only  Must show growth or be above the annual target 28

 Two-year average  Averages results over two years  Safe Harbor  The percent of students scoring below proficient decreased by 10% 29

30

 Only schools receiving Title I funding  Schools are identified after missing AYP for two consecutive years  In the same content area (ELA or math), or  On the same indicator (API or graduation rate) 31

32 Met all criteria except participation for Hispanic in ELA 2009 Met all criteria except percent proficient for English Learners in ELA Identified for PI: The school missed the same content area for two consecutive years 2010

33 Met all criteria except percent proficient for African Americans in math Not Identified for PI: The school did not miss in the same content area for two consecutive years 2010 Met all criteria except percent proficient for African Americans in ELA 2009

 State  Schools participating in state intervention programs are subject to sanctions if API growth requirements are not met ▪ School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT)  Federal  Schools and LEAs receiving Title I funding are identified for interventions if they fail to make AYP for two consecutive years ▪ Program Improvement 34

 State  Includes results from the CSTs, the CAHSEE, the CMA and the CAPA  Includes ELA, math, science, and history/social science  Federal  Includes results from the CSTs, and CAPA for grades 2-8; CMAs for grades 3- 8; CAHSEE and CAPA for grade 10  Includes only ELA and math 35

 State  STAR: Includes results from all students who took the assessments  API: Excludes students not enrolled for a full academic year; includes assessment results from grades 2-11  Federal  Excludes students not enrolled for a full academic year  Excludes English Learners enrolled in U.S. schools less than a year  Includes CAHSEE results for grade 10 only 36

 API: California State Accountability  API scale: 200 – 1000  API scores based on proficiency levels  AYP: Federal Accountability  Determined by percent of students scoring proficient or advanced  2011 Targets ▪ Elem & Middle Schools: ELA = 67.6%; Math = 68.5% ▪ High Schools: ELA = 66.7% ; Math = 66.1% APIAYP Advanced1000YES Proficient875YES Basic700NO Below Basic500NO Far Below Basic200NO