District Accountability Update July 2004-March 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.
Advertisements

Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
2 EOC Graduation Policy High Stakes Policy District Test Coordinator Spring 2010 Pretest Workshop.
Alaska’s New Accountability System for Schools 1.
Accountability Policy Update (Schools) Changes to Bulletin 111 From Sept 2003 – June 2004 Louisiana Department of Education.
District Accountability Update May February 2007.
Accountability 101. State Accountability Federal Accountability # Students Met Standard # Students Tested If the Standard is not met: Apply Required.
Staar Trek The Next Generation STAAR Trek: The Next Generation Performance Standards.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Title I Annual Meeting Presented by: SCHOOL NAME HERE.
Dr. Michael Flicek Education Consultant October 8, 2013 Wyoming School Performance Rating Model Report to: Wyoming State Board of Education.
Accountability Policy Update (Districts) Changes to Bulletin 111 From Sept 2003 – June 2004 Louisiana Department of Education.
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.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
Ysleta Independent School District 2004 Accountability State and AYP.
2015 Texas Accountability System Overview and Updates August 13, 2015.
Cowen Institute Data/Accountability Overview. Measuring Performance RSD created to address Academic Failure Success/Failure needs to be judged on whether.
Adequate Yearly Progress Kansas State Department of Education 2007 Fall Assessment Conference Judi Miller,
1 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Steve Martin, CMT Program Manager Bureau of Research, Evaluation, and Student Assessment Connecticut State Department.
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.
2015 Texas Accountability System La Porte Independent School District August 5, 2015.
School Accountability Update July 2005-March 2006.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Analysis of the Mathematics Section of the California Standards Test (CST) Data Elementary.
The elements of the proposed accountability model are subject to change.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
Annual Student Performance Report September
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
School Accountability Update Fall 2006 – Summer 2007.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
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.
School Accountability Update September 2006 – April 2007.
Growth Model: A Way to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) The Effective Use of Data to Make AYP AERA CCSSO April 13, 2007.
High Stakes Testing Policy Grades 4 and 8 Revised May 2008.
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION AVECO July 14 – 18, 2014 The “F” Grade And Probations, Suspensions, Walk Aways, and other useful Information.
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 California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
October 25, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Springs 2006 and 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Results Potential Challenges with 2008 Annual Measurable Objectives & District Corrective Action.
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.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.
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.
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 May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
June 5, 2014 Accountability Update. Accountability Updates 110% for At-Risk, Criterion #4 Accountability Manual Updates.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
» Students who meet the passing standard on STAAR must still meet all promotion requirements outlined in the district policy. We will review.
ESEA Title III Accountability System. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 22 Title III Requires States to: Define two annual measurable.
Conversation about State Report Card November 28, 2016
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
ABCs/AYP Background Briefing
ESSA Update “Graduation Rate & Career and College Readiness”
2013 Texas Accountability System
Network Accountability Overview
School Improvement Ratings Rule 6A , F.A.C.
2019 Local School District Charter Application Process
Essential Questions What are the ramifications of continued identification under the ESEA Accountability Act? What do we need to do to get our school.
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
AYP and Report Card.
Meeting the challenge Every Classroom Every Student Every Day
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

District Accountability Update July 2004-March 2005

District Accountability Results  Districts will be provided three sets of accountability results  District Performance Score (DPS) – calculated in same manner as a school performance score  District Responsibility Index (DRI) – made up of 4 district-level indicators  District Subgroup Component – used to determine if the district’s subgroups made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Bulletin 111, Chapter 43

DRI Calculations  In the past, DRI calculations for Indicators 1 and 3 were performed based on the number of unsatisfactory scores on high stakes tests  Future calculations for DRI Indicators 1 and 3 will be performed based on High Stakes Testing Policy passing criteria 2004-Basic and Approaching Basic Combination required for fourth grade Bulletin 111, Sections 4303, 4307

District Performance Score Labels Performance LabelDPS Academically Unacceptable Below 60.0 One Star Two Stars Three Stars Four Stars Five Stars140 and above Bulletin 111, Section 4311

DRI Labels Changed DRI LabelDRI Value Highly Responsive120 and above Adequately Responsive Responsive Minimally Responsive Unresponsive Bulletin 111, Section 4311

District Subgroup Component AYP  Districts will be evaluated for Subgroup Component AYP in 3 Grade-Clusters (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12)  Each Grade-Cluster will be evaluated for Subgroup Component AYP in the same manner as schools (Steps 1- 10) Bulletin 111, Section 4310

District Subgroup Component AYP  Districts fail the Subgroup Component AYP for one year if ANY subgroup within ANY cluster fails Bulletin 111, Section 4310

District Consequences  Districts that receive a DRI label of Unresponsive and/or fail to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the Subgroup Component for all three Grade-Clusters in the same subject for one year  Must conduct a self-assessment and submit to LDE  LDE may recommend BESE District Dialogue Bulletin 111, Section 4313

District Consequences Districts that receive a DRI label of Unresponsive for the second consecutive year and/or fail to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the Subgroup Component for all three Grade-Clusters in the same subject for two consecutive years  District Improvement Plan based on prior year self-assessment  LDE may recommend BESE District Dialogue Bulletin 111, Section 4313

District Consequences Bulletin 111, Section 4313 Districts that receive a DRI label of Unresponsive for the third consecutive year and/or fail to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the Subgroup Component for all three Grade-Clusters in the same subject for three consecutive years  Audit by LDE  LDE may recommend BESE District Dialogue

District Consequences Bulletin 111, Section 4313 Districts that receive a DRI label of Unresponsive for the fourth consecutive year and/or fail to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the Subgroup Component for all three Grade-Clusters in the same subject for four consecutive years  BESE action on Audit findings

Reconfiguration/Reconstitutio ns  Districts should consult with the LDE to determine the effects of major reconstitutions/reconfigurations Bulletin 111, Section 3303

District Accountability Data Corrections  Districts should appeal incorrect data or results during the School appeal window with the exception of summer school data  Districts will be given an extra opportunity to appeal summer school results for 30 days after those scores are available Bulletin 111, Section 4317

Questions?  