Including analysis and self-help tools for coordination with Section 618: Table 6.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
___________________________ NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/North Carolina Testing Program North Carolina Alternate Assessment Academic Inventory.
Advertisements

‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Educational Measurement and School Accountability Directorate Better informed, better positioned, better outcomes National Assessment Program – Literacy.
National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) Introduction to the NCEO Data Viewer National Center on Educational Outcomes Communities of Practice Teleconference.
NCEO Indicator 3 Tool To be used for lifting assessment data from Section 618: Table 6 reports Altman, J. R., Bremer, C., Vang, M., Thurlow, M., & Rogers,
NCEO Indicator 3 Teleconference DATE: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 TIME: 10:00 Pacific, 11:00 Mountain, 12:00 Central, 1:00 Eastern Presenters Facilitator:
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training Guide
Facts About the Florida Alternate Assessment Created from “Facts About the Florida Alternate Assessment Online at:
What is Title I and How Can I be Involved? Annual Parent Meeting (School Name) (Date)
How to Interpret and Use Standards of Learning (SOL) and ACCESS for ELLs® Data to Make Instructional Decisions for English Learners.
Title I Annual Meeting Presented by: SCHOOL NAME HERE.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
EMetric Presents A reporting application designed to fit the needs of ACCESS for ELLs users.
PLOP, Goals & Objectives Notes PLOP – Free of grammatical and spelling errors – Statement describing how the student is performing the annual goal currently.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
SPP Indicators B-7 and B-8: Overview and Results to Date for the Florida Prekindergarten Program for Children with Disabilities PreK Coordinators Meeting.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
Acquiring English Proficiency in the Torrington Public Schools Programs, Process, and Student Progress Cheryl F. Kloczko.
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Daniel H. Holloway Senior at Old Dominion University Coordinator of Database Services Gloucester County Public Schools.
Assessing Students with Special Needs Alternate Assessments.
AYP Prediction By Diagnostics in the Educational Data Warehouse.
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations Presentation for LEP SCASS/CCSSO May 7, 2008.
The 1% Rule: Alternate Assessment Participation November 20, 2007.
Adequate Yearly Progress Kansas State Department of Education 2007 Fall Assessment Conference Judi Miller,
1 Up-date on Assessment in Connecticut Dr. Barbara Q. Beaudin, Associate Commissioner Division of Assessment and Accountability Chief, Bureau of Student.
IDEA and NCLB Standards-Based Accountability Sue Rigney, U.S. Department of Education OSEP 2006 Project Directors’ Conference.
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.
Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Evaluation Results Missouri Reading Initiative.
How Do Students with Disabilities Participate in the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program? September 29, 2010.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
How Do Students with Disabilities Participate in the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program? December 9, 2009.
Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs): LEA Reports and Responsibilities Presented by the Pennsylvania Department of Education Bureau.
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training January 2010.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
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.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
Data for Student Success May, 2010 Ann Arbor, MI “It is about focusing on building a culture of quality data through professional development and web based.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
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.
C R E S S T / CU University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Ohio’s Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities Thomas Lather Office for Exceptional Children (614)
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.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Michigan School Data (MI School Data). Agenda  Overview of MI School Data Portal  Navigation 101  Sample Reports  Training and TA  Q & A 2.
Educational Measurement and School Accountability Directorate National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) Understanding your child’s report.
American Institutes for Research
Student Achievement Data Displays Mathematics & Reading Grade 3
IDEA Assessment Data Anne Rainey, IDEA Part B Data Manager, Montana
Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities
EVAAS Overview.
Title III AMAO Improvement Plan Webinar
Wade Hayashida Local District 8
What Do the Part B 618 Table 6 Data Tell Us?
Solving the Riddle That Is APR Indicator 3
Trends in Child Outcomes (C-3 / B-7) and Family Outcomes (C-4)
AYP and Report Card.
Standards-based Individualized Education Program (IEP) Module Two: Developing the Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLOP)
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together
Presentation transcript:

Including analysis and self-help tools for coordination with Section 618: Table 6

Presentation Goals 1. To enhance understanding of the meaning behind the APR reports and what information is needed to properly analyze them 2. To provide state personnel with clarified instructions on how to properly complete the data analysis behind the Indicator 3. To enhance state by state APR reporting similarity 4. To clarify the similarities and differences between the APR and Table 6 sets of data and to show shortcuts between the two sets 2

3 APR and Table 6 of 618 – Trail of History X APR (looks a lot like Table 6) SPP (new format) Table 6 SEPARATE APR through Table 6 attached!

4 Why Is This Important? Table 6 Provides the Backbone to APR Indicator 3 (Most states fill out their Section 618 report first) OSEP needs the data from both these sources so that it has a clear picture of Participation and Performance in States National Summary by Content, Type of Assessment, and Grade are important

What do the data tell us? We know how difficult your job as data managers can be!!! 5

Instructions – AYP 1. # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup divided by the total # of districts meeting minimum “n” size 2. Participation 1. Sub-indicators for Regular Assessment (both with and without accommodations), and Alternate Assessment (both AA-GLAS, and AA-AAS) 3. Performance 1. Sub-indicators for Regular Assessment (both with and without accommodations), and Alternate Assessment (both AA-GLAS, and AA-AAS) 6

General Instructions Data Source: Data source is assessment data collected for purposes of determining AYP (Your states NCLB assessment) Data should be provided for all grade levels and content areas tested Data MUST be provided in raw numbers in addition to percentages (separate tables work very well!!!) Participation and performance data to be taken from data collected for reporting under section 618 (Annual Report of Children Served); Table 6 (Section 618) is to be attached to this APR. 7

General Instructions Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed. States should use the same assessments used for reporting under NCLB. States must meet AYP targets in both content areas to be counted as having made overall AYP (NEED overall number). States must attach Table 6 of their 618 submission. Participation and proficiency calculations in this APR report must report participation and proficiency rates by content area for each of the grades shown in Table 6. States should EXPLAIN (not just describe) the results of the calculations and compare the results to their target. States are encouraged to present their APR information in summary tables and include multiple years of data for comparison purposes. 8

Indicator 3A - AYP This number is intended to show the percentage of districts in your state that are making Adequate Yearly Progress To do this, districts must meet AYP for both Math AND Reading FOR THIS REASON AYP DATA WHICH ARE BROKEN UP BY CONTENT AREA ARE USELESS WITHOUT AN OVERALL NUMBER Proper Calculation on following page 9

Indicator 3A - AYP Example calculation – State XYZ has had 32 districts meet AYP for Math, and 28 districts meet AYP for Reading ONLY 14 districts made AYP for BOTH Math and Reading State XYZ had 50 districts meet the minimum “N” size Calculation = districts meet AYP / total “N” districts = 14 / 50 = 28% overall NOTICE – THIS NUMBER IS SMALLER THAN THE MATH OR READING CONTENT AREA ONLY CALCULATION 10

Indicator 3B - Participation This number is intended to show the percentage of students with IEPs in your state that are participating in statewide assessments The intent is to be able to measure by accommodation or alternate assessment In order for full analysis to be possible data should be provided for each grade level and content area tested Also each sub-indicator should have data provided (3B(b), 3B(c), etc.) Proper Calculation on following page 11

Indicator 3B - Participation Calculations: A. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades; B. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations C. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations D. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards E. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards Account for any children included in “A” but not included in “B, C, D, or E” above. 12

Indicator 3B - Participation Proper formatting for tables (one each content area): A table for raw #’s and one for percentages works best 13 Statewide Assessment – Reading Assessment Participation Total Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade HS#% AChildren with IEPs B IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations C IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations D IEPs in alternate assessment against grade-level standards (AA-GLAAS) E IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards (AA-AAAS) F (not required, but helpful to report) IEPs in alternate assessment against modified standards (AA-MAAS) G Overall (b+c+d+e) Baseline Overall % Students Included in IEP count but not included in assessments above Students who took an out of level Test Parental Exemptions Absent Did not take for other reasons

Indicator 3B - Participation Example % calculation – State XYZ had 1,000 students with IEPs at the 4 th grade level for reading Of these, 900 took the regular assessment 400 of these used accommodations Calculation = # on regular assessment with accommodations / total IEP students = 400 / 1,000 = 40% participation NOTE – The remaining 500 would account for 50% of the overall population who took the regular assessment without accommodations 14

Indicator 3C - Performance This number is intended to show the percentage of students with IEPs in your state that are PROFICIENT in statewide assessments The intent is to be able to measure by accommodation or alternate assessment In order for full analysis to be possible data should be provided for each grade level and content area tested Also each sub-indicator should have data provided (3B(b), 3B(c), etc.) Proper Calculation on following page 15

Indicator 3C - Performance Calculations: A. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades; B. # of children with IEPs proficient or above in regular assessment with no accommodations C. # of children with IEPs proficient or above in regular assessment with accommodations D. # of children with IEPs proficient or above in alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards E. # of children with IEPs proficient or above in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards REMEMBER – Raw numbers are VITAL!!! 16

Indicator 3C - Performance Proper formatting for tables (one each content area): 17 A table for raw #’s and one for percentages works best Statewide Assessment – Reading Assessment Performance Total Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade HS#% AChildren with IEPs B IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations C IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations D IEPs in alternate assessment against grade-level standards (AA-GLAAS) E IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards (AA-AAAS) F (not required, but helpful to report) IEPs in alternate assessment against modified standards (AA-MAAS) G Overall (b+c+d+e) Baseline Overall %

Indicator 3C - Performance Example % calculation – State XYZ had 1,000 students with IEPs at the 4 th grade level for reading Of these, 400 took the regular assessment with accommodations 300 of these scored proficient or above Calculation = # on regular assessment with accommodations / total IEP students = 300 / 1,000 = 30% proficient NOTE – Similar calculations should take place for non- accommodated regular assessments and alternate assessments 18

Indicator 3 vs. Table 6 – the connection Much of the data included in indicator 3 can also be found with Section 618: Table 6 – which must be included with all APR submissions. This included ALL participation information However, remember – SAMPLING is not allowed For example – - APR Indicator 3B(a) for a given grade level should be equal to column 1 data in Table 6 - APR Indicator 3B(d) for a given grade level should be equal to column 4a data in Table 6 19

Indicator 3 vs. Table 6 Use the below table when lifting data from Table 6 for Indicator 3 Note that there is no transfer possible from columns 9A to Data Points C(b) and C(c). Table 6 does not ask for proficiency information for the regular assessment by accommodation status : Table 6APR Indicator 3 Column 1Data Point B(a), C(a) Column 3 (–) Column 3AData Point B(b) Column 3AData Point B(c) Column 4AData Point B(d) Column 4DData Point B(e) Columns 6, 7, and 8Explanation of Not Tested Proficient Columns 9BData Point C(d) Proficient Columns 9DData Point C(e)

NCEO Data Viewer Check your states policy and assessment performance using the NCEO Data Viewer, an interactive data Web site available online at It contains information on: State policies on assessment participation and accommodations State Annual Performance Report (APR) data (taken from Table 6) Users can create customizable reports (color-coded maps and tabular charts) based on chosen criteria. The Data Viewer also provides a Tutorial, Glossary of Terms, and links to related NCEO Publications. Coming soon to the site will be more prefabricated Special Analyses and other unique reports. 21

NCEO Data Viewer Here is an example of a policy report: 22

NCEO Data Viewer Here is another example of a policy report: 23

NCEO Data Viewer The map below shows the percent of high school students proficient on the regular assessment in each state for : 24

Questions; Comments Jason Altman, Chris Bremer, Christopher Rogers, NCEO “online”, NCEO Data Viewer, data.nceo.infodata.nceo.info 25