1. STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions
Principals Meeting - August 13, 2008

2. STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions
11/13/2018

3. Reports Available FUSD CST Proficiency Reports
AYP Proficiency Prediction Report
CDE STAR Website Report
AYP Report from CDE
When
Aug. 6
Aug. 13
Aug. 14
Sept. 3
Purpose
To study trends in school scores
To provide 1st look at estimated proficiency for NCLB accountability AMOs
To show 1 year % of students performance levels
Official NCLB accountability report
Who
Students continuously enrolled;
includes students who took CMA in grades 3-5 as “not proficient.”
excludes students who took CMA in grades 3-5
includes students who took CST or CAPA
HS -10th grade CAHSEE
All students testing at school;
CST report includes students who took CST only
Where
On REA Web page and AiS static reports
Handed out today
On CDE web page:
select STAR Reports
On CDE web page:
Select Annual Progress Reports
Share with
Public
Predictions for Internal Use Only
Public on 8-14

4. FUSD CST Proficiency Reports

5. CDE STAR Website Reports

6. AYP Report from CDE

7. AYP Proficiency Prediction Reports

8. Other Beginning of Year Reports
REA is continuing to work to produce reports that schools can use to study progress and prepare for the new school year. Some of these are:
AiS pages (already available– based on current or end of year roster)
STAR student reports mailed directly to parents
Initial draft available soon:
GLAS/ACS to CST reports (contact REA analyst)
CST Cluster Summary (contact REA Analyst)

9. AYP Prediction Reports
STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions
11/13/2018

10. Reminder: 4 Components of AYP
Participation (95%)
Proficiency (AMOs)
Percent of students scoring proficient or above CST/CAPA (grades 2-8) OR CAHSEE (grade 10)
Academic Performance Index (API) The schoolwide API is used as an “additional criteria” for AYP.
Graduation Rate For High Schools the graduation rate is used as an “additional criteria” for AYP.

11. AMOs-ELA: Annual Measurable Objectives - English Language Arts
Here are the English Language Arts Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) or status bars laid out year by year.
At the end of the school year, the minimum performance level for elementary and middle schools was
13.6 percent of students would score proficient or advanced on the CST (along the elementary/middle school blue line).
In the school year with testing happening in spring 2005, the minimum performance level increased to 24.4 percent of students scoring proficient or advanced. This will be the minimum English Language Arts level for elementary and middle schools for and
In a similar fashion, the high school annual measurable objectives went from 11.2 percent of students to 22.3 percent of 10th grade students scoring proficient or advanced on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).

12. AMOs-MATH: Annual Measurable Objectives - Mathematics
Here are the mathematics Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) or status bars laid out year by year.
At the end of the school year, the minimum performance level for elementary and middle schools was
16 percent of students would score proficient or advanced on the CST (along the elementary/middle school blue line).
In the school year with testing happening in spring 2005, the minimum performance level increased to 26.5 percent of students scoring proficient or advanced. This will be the minimum Mathematics level for elementary and middle schools for and
In a similar fashion, the high school annual measurable objectives went from 9.6 percent of students to 20.9 percent of 10th grade students scoring proficient or advanced on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).

13. OR Growth of 1 API Point Each Year
Annual Measurable Objectives: API The API “Status Bar” as an “additional indicator” for AYP
OR Growth of 1 API Point Each Year
Here is the status bar for API. Like the other AMOs this one “stair-steps” until when it becomes steep.
For 2005, 2006, and 2007 results, a school can meet the API by either of two ways:
Have and API of 590 or higher OR
If the API is below 590, then showing at least 1 point of growth meets the “API for AYP” criteria
Notice that the criteria for meeting this “additional indicator” for AYP is different than the criteria for meeting the California State accountability growth targets even though the same schoolwide API is used.
It is possible for a school to meet its API goals and not its AYP goals. The opposite can also happen although it is less likely. This can happen because:
AYP and API are based on a different set of tests.
API takes into account growth; AYP is a simple measurement of the percent of students rated proficient.
AYP growth is based on increasing the percentage of students who are proficient (a specific percent is identified for each year).
API growth is based on increasing a school’s score each year. The annual goal for each school is a 5% increase between the present score and 800 (or if above 800 to maintain the score).

14. OR Improvement of at least 0.1 from previous year
Annual Measurable Objectives: Grad. Rate Graduation Rate as an “additional indicator” for AYP
OR Improvement of at least 0.1 from previous year
For our High Schools, Graduation Rate is also an indicator that goes into the AYP determination. There are three main methods by which a school may make AYP for Graduation Rate:
Having the previous year’s graduation rate be above the status bar,
showing a graduation rate growth of at least 0.1%, or
having the latest two-year average be 0.2% more than the previous two-year average.
Some schools with small numbers of 12th graders and graduates may be assigned the “District” graduation rate as a proxy for their school. This graph shows the status bar for graduation, which, like the proficiency targets, increases incrementally as we move toward
The rate for 2005, 2006, and 2007 is 82.9%
OR Improvement in the rate of at least 0.2 in the average two-year rate

15. Safe Harbor
Safe Harbor is one of several alternative ways to make the Annual Measurable Objective (AMOs)
Other alternative ways of making an AMO really do not impact our elementary and middle schools as much as safe harbor.
The two or three year averaging method sometimes helps our high schools with the graduation rate additional criteria.

16. Safe Harbor
The general rule of thumb is that a subgroup has to improve by 10%
In reality the calculation used is very sensitive to reducing the number of students who score “not proficient”.
So, in cases of declining enrollment some subgroups may find “Safe Harbor” by a fairly small change in the percent proficient.

17. Safe Harbor
Safe Harbor is calculated separately for each subgroup, so a whole school cannot be “In Safe Harbor”
The Schoolwide category is also calculated to see if it meets Safe Harbor criteria
On the proficiency charts which follow, subcategories that meet the Safe Harbor criteria are indicated in light green.

18. AYP Proficiency Prediction Reports

19. AYP Proficiency Prediction Reports

20. For more help contact REA
REA Contact
Phone
Providing support to…
Ben Atitya
Holland Locker’s Schools
Malati Gopal
Amber Jacobo
Elva Coronado’s Schools
Cin Rogers
Sue Smits’ Schools
Dave Calhoun
Eric Wenrick
Mabel Frank’s Schools
Paul Mesenheimer
Carmen Rodriguez
High Schools
Philip Abode
Rosylin Bessard’s Schools
11/13/2018