Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Ohio’s Experience with AYP

Published byAngel Patrick Modified over 5 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Ohio’s Experience with AYP"— Presentation transcript:

1 Ohio’s Experience with AYP
April 12, 2004 Ohio’s Experience with AYP Presentation to the American Educational Research Association Mitchell D. Chester April 12, 2004 Mitchell D. Chester

2 Pre-Implementation Concerns
Over-identification Accountability for students with disabilities Volatility of results

3 Presentation Outline Ohio’s accountability system 2002-03 AYP results
Measures employed to increase validity and reliability Conclusions

4 Ohio’s Accountability System
School and district rating criteria results

5 Ohio's Experience with AYP
April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

6 Ohio's Experience with AYP
April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

7 Ohio's Experience with AYP
April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

8 Ohio's Experience with AYP
April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

9 Ohio's Experience with AYP
April 12, 2004 Ohio Rating Criteria Mitchell D. Chester

10 District Designations

11 School Designations

12 2002-03 AYP Results AYP within rating categories
School Improvement within rating categories Disentangling the AYP categories

13 AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

14 AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

15 AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

16 AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

17 AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

18 School Improvement within Ohio’s Rating Categories

19 AYP Categories

20 AYP Categories

21 AYP Categories

22 AYP Categories

23 AYP & Students with Disabilities
Total Missing AYP Missed Solely Because of SWD Schools 808 42 / 5.2% Districts 317 180 / 56.8%

24 AYP & Limited English Proficient Students
Total Missing AYP Missed Solely Because of LEP Schools 808 1 / 0.1% Districts 317 2 / 0.6%

25 Measures Employed to Increase Validity and Reliability
Safe Harbor Averaging Other

26 AYP: Impact of Safe Harbor
Total Meeting AYP Met Because of Safe Harbor Schools 2,407 52 / 2.2% Districts 292 19 / 6.5%

27 AYP: Impact of Averaging
Total Meeting AYP Met Because of Averaging Schools 2,407 116 / 4.8% Districts 292 16 / 5.5%

28 Other Measures Tests of statistical significance Confidence intervals
Minimum N

29 Conclusions AYP impact was lowest of pre-implementation estimates Participation was not an issue Need better understanding of false positives / false negatives

30 Conclusions (continued)
Volatility of results needs careful attention Consequential validity is the “main event”

Download ppt "Ohio’s Experience with AYP"

Similar presentations

Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.

Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.

Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
USDE Decisions on 2006 Amendments to the Texas AYP Handbook.

USDE Decisions on 2006 Amendments to the Texas AYP Handbook.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law 107-110 (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.
Update on Data Reporting April 2005. LEAP Changes LEAP software will be released shortly. Final LEAP software will not be available before mid-July. We.

Update on Data Reporting April LEAP Changes LEAP software will be released shortly. Final LEAP software will not be available before mid-July. We.
1 Test Data Review and Adequate Yearly Progress. 2.

1 Test Data Review and Adequate Yearly Progress. 2.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.

Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.

AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.
Lessons Learned from AYP Decision Appeals Prepared for the American Educational Research Association Indiana Department of Education April 15, 2004.

Lessons Learned from AYP Decision Appeals Prepared for the American Educational Research Association Indiana Department of Education April 15, 2004.
How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using 2011-12 Data The New York State Education Department August 21, 2012.

How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data The New York State Education Department August 21, 2012.
Adequate Yearly Progress 2012 Comfort ISD. Measures Evaluated Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Reading/ELA.

Adequate Yearly Progress 2012 Comfort ISD. Measures Evaluated Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Reading/ELA.
Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.

Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.

1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.

Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using 2013-14 Data The New York State Education Department November 12, 2014.

How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data The New York State Education Department November 12, 2014.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Small/ASAM Schools and PI Categorical Program Director’s.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Small/ASAM Schools and PI Categorical Program Director’s.
Large Scale Assessment Conference June 22, 2004 Sue Rigney U.S. Department of Education Assessments Shall Provide for… Participation of all students Reasonable.

Large Scale Assessment Conference June 22, 2004 Sue Rigney U.S. Department of Education Assessments Shall Provide for… Participation of all students Reasonable.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.

Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.

Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google