1. Understanding the Role of Data in the RttT Initiative Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

2. Brief Overview History & Purpose Elementary & Secondary Education Act

3. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) on April 11, 1965

4. LBJ: Purpose of the law was to “bridge the gap between hopelessness and hope for more than five million educationally deprived children.” Part of the“ War on Poverty.” Provided federal dollars to schools to help them educate low- income children. Achievement gaps did shrink —by a third to a half by the late 1980s. Progress on the achievement gaps stalled. Most of the War On Poverty programs were dismantled. Engaging through Different Lenses Goals of ESEA Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

5. President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton H.S. in Hamilton, Ohio on January 8, 2002.

6. President George W. Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy on signing of No Child Left Behind Act 2002

7. All students will attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013–2014. Highly qualified teachers will teach all students All students will be educated in schools and classrooms that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning. All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English. All students will graduate from high school. Engaging through Different Lenses Goals of NCLB Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

8. Obama Administration’s Plan for Reauthorizing ESEA

9. College and Career Readiness Great Teachers and Great Leaders Meeting the needs of English Language Learners and Other Divers Learners Fostering Innovation and Excellence – supporting charter schools and promoting public school choice A Complete Education – Literacy, STEM, College Pathways & Accelerated Learning Successful, Safe & Healthy Students Engaging through Different Lenses Goals of Blueprint of Reform Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

10. Understanding the Blueprint for Reform Race to the Top ESEA Waiver

11. Engaging through Different Lenses Goals of NCLB

12. 1.Changes in Institutional Accountability 2.New Accountability Designations 3.Institutional vs. Individual Student Growth Engaging through Different Lenses Accountability under ESEA Waiver

13. 1.Changes in Institutional Accountability

14. NCLB (old)ESEA Waiver (new) Overall Target (AMO) Districts must grow to 200 by 2013-14 for ELA and Math. Districts must grow by half the gap between 2010-11 Performance Index and 200 by 2016-17 for ELA and Math. Elementary/ Middle School Performance Index Calculation Performance Index based on achievement (level 1-4) PI revised to include both achievement and growth toward proficiency High School Performance Index Calculation Full credit for meeting regents diploma requirements and partial credit for local diploma requirements Full credit for meeting college and career readiness standards & partial credit for regents diploma requirements Engaging through Different Lenses 1. Changes in Institutional Accountability Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

15. NCLB (old)ESEA Waiver (new) SubgroupsAll students and racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learner subgroups. No Change School & District Accountability Categories Schools: In Good Standing, Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring Districts: In Good Standing, Improvement, or Corrective Action Schools: In Reward, In Good Standing, Local Assistance Plan, Focus or Priority Status Districts: Focus District Engaging through Different Lenses 1. Changes in Institutional Accountability Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

16. 2.New Accountability Designations

17. CategoryHow IdentifiedData Reward Schools High performance or progressAnnual data In Good Standing Schools Meeting achievement measures and showing adequate performance or progress Annual data Local Assistance Plan Schools Not a Priority or Focus school, but has a.Has large gaps in student achievement among subgroups of students, or b.Has failed to make AYP 3 years in a row for the same subgroup on the same measure, or c.Is located in a non-focus district but is among the lowest in the State for the performance of one or more subgroups and for which the school is not showing progress. Annual data Engaging through Different Lenses 2. New Accountability Designations Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

18. CategoryHow IdentifiedData Focus Schools [10% in State] Schools that are in Focus districts and have the greatest percentage of not-proficient or non-graduation results in the sub-group(s) for which their district is identified. 2010-11 data Priority Schools [5% in State] Schools that  were awarded a SIG grant in 2011-12,  have had graduation rates below 60% for the past 3 years,  are the lowest performing in ELA and math combined  have failed to show progress 2010-11 data Focus Districts Districts and Charter schools that are among the lowest performing for a subgroup of students and that fail to show progress, or that have one or more priority schools. 2010-11 data* Engaging through Different Lenses 2. New Accountability Designations Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012. * Districts and Charter Schools that improve performance may be removed from Focus status.

19. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Engaging through Different Lenses How are schools/districts identified under the ESEA waiver? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

20. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How were schools/districts identified under NCLB? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] “The Annual Measurable Objective [AMO] is the Performance Index value that signifies that an accountability group is making satisfactory progress toward a goal” (p.6). The Performance Index value under NCLB was a perfect score of 200. AMOs under NCLB (in the past) Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

21. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How were schools/districts identified under NCLB? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] AMOs under NCLB (in the past) Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

22. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How are schools/districts identified under the ESEA waiver? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] AMOs under ESEA waiver The new Projected AMOs are calculated to close the gap between the current PI and the maximum score of 200. Districts are expected to grow incrementally to close half of the gap by 2016-17. Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

23. Calculating Projected AMOs PART A: 1.Using the 2010-11 New York State District Report Card, identify the ELA Performance Index for all NCLB sub- groups  Column A 2.Determine the 2016-17 Projected AMO  Subtract the 2010-11 PI (column A) from 200  Divide by 2  Add number to 2010-11 PI (column A) to get the Projected AMO  Column B 3.Determine intervals for each year  Area C Column AColumn B Area C Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

24. Calculate Projected AMOs Measure Accountability Group 10-1111-1212-1313-1414-1515-1616-17 All Students 104112120128136144152 Grades 3-8 ELA SWD Native American Asian Black (not Hispanic) Hispanic White ELL Econ Dis. Mixed Race STEP #1: Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

25. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How are schools/districts identified under the ESEA waiver? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] Implications of the new changes  Institutional accountability is about making growth by decreasing the gap, rather than achieving a perfect score of 200  Districts will have individualized AMOs for each subject and sub-group based on the baseline 2010-11 PIs  District/school report cards will look different; pay attention to pre-AORs when released in 2013 Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

26. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How were schools/districts identified under NCLB? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] Performance Index under NCLB (in the past) Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

27. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How were schools/districts identified under NCLB? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] Performance Index under NCLB (in the past) Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

28. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How are schools/districts identified under the ESEA waiver? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] Performance Index under ESEA waiver PIs are now going to be calculated based on a multiplier of 0, 100, or 200. This will give partial credit to students who show growth, but do not meet proficiency. Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

29. Potential Computation of Performance Index for Grades 3-8 ELA Results Performance Level On Track to Proficiency? Number of Students MultiplierTotal Points 1No6000 1Yes202004,000 2No801008,000 2Yes8020016,000 3NA12020024,000 4NA402008,000 TOTAL40060,000 PI = 60,000/400 = 150 What is considered ‘On-track to Proficiency’? Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

30. NYS Model: On Track to Proficiency ELA Scale Score 2010 2011 Future Absolute growth measures tell us if a student’s growth from 10-11 is enough to get them to proficient in the future. Here, one student is on track to become proficient in future years. Proficiency Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

31. Potential Computation of Performance Index High School Math Results High School ELA Results Performance LevelRegents ScoreMultiplier 10-640 265-79100 380-89200 490-100200 Performance LevelRegents ScoreMultiplier 10-640 265-74100 375-89200 490-100200 Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

32. 1. Adequate Yearly Progress [AYP]  Based on ELA and math only  AYP will continue to focus on current NCLB sub-groups: Poverty, SWD, ethnicity, and ELL  Use limited to being only one of the indicators in determining Reward Schools and in determining if districts must complete a Local Assistance Plan for specific schools.  Safe Harbor will no longer require schools and districts to meet the third academic indicator requirement [science (3-8) and graduation rate] Engaging through Different Lenses How are schools/districts identified under the ESEA waiver? Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

33. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How are schools/districts identified under the ESEA waiver? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] AYP is determined by whether a group of meets the AMO target for that given year. Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

34. Local Assistance School  In Good Standing School  Annual Yearly Progress [AYP] Reward School Focus School Priority School Focus District  Schools meeting AYP in ALL sub-groups   Engaging through Different Lenses How are schools/districts identified under the ESEA waiver? Annual Measureable Objective [AMO] Copyright 2013. Erie 1 BOCES RttT Network Team Presentation. January 2013.

35. 3.Institutional vs. Individual Growth

36. CriteriaInstitutionalStudent Growth MetricStudent Growth Percentile (SGP) Assessments used in calculations Grades 3-8 ELA & Math School years used2009-102011-12 Max. # prior yrs. results3 years Min. Req. for Inclusion of student results in computation Current year and immediate prior year in consecutive grades Current year and immediate prior year in consecutive grades Engaging through Different Lenses 3. Institutional vs. Individual Growth Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

37. CriteriaInstitutionalIndividual Student How is it reported? How is it used? Median Student Growth Percentile: To give schools and districts credit for students on track to proficiency To remove from consideration schools as Priority Schools & districts as Focus Districts To qualify schools as reward schools Adjusted Mean Growth Percentile: To assign a HEDI category and a score 0-20 to the growth component of the APPR composite score for teachers of ELA & math in grades 4-8 and their principals Are there demographic adjustments? No. But separate median SGPs are computed for each NCLB accountability subgroup. Yes. Adjustments for Students with Disabilities, English language learners, or Low Income Students Engaging through Different Lenses 3. Institutional vs. Individual Growth Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.

38. CriteriaInstitutionalIndividual Student Are Confidence Intervals Used? No. Yes, as part of determining HEDI classification for growth in terms of distinguishing between ineffective and developing and effective and highly effective teachers. Minimum Group size/Critical Threshold Median SGP computed for ELA or math if there are 30 or more scores for continuously enrolled students. Combined 2009-10 and 2010 -11 school years SGP for ELA & math combined that are at or above the state median for ESEA accountability subgroups. Mean adjusted SGP computed if there are 16 or more students results who are continuously enrolled in ELA & math combined. Mean adjusted growth percentile above 39 for teachers and above 42 for principals, in addition to a high level of statistical confidence. Engaging through Different Lenses 3. Institutional vs. Individual Growth Woodhouse, Walter. “New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver.” PowerPoint presentation. DATAG Meeting, December 2012.