2. Closing the GAP “No Child Left Behind” (ESEA)

3. Who’s To Blame The college professor said, “Such rawness in a student is a shame. Lack of preparation in the high school is to blame,” Said the high school teacher: “Good heavens! That boy’s a fool. The fault of course, is with the middle school.” The middle school teacher said, “From such stupidity may I be spared. They sent him up so unprepared.’ The primary teacher huffed, “Kindergarten blockheads all. They call that preparation – Why, it’s worse than none at all.” The kindergarten teacher said, “Such lack of training never did I see. What kind of a woman must that mother be?” The mother said, “Poor helpless child. He’s not to blame. His father’s people were all the same.” Said the father at the end of the line, “I doubt the rascal’s even mine!”

4. Before we begin…………………… Just a little history lesson

5. The 1960’s Brought…….. Man on the moon Voting Rights Act Civil Rights Act Head Start Medicare AND….

6. The First ESEA!! (in 1965)

7. If you can remember the 60’s……… You weren’t there!!

8. 2001 ESEA Reauthorization Act Congress took the engine out of ESEA and Attempted to create……

9. A New Vehicle Whether this is really a “New Vehicle” or a “K-Car” is still to be determined!

10. “My teacher is real tricky. I study hard -- she gives me an easy test. I don’t study -- she gives me a hard test.” Is this student in your class? 3.16

11. ESEA 2001 Final Vote House:381-41 Senate: 87-10 95.2% of Democrats and 86.3% of Republicans Voted for Passage

12. Closing the Achievement Gap  Disaggregating the Data  Disability  SES  LEP  Ethnicity

13. Promoting Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)  AYP accumulative  2001/2002 results  Baseline data  12 years to reach 100% proficiency  Subgroups

14. Adequate Yearly Progress

15. Multiple Measures: Adequate Yearly Progress (2002-03) ReadingMath Grade 440.5%35.9% Grade 636.0%36.8% Grade 978.0%53.1%

16. NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (2004-05 targets) Grade SpanReadingMath Elementary 71.3 (Grade 3 achievement) 46.5% (Grade 4 proficiency) Middle 47.0% (Grade 6 proficiency) 46.3% (Grade 6 proficiency) High 71.8% (Grade 10 OGT) 60.0% (Grade 10 OGT)

17. SAFE HARBOR If a school building or district fails to meet the annual measurable objective, or if one or more subgroups fail to meet the annual measurable objective, then the school building or district makes adequate yearly progress if:  The percentage of tested students in that building, district, or subgroup below the proficient achievement level decreases by at least 10 percent from the preceding year.

19. CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS Year One:  Improvement Plan

20. CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS (continued) YEAR TWO:  Offer School Choice  Notify parents  Option to transfer  Transportation provided

21. CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS (continued) Year Three:  Offer supplemental services and school choice

22. CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS (continued) Year Four:  Continue to offer school choice and supplemental services.  District takes corrective action, including one of the following:  Institute new curriculum  Decrease school management authority  Appoint an outside expert  Extend school year or day  Replace the principal and/or other key staff  Secure an external manager  Close the building and reassign students  Redesign the building

23. Consequences: All Districts Less Intrusive Withhold Title I funds New curriculum Alternate governance for particular schools More Intrusive Replace key staff Appoint trustee in place of superintendent & school board after 4 years missing AYP

24. District Designations & AYP (2003-04 results)

25. AYP Applies to: Previously Title I funded schools & districts only Now All public schools & districts, including community schools Regardless of Title I funding

26. Ohio’s New Accountability System Ohio’s Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act a.k.a. ESEA

27. Challenges Tougher system New ground-rules –All students accounted for –Group, as well as aggregate, performance counts Creates new starting point for judging future performance –2002-03 results are not directly comparable to past years

28. Opportunities Multiple ways to tell the achievement story Highlights the achievement of all students Ohio’s educators have been improving achievement for almost a decade -- we believe that 2003-04 and beyond will result in continuing improvement

29. Tests Administered Previously Grades 4, 6, 9 5 subjects Reading Mathematics Writing Science Citizenship Now Grades 3-8, 10 5 subjects Reading Mathematics Writing Science Social studies

30. Test Performance Levels Proficiency Tests Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Achievement Tests Advanced Accelerated Proficient Basic Limited

31. Same Five Designations for Ohio Excellent Effective Continuous Improvement Academic Watch Academic Emergency

32. Multiple Measures: Ohio Performance Index More sensitive to gradations of achievement than indicators Credits achievement at all performance levels Weights higher performance more than lower performance Rewards “advanced” performance

33. Multiple Measures: Ohio Performance Index Advanced1.2 Accelerated 1.1 Proficient1.0 Basic0.6 Below Basic0.3 Untested0.0

34. Multiple Measures: Performance Index

35. 2002-03 Report Card Content Previously Percent of performance (local report card) indicators met Designation Now Percent of performance indicators Performance index score Improvement AYP Designation

36. New Report Card Criteria: Multiple Ways of Earning Designations

37. Designations Designations DistrictsSchools 2002-20032003-20042002-20032003-2004 Excellent 85117630920 Effective 177229771906 Continuous Improvement 2782241,2421,207 Academic Watch 5234237126 Academic Emergency 164338225 Not Rated 44500518

38. Change in Designation from Last Year DistrictsSchools #%#% Moved Up 17729%1,02430% Moved Down 295%2889%

39. Excellent or Effective DISTRICTS57%SCHOOLS54%

40. Excellent, Effective, or Continuous Improvement DISTRICTS94%SCHOOLS90%

41. Performance Index Score (all grades)

42. Improved Performance Index Score DISTRICTS87%SCHOOLS79%

43. At Least 10-point Gain in Performance Index Score over Two Years DistrictsSchools #%#% 366%36126%

44. Performance Level PercentNumberWeightScore Advanced11.7%971.214.0 Proficient54.1%4491.054.1 Basic16.5%1370.69.9 Limited17.7%1470.35.3 Untested0.0%00.0 TOTAL100.0%83083.3 Performance Level PercentNumberWeightScore Advanced15.3%1271.218.4 Proficient57.7%4791.057.7 Basic20.1%1670.612.1 Limited6.9%570.32.1 Untested0.0%00.0 TOTAL100.0%83090.2

45. The PI Calculator http://www.ode.state.oh.us/accountability/p erformanceindexcal.xls

46. Improved Reading Proficiency over Last Year Grade 4Grade 6 Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency) #%#%#% Districts 43572%30049%41668% Schools 1,28066%62150%48873%

47. Improved Mathematics Proficiency over Last Year Grade 4Grade 6 Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency) #%#%#% Districts 49381%56092%42670% Schools 1,39271%1,09588%49570%

48. 2004-05 Performance Indicators -- 23 Total 21 test indicators 21 test indicators Proficiency Tests –Grade 4 math, science, & citizenship –Grade 6 reading, math, writing, science, & citizenship Achievement Tests –Reading grades 3, 4, 5, & 8 –Math grades 3, 7, & 8 –Writing grade 4 –OGT Grade 10 reading, math, writing, science, social studies Graduation rate Graduation rate Attendance rate Attendance rate

49. Operating Standards for Ohio’s Schools Serving Children with Disabilities Ages 3-21 Effective July 1, 2002 Overview and Implications

50. Changes Flexibility in conducting evaluations Interventions –Prior to an evaluation –Intervention data used to determine eligibility Parent involved in eligibility determination

51. Student Intervention Required for: –3rd graders reading below “proficient” -- intense remediation –Students scoring below “proficient” on achievement tests –Students failing to make satisfactory progress toward attaining grade level academic standards on diagnostic tests –9th graders scoring below “proficient” on the 10th grade practice test

52. Grade level corresponding to age 1 2 3 4 Reading grade level 4 3 2 1 5 2.5 5.2 At Risk on Early Screening Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of Reading Difficulty Low Risk on Early Screening This Slide from Reading First Experts Alligator Children get tested Here Screen Early Why wait to Fail Gap Starts Small

53. Grade level corresponding to age 1 2 3 4 Reading grade level 4 3 2 1 5 2.5 5.2 Early Intervention Changes Reading Outcomes At Risk on Early Screening Low Risk on Early Screening 3.2 Control With research- based core but without extra instructional intervention 4.9 Intervention With substantial instructional intervention This Slide from Reading First Experts

54. Implication: Interventions General Education Interventions IEP Specialized Instruction MFE

55. Close the Achievement Gap Involvement of General Education Teacher Ensure FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment Performance Standards Content Standards Child Progress

56. DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN Professional Development Service Providers Building Plans Housing

57. Implications: General Education Special Education Child Focus Needs Based All Children SUPPORTS Administrative Staff Parents Resources

58. Implication: IEP Child Progress Academic Content Standards

59. Implications: General Education Special Education Special EducationSpecialized Instruction Strategic Plan ALL CHILDREN SUPPORTS Administrative Staff Parents Resources

60. Percent of Total vs. Students with Disabilities Learning Disabilities: 5% of total; 47% of SWD Speech/Language: 2% of total; 17.5% of SWD Mental Retardation (C.D.)1% of total 9.7% of SWD –Mild to Moderate.66% of SWD –Moderate to Severe.33% of SWD

61. A Final Thought……. “Considerable evidence supports this conclusion: The differences in achievement observed between and among students of culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds and students of mainstreamed backgrounds are NOT the results of differences in ability to learn. Rather, they are the result of differences in the quality of the instruction these young people receive in school.” Marietta Saravia-Shore and Eugene Garcia Diverse Teaching Strategies for Learners ASCD, 1995 Therefore it is imperative That teachers provide instruction using a variety of formats and strategies

63. Information You Need to Know Title I Budget Percentage that goes to personnel Total staff employed by Title I District Accountability Report AYP Calculations Performance Index Scores