1. 1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 17 & 18, 2009

2. 2 Topics Review and Reporting Schedule AYP Basics –Composite Performance Index (CPI) –Four Factors that Determine AYP AYP Report Overview Accountability Status and Required Actions Contact Information

3. 3 Review and Reporting Schedule Monday, 8/17: Preliminary 2009 district and school AYP data provided electronically to superintendents and principals via the “Preview of 2009 AYP Data” application on the Security Portal: www4.doemass.org/auth/Login/www4.doemass.org/auth/Login/ Wednesday, 8/19: Notice sent to superintendents and principals whose district and schools are expected to be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring based on preliminary 2009 AYP data Friday, 8/21: Deadline to report AYP discrepancies via the Security Portal Tuesday, 9/15: Official embargoed district and school AYP reports provided electronically for district review on the Security Portal Wednesday, 9/16: Official AYP reports and lists of schools and districts in improvement status released to the public Friday, 9/18: “Drive-In” AYP Information Session at Marlborough H.S.

4. 4 Adequate Yearly Progress – Facts AYP reports show progress toward having all students reach grade level proficiency by the year 2014 – the principal goal of NCLB AYP determinations are issued separately for ELA and Math For each subject there are multiple AYP determinations - for all students (the aggregate) and for student groups. Students are counted in each group to which they belong. District AYP determinations are based on grade-span results (3-5; 6-8; 9-12). Positive results for all groups in any grade-span yields a positive AYP determination. Schools and districts that do not make AYP for two or more consecutive years in the same subject are identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to focus efforts on improving student performance. Schools and districts with an accountability status that make AYP for a single year remain at the previous year’s status.

5. 5 The CPI is: a metric we use to measure school and district performance and improvement; a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in standard MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in the MCAS-Alt. MCAS Performance LevelScaled Score Range OR MCAS-Alt Performance LevelPoints Per Student Proficient or Advanced240 – 280Progressing100 Needs Improvement High230 – 238Emerging75 Needs Improvement Low220 – 228Awareness50 Warning / Failing High210 – 218Portfolio Incomplete25 Warning / Failing Low200 – 208Portfolio not Submitted0 Composite Performance Index (CPI)

6. 6 Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performance level, then divide the total number of points by the total number of students (example below) MCAS Performance Level MCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics Points Per Student # StudentsPoints Proficient or Advanced / Progressing100323200 Needs Improvement High / Emerging75453375 Needs Improvement Low / Awareness507350 Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete254100 Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not Submitted 020 Totals90 students7025 Points 7025 ÷ 90 = 78.1

7. 7 Four Factors Determine AYP A ParticipationDid at least 95% of students participate in MCAS in 2009? B PerformanceDid the student group perform at or above the 2009 state performance target? (ELA = 90.2, Math = 84.3) C ImprovementDid the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target? D Additional Indicator Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)? A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

8. 8 PARTICIPATION: Did at least 95% of students participate in MCAS in 2009? A Students are counted in each group to which they belong. Calculated by taking all students enrolled in the school or district during the testing window divided by the number of students taking MCAS tests. The “testing window” is defined as any student reported in SIMS as enrolled in the school in both the March and June SIMS submissions. District participation calculations include students enrolled in outplacements at district expense.

9. 9 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination Performance targets established between 2001 and 2014, as required by NCLB Targets set separately for ELA and for mathematics Performance expectations increase every 2 years Performance is measured using CPI AYP determinations based on one year of data each year PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2009 performance target? (ELA = 90.2, Math = 84.3) B

10. 10 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2009 performance target? (ELA = 90.2, Math = 84.3) B ELA Math 2001 & 022003 & 042005 & 062007 & 082009 & 102011 & 122013 & 14 53.0 60.8 68.7 76.5 84.3 92.2 100 70.7 75.6 80.5 85.4 90.2 95.1 100 90 80 70 60 50 Composite Performance Index (CPI)

11. 11 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2009 performance target? (ELA = 90.2, Math = 84.3) B (B) Performance N2009 CPI Met Target (90.2) Aggregate100092.0Yes Lim. English Prof.3987.2- Special Ed.4088.1- Low Income5085.0No Minimum “N” Size Rules: 20 in the aggregate 40 for student groups (and at least 5% of total; groups of 200+ always included)

12. 12 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target? C Performance…Improvement… Is an absolute measureIs a relative measure Is measured by comparing a group’s 2009 CPI to the 2009 state performance target Is measured by looking at a group’s change in CPI from 2008 to 2009 Answers the question, “Did the group perform at or above the 2009 state performance target?” (ELA = 90.2, Math = 84.3) Answers the question, “Did the group improve from 2008 to 2009 so that it is on track to 100% grade level proficiency by 2014?”

13. 13 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target? C 100 2001 & 022003 & 042005 & 062007 & 082009 & 102011 & 122013 & 14 70.7 75.6 80.5 85.4 90.2 95.1 100 90 80 70 60 50 70.0 (2008) 77.2 (2009) Did this group meet its 2009 performance target? 2009 ELA state perf. target = 90.2 2009 CPI for group = 77.2 No, because 77.2 < 90.2 Composite Performance Index (CPI) ELA Example

14. 14 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target? C ELA Example 2001 & 022003 & 042005 & 062007 & 082009 & 102011 & 122013 & 14 100 70.7 75.6 80.5 85.4 90.2 95.1 100 90 80 70 60 50 70.0 (2008) 77.2 (2009) Did this group meet its 2009 improvement target? Composite Performance Index (CPI) (100-2008 CPI) ÷ 6 Years 100 – 70 = 30 points remaining 30 ÷ 6 = 5 points per year 70 + 5 = 75 (imp. target for 2009) Yes, because 77.2 > 75

15. 15 (B) Performance(C) Improvement N2009 CPI Met Target (90.2) 2008 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target Aggregate16488.9No85.62.485.6-90.5Yes Lim. English Prof. 9487.8No83.42.883.4-90.2Yes The improvement target is expressed as a range An “error band” surrounds the target number Error bands range from 2.5 to 4.5, depending on size of group; 2.5 is typical IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target? C A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

16. 16 ADDITIONAL INDICATOR: Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)? D A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination (D) Attendance %Change Met Target Aggregate93.60.0Yes Low Income91.1-2.0No Have an attendance rate of 92% or higher, or Improve by at least 1 percentage point from the previous year Student groups in schools and districts serving grades 1-8 must:

17. 17 ADDITIONAL INDICATOR: Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)? D A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination Student groups in schools and districts serving grades 9-12 must have: a four-year graduation rate of 65 percent applied to the 2008 graduation cohort, or a two percentage point increase in the four-year graduation rate from the 2007 cohort to 2008 cohort, or a five-year graduation rate of 70 percent applied to the 2007 graduation cohort. (D) Attendance 2008 (4yr)Change (4yr)2007 (5yr) Met Target Aggregate83.52.482.0Yes Low Income64.0-5.191.5Yes

18. 18 Summary / Detailed Data Links 2009 AYP Data – School Summary AYP History Title I Status, Choice / SES

19. 19 2009 AYP Data – School Detail

20. 20 2009 AYP Data – District Summary Grade span AYP Determinations AYP History Summary / Detailed Data Links

21. 21 2009 AYP Data – District Detail

22. 22 NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions (School Level) Years Not Making AYP NCLB Accountability StatusRequired Actions 0 – 1No StatusNone 2Improvement (Year 1)Parent/Guardian notification, Planning, School Choice * 3Improvement (Year 2) Above requirements plus SES * 4Corrective ActionAbove requirements plus district takes 1+ corrective actions 5Restructuring (Year 1)Above requirements plus district plans for fundamental reform 6+Restructuring (Year 2+)Above requirements plus district restructures school * School Choice & SES apply to Title I schools only.

23. 23 NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions (District Level) Years Not Making AYP NCLB Accountability Status Required Actions 0 – 1No StatusNone 2Improvement (Year 1)Parent/Guardian Notification Planning 10% set aside of Title I funds for P.D. Limitations on transferability of federal funds 3Improvement (Year 2)Same as above 4+Corrective ActionAbove requirements plus: Prohibition on transfer of federal funds State takes 1+ corrective actions

24. 24 937 schools (54%) in improvement status in 2009 –Up from 840 (50%) in 2008 109 districts (28%) in improvement status –Including 29 charters, 8 voc/techs, and 17 other single-school districts –Up from 89 in 2008 (including 26 charters, 6 voc/techs, and 11 other single- school districts) 21 schools recognized for exiting accountability status 2009 NCLB Accountability Highlights

25. 25 Resources Contact Us: ayp@doe.mass.edu / 781-338-3550ayp@doe.mass.edu School and District Accountability and Assistance News : www.doe.mass.edu/sda/www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ 2009 AYP Materials: www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2009/default.htmlwww.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2009/default.html 2009 MCAS and AYP Data Review and Release Schedule School Leader’s Guide to the 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress Reports 2009-10 School and District NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions 2009 Glossary of AYP Reporting Terms Sample Parent/Guardian Notifications (NCLB Accountability Status/NCLB School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services (SES), and Right-To-Know) Federal Non-Regulatory Guidance on District and School Improvement Giving Parents Options: Strategies for Informing Parents and Implementing Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services Under No Child Left Behind Student Performance Goal Spreadsheet