1. Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview

2. Opening Remarks Teresa Bledsoe Manager, Community Relations

3. Overview of AYP Matt Goodman Director, Quality Improvement & Accountability

4. What is AYP? NCLB of 2001 requires all schools, districts and states to show that students are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). NCLB requires states to establish targets in the following ways: – Annual Proficiency Target resulting in all students to score at/above proficient by 2014. – Attendance/Graduation Rates resulting in an additional indicator. – Participation Rates requiring all students and student subgroups to meet a 95% participation rate.

5. Meeting the Requirements of AYP (Adapted from DESE, Understanding Your AYP Report, July 23, 2010, p.2) STEP 1: Participation Rate Met? >=95% STEP 3: Annual Proficiency Target Met? -All Accountable Subgroups STEP 2: Cell Size Met? 9 subgroups + total (6 races + IEP, LEP, FRL) >= 30 Step 4: Additional Indicator(s) Met? -Attendance/ Graduation Rates Attendance Rate >=95% Graduation Rate >=85% or demonstrates required improvement AYP Met If the subgroup’s cell size is less than 30, the subgroup is not evaluated for AYP Step 5: Annual Proficiency Target Met with Confidence Interval (CI)? Step 6: Annual Proficiency Target Met with Growth? (includes students On-Track) Step 7: Safe Harbor Met? -Applies to subgroups not meeting STEP 5 -Decrease Not Proficient by 10% -Subgroup attendance/graduation rate must be Met Step 8: Safe Harbor Confidence Interval Met? -Applies to subgroups not meeting Step 5 -Decrease Not Prof. by 10% -Subgroup attendance/graduation rate must be Met AYP Not Met NO Yes No Yes

6. Subgroup Categories 1.Total 2.Asian/Pacific Islander 3.Black 4.Hispanic 5.American Indian 6.White 7.Free/Reduced Lunch 8.Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 9.Limited English Proficiency (LEP) To be held accountable for subgroup performance, a subgroup must contain at least 30 students. At the district level, Springfield is accountable for all nine subgroups. Building accountability depends on the cell size of each subgroup.

7. AYP Measures Performance in Three Areas: 1.Communication Arts (2010 Target = 67.4% Proficient/Advanced) -Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) assessment results in elementary and middle schools -End-of-Course assessment results in high schools 2. Mathematics (2010 Target = 63.3% Proficient/Advanced) -Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) assessment results in elementary and middle schools -End-of-Course assessment results in high schools 3. Additional Indicator -Attendance rate for elementary and middle schools (93 percent or improvement from the prior year) -Graduation rate for high schools (85% or improvement from the previous year at a rate of 2% if the graduation rate is between 75% and 84.9% or a rate of 5% if the graduation rate is below 74.9%)

10. Confidence Interval The confidence interval calculation is not a requirement of NCLB. However, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) uses a confidence interval in order to account for the error inherent in making AYP classifications (“met, not met”) that are based on a targeted percentage of students who must attain proficiency. The use of confidence intervals increases the reliability of these classifications.

11. Growth Model Beginning in 2008, Missouri implemented a growth model to determine AYP. The Growth Model provides an opportunity for schools and districts to meet AYP by receiving credit for students who demonstrate improvement over time. Student growth targets are established using the student’s first MAP or MAP A baseline. Individual student growth targets determine if each student is “On Track to be Proficient” within four years or by grade 8. Students who are “On Track” are added to the students who are Proficient in determining if the AYP Proficiency target is met.

12. Safe Harbor NCLB includes a safe harbor provision. If a subgroup of students in a school falls short of the AYP target, a district or building can still meet AYP if the percentage of students who score below the proficient level is decreased by 10% from the previous year.

13. AYP 2010 Results Overview of Compilation Table

15. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2010 Overview - Springfield Public Schools Communication Arts Level Number Buildings “Met” 2007-2008 (Target = 51.0) Number Buildings “Met” 2008-2009 (Target = 59.2%) Number Buildings “Met” 2009-2010 (Target = 67.4%) Elementary 26 out of 35 17 out of 35 26 out of 36 Middle School 3 out of 10 1 out of 10 High School 1 out of 5 4 out of 5 3 out of 5

17. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2010 Overview - Springfield Public Schools Mathematics Level Number Buildings “Met” 2007-2008 (Target = 45.0) Number Buildings “Met” 2008-2009 (Target = 54.1%) Number Buildings “Met” 2009-2010 (Target = 63.3%) Elementary 30 out of 35 23 out of 35 19 out of 36 Middle School 4 out of 10 High School 3 out of 5 1 out of 5

18. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2010 Overview - Springfield Public Schools Additional Indicator (attendance for elementary and middle schools; graduation rate for high schools) Level Number Buildings “Met” 2007-2008 Number Buildings “Met” 2008-2009 Number Buildings “Met” 2009-2010 Elementary 34 out of 35 36 out of 36 Middle School 10 out of 10 High School 4 out of 5 3 out of 5

19. 1 high school, 3 middle schools, and 26 elementary schools {30 total} increased the percent of students who scored proficient and advanced in communication arts between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 1 high school, 9 middle schools, and 16 elementary schools {26 total} increased the percent of students who scored proficient and advanced in mathematics between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. There is not a growth component for high school end-of-course (EOC).

20. Schools Meeting in 2010 that Did Not in 2009 Seven schools that did not meet AYP in 2009 achieved AYP in 2010. – Bingham – Boyd – Truman – Watkins – Wilder – York – Wilson’s Creek

21. Communication Arts

31. Math

41. Implications of Not Meeting AYP Brian Hubbard Director, Title I

42. The following schools receiving federal Title I funding are identified as needing improvement based on AYP 2010: Elementary Buildings: 1. Boyd Elementary (Level I / delayed) 2. Holland Elementary (Level I) 3. McGregor Elementary (Level IV/restructuring) 4. Sunshine Elementary (Level I) 5. Twain Elementary (Level I) 6. Weaver Elementary (Level I) 7. Weller Elementary (Level II) 8. Westport Elementary (Level II/delayed) 9. Williams Elementary (Level III/corrective action) 10. York Elementary (Level II/delayed) Middle Schools: 1. Pipkin Middle School (Level III/corrective action) 2. Reed Middle School (Level V/ restructuring) 3. Study Middle School (Level III/corrective action)

43. School Improvement Flowchart

44. School Improvement Identification Title I schools are identified as in “School Improvement” when they do not make AYP in the same content area or the additional indicator (attendance rate for schools with grades K-8 and graduation rate for schools with grades 9-12) for two consecutive years.

45. Exiting School Improvement Every school must remain in School Improvement for at least two years. After being in SI for two consecutive years, the school may exit SI if: – AYP is met for two consecutive years in the content area or additional indicator that caused the initial SI status and no other content areas or additional indicators are not making AYP for two consecutive years. After exiting School Improvement, the School may re-enter School Improvement, Level 1, if another content area or an additional indicator is not met for two consecutive years.

46. School Improvement Level 1 (after AYP is not met for 2 consecutive years) The district must ensure that the identified school implements the following: 1. Develop or revise a school improvement plan 2. Notify parents of each child enrolled in the school and provide: a. The meaning of the notification; b. The reasons for the identification and what the school, district and state are doing to help address the problem; c. Ways parents can become involved in addressing the academic issues that caused the school to be identified for school improvement; d. An explanation of the parent’s option(s) to transfer their child. 4. Offer Public School Choice (PSC) to all students to transfer to another public school within the district. 5. Districts are to include on their web sites information regarding PSC such as parent notification letters and the previous year’s transfer numbers

47. School Improvement Level 2 (after AYP is not met for 3 years) Follow the steps from School Improvement Level I along with the following: Make Supplemental Educational Services (SES) available to students receiving free/reduced lunch Provide SES information on the district website.

48. School Improvement Level 3 – Corrective Action, Year 1 (after AYP is not met for 4 years) Follow the steps from School Improvement Level I along with the following: The district is still required to provide school choice and supplemental educational services The district is required to take corrective measures: – Possible corrective actions include implementing a new curriculum, working with outside expert consultants, extending instructional time, or making staff changes.

49. School Improvement Level 4 – Restructuring, Planning (after AYP is not met for 5 years) Follow the steps from School Improvement Level I along with the following: The school continues to offer school choice and supplemental educational services The district is also required to restructure the school. Restructuring can include replacing staff, contracting with an outside expert consultant, or other major restructuring of the school’s administration and operations.

50. School Improvement Level 5 – Restructuring, Implementation (after AYP is not met for 6 years) Follow the steps from School Improvement Level I along with the following: The school continues to offer school choice and supplemental educational services The school must continue to implement the requirements of School Improvement, Level 4, Restructuring, Planning.

51. Schools in School Improvement SI Level ISI Level 2SI Level 3SI Level 4SI Level 5 Central HS*Parkview* (D)Hickory Hills MS* Hillcrest HS*Reed MS Boyd (D)Jarrett MS*Pipkin MSMcGregor HollandPleasant View MS* Study MS Mark TwainWellerWilliams Rountree* (D)Westport (D) SunshineYork (D) Weaver Indicates a Non-Title I Building (D) indicates the school is in School Improvement, Delayed Bissett Elementary made AYP for 2 years and came out of School Improvement

52. Public School Choice In 2009-10, 105 out of 3,276 eligible students took part in school choice transfers. In 2008-09, 58 out of 2,876 eligible students took part in school choice transfers. In 2007-08, 15 out of 1,082 eligible students took part in school choice transfers.

53. A Principal’s Viewpoint Tim Zeigler Principal, Pipkin MS

61. Questions