Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012.

Published byRandall Singleton Modified over 7 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012."— Presentation transcript:

1 2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012

2 Accountability Progress Reports Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) –federal accountability Academic Performance Index (API) – state accountability Program Improvement (PI)– federal intervention 2

3 District-Level AYP Results 95% Participation Rate Annual Measurable Objectives API Indicator Graduation Rate District must test 95% of enrolled students districtwide and for each student group District must achieve 78.0% proficient in English language arts and 78.2% proficient in mathematics District must achieve a score of 740 District must achieve a rate of 90% or grow by 1/8 th of the difference of 90 minus the prior rate 3

4 4 Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) Elementary & Middle (Grades 2-8) Percent of students at Proficient or Above on: –California Standards Tests (CST) English Language Arts Mathematics –California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) –California Modified Assessment (CMA) Senior High (Grade 10) Percent of students at Proficient or Above on: –California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), Census Administration –California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) Note: Results for students not continuously enrolled and English Learners enrolled for less than one year in U.S. schools are not included in AMO calculations.

5 District Student Group Growth (2011 to 2012) on Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) 5 Group English Language Arts (Target 78.0%) Mathematics (Target 78.2%) % Proficient or Above 20112012Diff.20112012Diff. All Students 60.862.4 1.6 61.262.6 1.4 African American 48.751.1 2.4 45.247.3 2.1 American Indian 63.264.0 0.8 58.957.7 -1.2 Asian 74.775.2 0.5 79.381.3 2.0 Filipino 74.475.4 1.0 72.774.7 2.0 Hispanic 46.348.1 1.8 49.550.7 1.2 Pacific Islander 58.759.5 0.8 55.057.6* 2.6 White 82.283.7 1.5 78.679.6 1.0 Two or More Races 74.876.6* 1.8 72.673.2 0.6 Econ. Disadvantaged 49.050.6 1.6 51.552.7 1.2 English Learners 41.844.1 2.3 49.751.3 1.6 Students with Disabilities 36.537.8 1.3 37.937.4 -0.5 * Safe Harbor

6 2012 Districtwide API Growth 6 2011 Base 2012 Growth Change Met 2012 AYP Criteria Districtwide797808+11 Yes Criteria (districts must meet at least one) — Minimum of 740 Minimum 1 point growth

7 7 District Graduation Rates for 2012 (Class of 2011) Groups 2012 Cohort Graduation Rate (Class of 2011) 2012 Target Graduation Rate 2012 Graduation Rate Criteria Met LEA-wide85.4682.16Yes Black or African American82.3377.90Yes American86.49—N/A Asian92.5790.00Yes Filipino95.7390.00Yes Hispanic or Latino78.1674.33Yes Pacific Islander87.76—N/A White92.4189.69Yes Two or More Races90.6790.00Yes Economically Disadvantaged80.4477.21Yes English Learners63.6761.37Yes Students with Disabilities48.4651.69No

8 District-Level AYP Results (District Continues in Year 3 of Program Improvement) Made AYP – All Criteria Met 95% Participation Rate Met Annual Measurable Objectives Made API Indicator Made Graduation Rate NO District must test 95% of students districtwide and for each student group District must achieve 78.0% proficient in English language arts and 78.2% proficient in mathematics District must achieve a score of 740 District must achieve a rate of 90% or grow by 1/8 th of the difference of 90 minus the prior rate Yes No Made 5 of 24 Group Targets Yes NO Made 9 of 10 Group Targets 8

9 2012 AYP School-Level Results 9 Made All AYP Criteria Made Part. Rate and AMOs Made API Indicator* Made Grad. Rate* ELAMathematics SCHOOL# #%#%#%#%#% Elementary 11930254639453811092—N/A Middle 242811463132292—N/A Senior High 38381026133428741961 ALL 181351967376134160881961 * Some schools do not meet the criteria for API or graduation rate targets.

10 2012 AYP Data for Selected California Urban School Districts 10 DISTRICT Made AYP — All Criteria Met 95% Participation Rate Met Annual Measurable Objectives Made API Indicator Made Graduation Rate Year of PI San Diego No (30 of 50)YesNoYes No3 Fresno No (24 of 46)YesNoYes No3 Garden Grove No (27 of 42)YesNoYes 3 Long Beach No (31 of 50)YesNoYes No3 Los Angeles No (33 of 50)YesNoYes No3 Oakland No (26 of 46)YesNoYes No3 Sacramento No (26 of 50)YesNoYes No3 San Bernardino No (28 of 50)YesNoYes No3 San Francisco No (32 of 50)YesNoYes 3 STATE No (27 of 50)YesNoYes NoN/A

11 2012 Academic Performance Index (API) Growth Report

12 12 2010 Growth API District Results 2011 API (Base) STAR 2012 Percent Tested 2012 API (Growth) Overall Growth 79799%808+11

13 13 SubgroupNumber 2011 API (Base) 2012 API (Growth) Overall Growth African American 7,725 724739 15 American Indian 221 809812 3 Asian 7,418 878881 3 Filipino 5,060 857870 13 Hispanic 35,701 734746 12 Pacific Islander 519 774786 12 White 18,673 889898 9 Two or More Races 3,800 86787811 Econ. Disadvantaged 50,669 74575611 English Learners 29,484 71672812 Students with Disabilities 9,587 6256272 2012 Growth API Summary of Districtwide Student Group Performance

14 2012 Growth API Summary of School Performance (District-Managed Schools) 14 2006200720082009201020112012 Schools with API Target Growth Data 165167172 176177 Schools Meeting All Targets 65 (39%) 63 (38%) 91 (53%) 103 (60%) 115 (65%) 99 (56%) 94 (53%) Schools Meeting Schoolwide Targets 108 (65%) 104 (62%) 131 (76%) 136 (79%) 144 (82%) 141 (80%) 137 (76%) Schools At/ Above 800* 53* (30%) 54* (32%) 59* (33%) 76* (43%) 101* (56%) 92* (52%) 99* (56%) * This includes all schools for which API growth scores were reported, including schools without growth targets.

15 15 2012 Growth API Large Urban District Comparison Data District Number Included in API 2011 API (Base) 2012 API (Growth) Overall Growth San Diego 79,205 797808+11 Fresno 49,967 714724+10 Garden Grove 35,514 813821+8 Long Beach 60,041 771781+10 Los Angeles 416,460 729745+16 Oakland 25,919 726730+4 Sacramento 31,393 760768+8 San Bernardino 35,248 711726+15 San Francisco 37,309 796807+11

16 2012 Title I Program Improvement Update

17 2011 – 12 Program Improvement (PI) Schools 126 District Schools are in PI 18 Schools were newly identified for PI 12 Schools in PI in 2011-12 made AYP 1 School exited PI 17

18 At-Risk Schools that Made AYP in 2012 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS  Barnard  Cabrillo  Chesterton  Gage  Perry 18 CHARTER SCHOOLS  Einstein Academy  Urban Discovery Academy

19 PI Schools that Made AYP in 2012 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS  Adams  Baker  Cadman  Carver  Central  Hamilton  Spreckels  Valencia Park 19 CHARTER SCHOOLS  KIPP Adelante  King/Chavez Academy  O’Farrell (Exited Program Improvement) MIDDLE SCHOOL ◆ Standley

20 20

21 Additional Resources  Office of Accountability http://sandi.net/red  California Department of Education http://www.cde.ca.gov  Accountability Progress Reports (APR) http://www.cde.ca.gov/getschoolreport/ 21

Download ppt "2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012."

Similar presentations

1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.

1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.

MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.

‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.

Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
1 Accountability System Overview of the Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.

1 Accountability System Overview of the Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools and Districts.
Accountability Updates Testing & Evaluation Department May 21, 2014 Mission High School MISSION CISD DEIC MEETING.

Accountability Updates Testing & Evaluation Department May 21, 2014 Mission High School MISSION CISD DEIC MEETING.
1 2011 Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 6, 2011.

Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 6, 2011.
1 2011 Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 20, 2011.

Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 20, 2011.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE 2009-10 Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.

Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.

2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.

2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.

Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.

2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.
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.
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.

2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
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.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data 2005-2008 September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.

Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.

Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.

Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.

Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google