Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 2011 Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 2011 Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance."— Presentation transcript:

1 Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance Levels, State Commendation Designations, & Required Actions September 13, :00 a.m. & 2:00 p.m. Kenneth Klau, Matt Pakos, & Erica Adametz Center for Targeted Assistance

2 2 Overview Accountability Reporting Timeline AYP Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status Framework for District Accountability and Assistance State Accountability & Assistance Levels State Commendation Designations Identifying Level 3 Schools and Districts Where to Go for More Information

3 3 Accountability Reporting Timeline August 9: Preliminary 2011 accountability reports provided electronically to superintendents and principals in the security portal (without state accountability and assistance levels or commendation designations) August 15: Notice sent to superintendents and principals whose district and schools ESE expects to identify for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring based on Preliminary 2011 accountability data September 14-15: Official 2011 accountability reports provided electronically to superintendents and principals in the security portal (with state accountability and assistance levels or commendation designations) Week of September 19: Public release of Official 2011 accountability reports on the Departments School and District Profiles website: Late September : Public release of NCLB Report Cards on the Departments School and District Profiles website:

4 4 How AYP is Calculated: A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

5 5 Federal NCLB Accountability Status - Schools No StatusSchool makes AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject(s) Improvement Year 1School does not make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject(s) (Aggregate or Subgroups) Improvement Year 2School identified for Improvement Year 1 does not make AYP for a third year in the same subject(s) (Aggregate or Subgroups) Corrective ActionSchool identified for Improvement Year 2 does not make AYP for a fourth year in the same subject(s) (Aggregate or Subgroups) Restructuring Year 1School identified for Corrective Action does not make AYP for a fourth year in the same subject(s) (Aggregate or Subgroups) Restructuring Year 2School in Restructuring Year 1 does not make AYP for a fourth year in the same subject(s) (Aggregate or Subgroups)

6 6 Federal NCLB Accountability Status - Districts No StatusDistrict makes AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject(s) for at least one grade span (3-5, 6-8, 9-12) Improvement Year 1District does not make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject(s) for all three grade spans Improvement Year 2District does not make AYP for three consecutive years in the same subject(s) for all three grade spans Corrective ActionDistrict does not make AYP for four or more consecutive years in the same subject(s) for all three grade spans

7 7 Framework for District Accountability and Assistance

8 8 State Accountability and Assistance Levels Level 1 Schools with an NCLB Accountability Status of No Status or Improvement (Year 1 or 2). Districts are placed in Level 1 if the highest Level of any school in the district is Level 1. Level 2 Schools with an NCLB Accountability Status of Corrective Action or Restructuring. Districts are placed in Level 2 if the highest Level of any school in the district is Level 2. Level 3 Schools identified as among the lowest performing and least-improved 20 percent of schools statewide based on common grade levels, regardless of NCLB Accountability Status. Districts are placed in Level 3 if the highest Level of any school in the district is Level 3.

9 9 State Accountability and Assistance Levels Level 4* Schools identified as among the lowest performing and least-improved 20 percent of schools statewide based on common grade levels, regardless of NCLB Accountability Status, are eligible for placement in Level 4. Not more than 4 percent of schools may be in Levels 4 & 5 at one time. Placement is made by Commissioner. Districts are placed in Level 4 if the highest Level of any school in the district is Level 4 or if the district has been declared Underperforming by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, independent of its schools. Level 5 Level 4 schools declared by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education as requiring Joint ESE-District Governance. Districts are eligible for placement in Level 5 if they are among the lowest performing and least-improved 10 percent of districts statewide based on common grade levels, regardless of the Level of any school in the district. * As of September 13, 2011, the Commissioner has not yet made the decision to identify a new cohort of Level 4 schools. As a consequence, no new Level 4 schools or districts will be identified in the data that will be released to the public early the week of September 19, 2011.

10 10 State Commendation Designations Narrowing Proficiency Gaps A school that substantially narrowed proficiency gaps for high needs students (i.e., students belonging to one or more of the following groups: low income, limited English proficient, formerly limited English proficient, and/or special education) over a two-year period may be eligible for commendation for narrowing proficiency gaps. High GrowthA school that demonstrated median growth of 60 or higher for two consecutive years may be eligible for commendation for high growth. Exiting NCLB Accountability Status A school that exited its NCLB Accountability Status based on current year AYP determinations will be commended for exiting that status.

11 11 Identifying Level 3 Schools and Districts – Legal Context M.G.L. Ch. 69 (1)(J)(a) Schools that score in the lowest 20 percent statewide among schools serving common grade levels on a single measure developed by the department that takes into account student performance data and, beginning on July 1, 2011, improvement in student academic performance, shall be deemed eligible for designation[...] 603 CMR 2.04 (2) Placement of schools and districts in Level 3. A school shall be placed in Level 3 of the framework for district accountability and assistance if it scores in the lowest 20% statewide of schools serving common grade levels pursuant to 603 CMR 2.05(2)(a). A district shall be placed in Level 3 of the framework for district accountability and assistance if it has a school that has been placed in Level 3.

12 12 Identifying Level 3 Schools and Districts – Methodology 1.Identify the number of schools representing the lowest 20 percent In general, ESE includes a school in the calculations if it could be eligible for designation as a Level 3 or 4 school. Charter schools, schools ending in grade PK, K, 1, or 2, and schools without four full years of data are excluded. – 1825 schools open in minus 63 charter schools = 1762 –1762 minus 149 early elementary schools = 1613 –1613 minus 94 schools that were too small (n < 20) or too new to have four full years of data = 1519 –1519 multiplied by 20 percent = 304 schools

13 13 Identifying Level 3 Schools and Districts – Methodology 2.Group schools by common grade levels ESE assigns schools to one of five grade span categories (elementary, elementary/middle, middle, middle/high, high) and uses counts within each grade span to establish a number representing the lowest 20 percent of schools in each category: Grade Span# SchoolsPercent20 Percent ES ESMS MS MSHS4739 HS Total

14 14 Identifying Level 3 Schools and Districts – Methodology 3.Establish rankings for all eligible schools based on four years of achievement and improvement data ESE then ranks eligible schools (n = 1,519 in ) by grade span category on the following achievement and improvement (movement) indicators: Achievement Indicators –2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 CPI (ELA & Math) –2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 MCAS % Warning/Failing (ELA & Math) –06-07, 07-08, 08-09, Annual Dropout Rate –2007, 2008, Year Graduation Rate; Year Graduation Rate Movement Indicators –2008 Median Student Growth Percentile (SGP) for non-high schools (ELA & Math) –2009, 2010, 2011 Median SGP for all schools (ELA & Math) –The mean of the 2010 and 2011 CPI minus the mean of the 2008 and 2009 CPI (ELA & Math)

15 15 Identifying Level 3 Schools and Districts – Methodology 4.Establish average rankings across all achievement and improvement indicators ESE calculates a weighted average across all achievement and improvement indicators by grade span category that places progressively more weight on data from more recent years. Lastly, ESE calculates a mean (average) rank across all indicators that standardizes the relative value of achievement and improvement indicators across grade spans. Overall, the weight of achievement as compared to improvement is four to one. 5.Assign Level 3 status Schools that have a mean rank within the lowest 20 percent of schools within a grade span category are considered Level 3 schools. Districts with one or more Level 3 schools are considered Level 3 districts.

16 16 Identifying Level 3 Schools and Districts – Changes from In ESE implemented three substantial changes to the methodology used to identify Level 3 schools in : 1.In accordance with state law, the improvement (movement) indicators noted above were incorporated into the calculations for all schools. The dropout and graduation rate indicators noted above were also incorporated into the calculations for schools ending in grade The number representing the lowest 20 percent of schools is based only on those schools that could be eligible for placement in Level 3 or Level 4. As such, the overall number of Level 3 schools in will be smaller than in (lowest 20% in = 304 schools; lowest 20% in = 354 schools). 3.When calculating average rankings, more weight is placed on data from recent years as compared to prior years.

17 17 Where to Go for More Information The guidance document titled Massachusetts School & District Accountability and Assistance Levels & Required Actions outlines the planning, communication, and fiscal requirements associated with a school or districts federal NCLB Accountability Status and/or state Accountability and Assistance Level. For more information about the accountability designations that are annually assigned to Massachusetts districts and schools and information in understanding 2011 district and school accountability reports, please refer to the School Leaders Guide to the 2011 Accountability Reports and the 2011 Glossary of Accountability Reporting Terms. Please send questions about 2011 accountability reports and related information to or call us at


Download ppt "1 2011 Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google