Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Adequate Yearly Progress 2012 Comfort ISD. Measures Evaluated Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Reading/ELA.

Published byDwayne Richards Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Adequate Yearly Progress 2012 Comfort ISD. Measures Evaluated Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Reading/ELA."— Presentation transcript:

1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2012 Comfort ISD

2 Measures Evaluated Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who Participate in Reading/ELA Math – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Math – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who Participate in Math Other – Attendance Rate For elementary and middle school campuses Districts not offering 12 th grade – Graduation Rate For high school campuses Districts offering 12 th grade

3 Standards for Performance 2011-122012-132013-142010-112009-10 67 75 83 92 100 % Proficient Math 73 80 87 93 Reading % of students must pass in 2014

4 Student Groups Evaluated Performance Accountability Subset Participation All Students Enrolled Other Indicator Attendance & Graduation* All Students Group African American* Hispanic* White* Economically Disadvantaged* Special Education* Limited English Proficient* All Students Group African American* Hispanic* White* Economically Disadvantaged* Special Education* Limited English Proficient* All Students Group African American* Hispanic* White* Economically Disadvantaged* Special Education* Limited English Proficient* Provided that these groups meet the Minimum Size Requirement. 200 = Always Evaluated | 50-200 = Evaluated if equal to at least 10% of the All Student group *

5 AYP Status Labels Met AYP Missed AYP – (Reason) Reasons include: Math (Proficiency and/or Participation) Reading (Proficiency and/or Participation) Attendance Rate Graduation Rate

6

7 2 3 1 Accessing the AYP Report

8 2012 AYP Report Overview Page One Performance: Reading/ELA – 87% Proficient Reading Performance, 2011-2012 – Used to demonstrate proficiency. Reading Performance, 2010-2011 – Used to calculate improvement (Safe Harbor).

9

10 Performance: Mathematics – 83% Proficient Math Performance, 2011-2012 – Used to demonstrate proficiency. Math Performance, 2010-2011 – Used to calculate improvement (Safe Harbor). 2012 AYP Report Overview Page Two

11

12 Participation: Reading/ELA & Mathematics – 95% Participation Reading/ELA & Math Participation, 2011- 2012 – Used to demonstrate participation. Reading/ELA & Math Participation, 2010- 2011 – Used to calculate 2 year average, if needed. 2012 AYP Report Overview Page Three

13

14 Graduation Rate (75%) or Attendance Rate (90%) Graduation or Attendance Rate, 2011-2012 – Used to calculate whether or not the campus or district met the target rate. Graduation or Attendance Rate, 2010-2011 – Used to demonstrate improvement. 5 Year Longitudinal Graduation Rate, 2011- 2012 – Class of 2010 2012 AYP Report Overview Page Four

15

16 AYP Explanation Table Summarizes the results of the AYP report 2012 AYP Report Overview Page Five

17

18 2012 AYP Status Comfort ISD Campus Name2012 StatusStage Comfort Elementary School Missed AYP (Reading) Missed AYP (Math) None Comfort Middle SchoolMissed AYP (Math)Stage 1, Year 1 Math Comfort High SchoolMet AYPNone

19 CES – Reading 2010 – 73%2011- 80%2012– 87% AllMet HispanicMet Missed – 85% WhiteMet Econ. Disadv.Met Missed – 82% Special EducationN/A LEPN/A CES – Math 2010 – 67%2011- 75%2012– 83% AllMet Missed – 80% HispanicMet Missed – 74% WhiteMet Econ. Disadv.Met Missed – 72% Special EducationN/A LEPN/A

20 CMS – Reading 2010 – 73%2011- 80%2012– 87% AllMet HispanicMet Missed – 86% WhiteMet Econ. Disadv.Met Missed – 85% Special EducationN/A LEPN/A CMS – Math 2010 – 67%2011- 75%2012– 83% AllMet Missed – 79% HispanicMetMissed – 68%MET-RI WhiteMet Econ. Disadv.MetMissed – 67%MET-RI Special EducationN/A LEPN/A

21 CHS – Reading 2010 – 73%2011- 80%2012– 87% AllMet HispanicN/A WhiteN/A Econ. Disadv.N/A Special EducationN/A LEPN/A CHS – Math 2010 – 67%2011- 75%2012– 83% AllMetMissed – 70%MET- RI HispanicN/A WhiteN/A Econ. Disadv.N/A Special EducationN/A LEPN/A

22 2012 AYP Performance Reading/English Language Arts - (Grades 3-8 and 10)

23 2012 AYP Performance Mathematics- (Grades 3-8 and 10)

24 2012 AYP Participation Reading/English Language Arts - (Grades 3-8 and 10)

25 2012 AYP Participation Mathematics- (Grades 3-8 and 10)

26 2012 AYP Graduation Rate For High Schools and Districts with a 12 th Grade

Download ppt "Adequate Yearly Progress 2012 Comfort ISD. Measures Evaluated Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Reading/ELA."

Similar presentations

1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.

1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?

School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.

‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.

Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
1 Test Data Review and Adequate Yearly Progress. 2.

1 Test Data Review and Adequate Yearly Progress. 2.
1 The Ewing Public Schools 2011-12 Overview of NCLB Results presented by Dr. Danita Ishibashi Assistant Superintendent.

1 The Ewing Public Schools Overview of NCLB Results presented by Dr. Danita Ishibashi Assistant Superintendent.
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.
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.
AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.

AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.
Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.

Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.
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.
Accountability 101. State Accountability Federal Accountability # Students Met Standard # Students Tested If the Standard is not met: Apply Required.

Accountability 101. State Accountability Federal Accountability # Students Met Standard # Students Tested If the Standard is not met: Apply Required.
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.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)

Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
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.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google