Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A Single Accountability System New Jersey Districts and Schools

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "A Single Accountability System New Jersey Districts and Schools"— Presentation transcript:

1 A Single Accountability System New Jersey Districts and Schools
Welcome. Thank you for coming today and most of all…(point to the screen)…thank you for your anticipated attention! We will discuss the Single Accountability System as it relates to New Jersey public schools and districts, and schools identified in need of improvement. Some things may be familiar, but some things are also very new. Let’s begin with introductions… I am (state your name and office) and my colleagues are (state their names). Let’s begin. . . Developed by the Office of Title I Program Planning and Accountability, in collaboration with regional and county education offices, the Office of Educational Technology, the Office of Program Planning and Review (Abbott) , the Office of Grants Management, and the Office of Educational Programs and Assessments (NJPEP).

2 Presentation Overview
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and Accountability New Jersey School Improvement and Accountability New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) New Jersey Title I Program Accountability Presentation Overview This presentation will focus on the following four major areas. The components for this presentation are outlined on New Jersey’s Title I web site at Discuss briefly what will be covered under each of the areas. Section one: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and Accountability. This section will discuss the Achievement Gap among student subgroups and Adequate Yearly Progress. Section Two: School Improvement and Accountability in New Jersey. This section will discuss briefly the Collaborative Academic Performance Assessment (CAPA) process and the implementation of the process. The process is addressed in greater detail in the School Improvement module. Section Three: The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC). This section will highlight what the NJDOE is doing to implement a quality single accountability system for all students, districts and schools within the state of New Jersey. Section Four: Title I Program Accountability. This section will discuss, Comparability, the Consolidated State Performance Report, the monitoring of LEAs, the Title I Audit and the Consolidated NCLB application. Source:

3 Presentation Overview Section One
The No Child Left Behind Act and Accountability Measures to Close the Achievement Gap Adequate Yearly Progress Safe Harbor Presentation Overview: Section One This next series of slides will focus on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the implementation of accountability in New Jersey. We will discuss the achievement gap, adequate yearly progress and safe harbor. Source:

4 Historical Highlights
Jan. 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This new law focuses on accountability for all public schools, charter schools and districts across the nation. It represents some of the most significant changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965. Historical Highlights Many of you are aware that on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was reauthorized from the Improving America’s School Act of The act was reauthorized under President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002 and has been unprecedented in introducing sweeping reforms for public schools and districts across the nation. Refer to slide. Source:http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb

5 Accountability What is Accountability?
The No Child Left Behind Act is designed to change the culture of America's schools by closing the achievement gap, offering more flexibility, giving parents more options, and teaching students based on what works. States must describe how they will close the achievement gap and make sure all students achieve under the Act's accountability provisions, including those who are disadvantaged to achieve academic proficiency. States must produce annual state and school district report cards that inform parents and communities about state and school progress. Title I schools not making progress must provide public school choice, supplemental educational services, take corrective actions; and, if still not making adequate yearly progress after five years, make dramatic changes to the way the school is run. Accountability: What is it? This definition is taken from the federal No Child Left Behind web site and provides an understandable overview of what accountability means. It focuses on what states must do and by when and the outcome and choices that school must make that can not achieve state standards. Source: Unwarranted Intrusion Randomly Accountable

6 Accountability State Requirement for Accountability
The state of New Jersey is required to develop and implement a single, statewide state accountability system that will be effective in ensuring that all local educational agencies, public elementary schools, public secondary schools and charter schools make adequate yearly progress. Accountability: Requirements ACCOUNTABILITY- IN GENERAL- Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has developed and is implementing a single, statewide State accountability system that will be effective in ensuring that all local educational agencies, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools make adequate yearly progress as defined under this paragraph. Each State accountability system shall— be based on the academic standards and academic assessments adopted under paragraphs (1) and (3), and other academic indicators consistent with subparagraph (C)(vi) and (vii), and shall take into account the achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students; (2) be the same accountability system the State uses for all public elementary schools and secondary schools or all local educational agencies in the State, except that public elementary schools, secondary schools, and local educational agencies not participating under this part are not subject to the requirements of section 1116; and (3) include sanctions and rewards, such as bonuses and recognition, the State will use to hold local educational agencies and public elementary schools and secondary schools accountable for student achievement and for ensuring that they make adequate yearly progress in accordance with the State's definition under subparagraphs (B) and (C). Source:

7 NCLB HOLDS EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR STUDENT PERFORMANCE
What’s the Bottom Line? Accountability Principals Superintendents States Rigorous Testing Higher Standards Districts Teachers Parents Section Accountability It is important to understand that NCLB holds everyone accountability for the performance of students. The State is required to develop and implement a single, statewide state accountability system that will be effective in ensuring that all local educational agencies, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools make adequate yearly progress. Parents are supported in this process to ensure that children have the opportunities to meet the challenge standards. The single accountability system requires everyone to take part in increasing the academic development of children, especially children in Title I schools. Teachers, Principals, Superintendents, Districts, Schools, States and Parents are all needed to assist with students achieving to high standards. The single accountability requires testing in grades 3 to 8, higher standards, rewards and sanctions for schools in need of improvement. The purpose of the testing is to timely review deficiencies in student learning, so that educators will be able to better instruct students. Student Performance Schools NCLB HOLDS EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR STUDENT PERFORMANCE The Single Accountability System Supports and Encourages Everyone to be Involved!

8 Education Reform through Accountability
The act contains four basic education reform principles: increased focus on accountability, increased flexibility and local control, expanded educational options for parents, and focus on research-based methods and practices. Education Reform through Accountability The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 focuses on four critical areas. (refer to slide) However we will focus on the measures for increasing accountability that states, districts and school must comply with.

9 Achievement Gap The SEA and LEA must use the annual review
of school progress primarily to determine: if a school has made adequate progress toward all students meeting or exceeding the State’s student academic achievement standards by , and if a school has narrowed the achievement gap. Narrowing the Achievement Gap Read Slide. Section 1111 – State Plans ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS- Each State plan shall demonstrate, based on academic assessments described in paragraph (3), and in accordance with this paragraph, what constitutes adequate yearly progress of the State, and of all public elementary schools, secondary schools, and local educational agencies in the State, toward enabling all public elementary school and secondary school students to meet the State's student academic achievement standards, while working toward the goal of narrowing the achievement gaps in the State, local educational agencies, and schools. The SEA and LEA use the annual review of school progress primarily to determine (1) if a school has made adequate progress toward all students meeting or exceeding the State’s student academic achievement standards by , and (2) if a school has narrowed the achievement gap. The results of the annual review also provide the SEA and LEA with detailed, useful information that they can use to develop or refine technical assistance strategies they employ with schools. Sources: School Improvement and LEA Guidance: School Improvement Status Letter: Supplemental Educational Services Guidance:

10 Achievement Gap All U.S. students are performing better on tests than 30 years ago. Every racial/ethnic subgroup has made gains in achievement during the past 25 to 30 year. African-American and Hispanic students are still academically behind their white and Asian counterparts. Achievement Gap Let’s define what the achievement gap is. Despite long-term progress by African American and Hispanic students, the gaps on various standardized test remain wide. In certain incidences it is reported that there is a 30 point score gap on test results. The following test trends have been compiled by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The gaps have been reported steadily in the both the African American and Hispanic student population. Source: It takes more than testing: Closing the Achievement Gap, A Report of the Center on Education Policy, prepared by Nancy Kober April 2001 NAEP 1999

11 By Race, Ethnicity 4th Grade Reading 2003
The number of proficient, basic and below basic students by race and ethnicity still illustrate an achievement gap. Source EdTrust.org

12 NJ NAEP 8th Grade Mathematics Race, Ethnicity 2003

13 Of Every 100 White Kindergartners:
These next few slides further illustrate the achievement gap. (24 Year-Olds) Source: US Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Educational Attainment in the United States; March 2000, Detailed Tables No. 2

14 Of Every 100 African American Kindergartners:
(24 Year-Olds) Source: US Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Educational Attainment in the United States; March 2000, Detailed Tables No. 2

15 Of Every 100 Latino Kindergartners:
(24 Year-Olds) Source: US Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Educational Attainment in the United States; March 2000, Detailed Tables No. 2

16 Of Every 100 American Indian/Alaskan Native Kindergartners
(24 Year Olds)

17 Achievement Gap According to the 1999 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) The average reading score of black students at age 17 was the same as that of white students at age of 13. African American and Latino 17 year olds read at same levels as white 13 year olds. The average science scores of black and Hispanic students at age 13 was lower than white students at age 9. The average math score for black students at the age of 13 was more than 30 points below white 13 year-old students. The average science score for Hispanic students at age 9 was equivalent to more than three grade levels behind that of whites at age 9. Achievement Gap Let’s take a look at what areas that there remain achievement gaps. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has reported. (refer to slide) Additionally, the Center on Education Policy compiled a synthesize of the findings and uncovered trends, findings, and policy options. The achievement gap has not received enough attention in the current debate and media reports. Source: It takes more than testing: Closing the Achievement Gap, A Report of the Center on Education Policy, prepared by Nancy Kober April 2001 NAEP 1999

18 African American and Latino 17 year olds do math at same levels as white 13 year olds
Mathematics Chart Illustration The following chart illustrates the trends among white, Latino and African Americans in the subject area of mathematics. This chart has been summarized from NAEP findings. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as "the Nation's Report Card," is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts. Source: NAEP 1999 Long Term Trends Summary Source: NAEP 1999 Long Term Trends Summary Tables (online)

19 African American and Latino 17 year olds read at same levels as white 13 year olds
Language Arts Literacy Chart Illustration The following chart illustrates the trends among white, Latino and African Americans in the subject area of mathematics. This chart has been summarized from NAEP findings. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as "the Nation's Report Card," is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts. Source: Source: NAEP 1999 Long Term Trends Summary Tables (online)

20 Achievement Gap What Do We Know
The gap shrunk during the 1970’s and 1980’s as African-American and Hispanic students made substantial gains in achievement, while the achievement of white students changed little. This gains occurred when Head Start, Title I and other federal programs sought to improve educational opportunities and reduce poverty. These policy interventions appear to have made a difference. Achievement Gap Let’s take a look at what we know about the achievement gap. Federal programs such as Head Start and Title I have made a difference in closing the gap. Standards-based reform has highlighted the fact that many students are performing below expectations, and that a disproportionate number are African American and Hispanic students. Racial/ethnic differences in family income and parent education can explain some of the differences, but not all, of the achievement gaps. Studies have shown that a racial/ethnic achievement gap exists among students from families with high levels of income and parent education. There are numerous other racial/ethnic background differences from cumulative family wealth to grandparents’ education that may influence learning. Source: It takes more than testing: Closing the Achievement Gap, A Report of the Center on Education Policy, prepared by Nancy Kober April 2001 NAEP 1999

21 NAEP: State Comparisons
New Jersey’s 4th grade reading students achieved the 3rd highest ranked average scale score in the U.S. in 2003. 228 = CT, MA, NH 226 = VT 225 = NJ NAEP: State Comparative Data The following slide illustrates that collection of data concerning the rank for New Jersey public schools in comparison to other states. Source: NAEP It takes more than testing: Closing the Achievement Gap, A Report of the Center on Education Policy, prepared by Nancy Kober April 2001 Improving Achievement and Closing Gaps between Groups, Ed Trust 2003

22 NAEP vs. NJ Assessments NJ Assessments NAEP Grades 3, 4, 8, & 11
Same test booklets Results for the student, school, and district Feedback to students, parents, teachers, administrators, etc. NAEP Grades 4, 8, &12 Different combination of item blocks Results at the state/ national levels only Research-based focus/procedures.

23 NAEP 2003: Comparison of 4th-grade Reading
NAEP Data NAEP 2003: Comparison of 4th-grade Reading Scale Scores NAEP: State Comparative Data The following slide illustrates that collection of data concerning the rank for New Jersey public schools in comparison to other states. Source: NAEP It takes more than testing: Closing the Achievement Gap, A Report of the Center on Education Policy, prepared by Nancy Kober April 2001 Improving Achievement and Closing Gaps between Groups, Ed Trust 2003

24 NAEP 2003: Percent of NJ and the Nation’s Students At or Above Proficient
NAEP: State Comparative Data The following slide illustrates that collection of data concerning the rank for New Jersey public schools in comparison to other grade levels. Source: NAEP It takes more than testing: Closing the Achievement Gap, A Report of the Center on Education Policy, prepared by Nancy Kober April 2001 Improving Achievement and Closing Gaps between Groups, Ed Trust 2003

25 National Data ( ) Average Scale Scores and Achievement-Level Results in Reading by Race/Ethnicity Average Scale Scores In Reading, By Race/Ethnicity, Grade 4 The 2005 data provides us with information that the gap is closing, however not at dramatic rates. In 2005, at both grades 4 and 8, White and Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher, on average, than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students. Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native students scored higher, on average, than Black students. In 2005, White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander fourth-graders had higher average scores and higher percentages of students performing at or above Basic than in Also, average scores for Black and Hispanic fourth-graders increased between 2003 and 2005. White, Black, and Hispanic eighth-graders had higher average scores and higher percentages of students at or above Basic in 2005 than in 1992, but White eighth-graders had a lower average score and a lower percentage at or above Basic in 2005 than in 2003 Reading Results for Student Groups at Grade 4 The average scores for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students increased between 1992 and Looking at the short-term trend, Black and Hispanic students each scored higher on average in 2005 than in The White-Black and White-Hispanic score gaps narrowed during this same time. Students who were eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch and those who were not eligible had higher average scores in 2005 than in In the short term, students who were eligible showed a 2-point increase from 2003 to 2005. In 2005, female students scored higher on average than male students. Male students’ average score increased by 3 points from 1992 to 2005. Source: Source: NAEP 2005 Long Term Trends Summary Table

26 National Data (1992-2005) National Data (1992-2005)
Average Scale Scores and Achievement-Level Results in Mathematics by Race/Ethnicity The 2005 data provides us with information that the gap is closing, however not at dramatic rates. AVERAGE SCALE SCORES IN MATHEMATICS, BY RACE/ETHNICITY, GRADE 4: In 2005, at both grades 4 and 8, White and Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher, on average, than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students. Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native students scored higher on average than Black students. White, Black, and Hispanic students at both grades 4 and 8 had higher average scores and higher percentages of students performing at or above Basic in 2005 than in 1990. Source: NAEP 2005 Long Term Trends Summary Tables

27 Education Reform through Accountability
Why is education reform important? Education Reform through Accountability The question remains and has been challenged by everyone. Have states been able to accomplish any of the goals that have been set forth under federal mandates and requirements? Proceed to next slide.

28 Classes in high poverty high schools more often taught by misassigned
Classes in high poverty high schools more often taught by misassigned* teachers Misassigned Teachers This illustration refers to the frequency of poverty school with teachers with misassigned credentials. Source: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future (p.16) 1996. Improving Achievement and Closing Gaps between Groups, Ed Trust 2003 *Teachers who lack a major or minor in the field Source: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future (p.16) 1996.

29 Math and science classes of mostly minority students are more often taught by misassigned teachers
This illustration refers to the frequency of poverty school with teachers with misassigned credentials in math and science classes. Source: Jeannie Oakes. Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science (Rand: 1990) National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future (p.16) 1996. Improving Achievement and Closing Gaps between Groups, Ed Trust 2003 Source: Jeannie Oakes. Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science (Rand: 1990)

30 Poor and minority students get more inexperienced* teachers
Misassigned Teachers This illustration refers to the frequency of poverty school with teachers with less experience. Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Monitoring Quality: An Indicators Report,” December 2000. *Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience. “High” and “low” refer to top and bottom quartiles. Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Monitoring Quality: An Indicators Report,” December 2000.

31 High-poverty schools get more low-scoring* teachers
Misassigned Teachers This illustration refers to the frequency of poverty school with teachers with lower grade point averages. Source: Education Week, “Quality Counts 2001,” January 2001 *Teachers scoring in the bottom quartile on on SAT/ACT. “High-poverty” schools have 2/3 or more students eligible for reduced-price lunch. Source: Education Week, “Quality Counts 2001,” January 2001.

32 Education Reform through Accountability
Let’s take a look at what states are trying to accomplish to to close the gaps through accountability Education Reform through Accountability Proceed to next slide.

33 Accountability NCLB State Report Card
States and districts are required to prepare and disseminate school report cards. NCLB Report Cards are a strong tool for determining school improvement for accountability NCLB reports by student subgroups to provide information on testing in certain grades and subject areas and provide information on closing the achievement gap. Section 1111 (d) Report Cards The Report Card provides vital information on what each child (student) is learning in school. It provides information on testing in all grades and all subject areas. The state and district must prepare an annual report card in order for parents to know what the child and school is accomplishing. All states and local education agencies (LEAs) receiving Title I funds must prepare and disseminate annual report cards. School report cards are critical tools for promoting accountability for schools, local school districts, and States by publicizing data about student performance and program effectiveness for parents, policy makers, and other stakeholders School Report Cards. The Annual School Report Card should contain the following information in compliance with federal regulation. (refer to slide) The state of New Jersey has published a school improvement school report card and a general report at New Jersey School Report Cards - When presenting disaggregated data on report cards, States and LEAs must ensure that the data presented are statistically reliable. As part of each State’s approved accountability plan under Title I, each State has identified a minimum number of students for reporting purposes. For example, if a State has identified 10 as its minimum group size (“n—size”) to ensure statistical reliability for reporting purposes, a State and its districts and schools will not report data for any subgroup for which there are fewer than 10 students. In addition to ensuring that the data presented in report cards are statistically reliable, States, districts, and schools must also ensure that the data they report do not reveal personally identifiable information about individual students. To ensure quality states and LEAs are encouraged to follow data quality provisions under the Department’s Data Quality Guidelines. On October 3, 2002, the Department of Education published in the Federal Register (67 FR 62043) a notice of availability of these guidelines. Both the notice and the guidelines can be found at the following site: Source: A Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting (Council of Chief State School Officers, December 2002) suggests that States develop a dissemination plan for all their reports, including report cards. This guide lists several issues States and LEAs may wish to consider for both print and Internet dissemination of report cards. Please see for more information. No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance - States and LEAs may use whatever format they determine to be most effective in presenting information in a concise, understandable manner. To the extent practicable, information in report cards should be provided in a language and format that parents can understand. A Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting (CCSSO, December 2000, page 31) points out that an effective accountability report is— Easy to read; Accessible to the target audiences both physically and linguistically; Accompanied by adequate interpretive information; Supported by evidence that the indicators, other information, and suggested interpretations are valid; and Coordinated across paper and electronic versions of report cards. State School Report Cards Beginning the school year, unless the State has received a 1 year extension, the State is required to prepare and disseminate an annual State report card. The report card should be presented in an understandable and uniform format, and in a language that parents can understand. District School Report Cards Beginning the school year, a district receiving funds is required to prepare and disseminate an annual local educational agency report, except the State may provide the LEA with a one year extension due to exceptional or unforeseen circumstances. LEAs must disseminate district and school report cards to: (1) All schools served by the local educational agency; (2) All parents of students attending those schools; and (3) The community, through public means, such as posting on the Internet, distribution to the media, and distribution through public agencies, public libraries, etc. Source:No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111

34 Assessment Data NCLB State Report Cards
States are required to report the following about assessment data: Information on student achievement disaggregated in seven categories. [Total population, race and ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, limited English proficiency, and economic status.] Information on student achievement at each proficiency level 2-year trends in student achievement (all subject areas & grade level) Assessment Data The following three components of assessment data must include all students in the grades tested in the State, not just those students enrolled for a full academic year, as defined by the State. At a minimum, States must provide assessment data from their reading/language arts and mathematics assessments. Beginning with assessment data from the school year, States must also provide data from their science assessments. For each grade and subject tested, the State report card must include— Information on the percentage of students tested. States must report the percentage of students not tested or the inverse, the percentage of students tested. Either approach is acceptable. This information must be disaggregated by the following subgroups: All Students Major Racial & Ethnic groups Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Economically disadvantaged Migrant[1] Gender1 2. Information on student achievement at each proficiency level (e.g., advanced, proficient, partially proficient) disaggregated by the same seven subgroups: 3. The most recent 2-year trend data in student achievement for each subject and for each grade. * Note that the subgroups of migrant and gender are subgroups for reporting purposes only and are not among the required subgroups for adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations. Source: A Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting (Council of Chief State School Officers, December 2002) suggests that States develop a dissemination plan for all their reports, including report cards. for more information. No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance -

35 Accountability Data NCLB State Report Cards
States are required to report the following on accountability data: Comparative information Information on indicators used to determine AYP Information on number and the performance of districts making AYP Accountability Data The three components of accountability data required on State report cards are a comparison between student achievement levels and the State’s annual measurable objectives in reading/language arts and mathematics, data on student performance on the State’s additional academic indicators used in making adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations, and information on LEAs and schools making AYP. Section One - A comparison between the actual achievement levels and the State’s annual measurable objectives in reading/language arts and mathematics for the seven subgroups. Section Two - Information on the other academic indicators used by the State for AYP determinations, including the graduation rate for high schools and the State’s “additional academic indicator(s)” for elementary and middle schools, as each are defined by the State in its approved accountability plan. This information must be disaggregated for the following seven subgroups. Section Three - Information on AYP, including the number and names of each LEA and school identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring, under Section 1116, for LEAs and schools receiving Title I, Part A funds. Source: No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance -

36 Teacher Quality Data NCLB State Report Cards
State are required to report the following on teacher quality data: Professional qualifications of all public elementary and secondary school teachers. Percentage of all public elementary and secondary school teachers with emergency or provisional credentials Percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers. Teacher Quality Data For public elementary and secondary school teachers in the State, States must provide information for the following three components: The professional qualifications of all public elementary and secondary school teachers in the State, as defined by the State (e.g., bachelors and advanced degrees, licensure); The percentage of all public elementary and secondary school teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials; and The percentage of classes in the State not taught by highly qualified teachers (as the term is defined in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools which (for this purpose) means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. The requirement that teachers be highly qualified, as defined in Section 9103(23) of the ESEA, applies to public elementary and secondary school teachers who teach a core academic subject. For purposes of reporting information on the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers, States must only report on elementary and secondary classes in the core academic subjects. The term “core academic subject” means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography (Title IX, Section 9101(11)). What optional information may States include on the State report card? School attendance rates, Average class size in each grade, achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited English proficient students, school violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, student suspensions, and student expulsions, parental involvement in the schools, percentage of students completing advanced placement courses, and the rate of passing advanced placement tests (such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and courses for college credit), a description of the State’s accountability system, including a description of the criteria by which the State evaluates school performance, and the criteria that the State has established to determine the status of schools regarding school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring. Source: A Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting (Council of Chief State School Officers, December 2002) suggests that States develop a dissemination plan for all their reports, including report cards. for more information. No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance -

37 District Level Accountability NCLB District Report Card
Let’s Take A Look at District Report Cards LEA Report Cards School report cards are a strong tool for determining school improvement for accountability. They provide information on testing in all grades and subject areas and provide information on closing the achievement gap. Let’s review district school report cards. Source:No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance -

38 State and District Report Cards Annual Report Cards- Section 1111
All states (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) receiving Title I funds must prepare and disseminate annual report cards. State Report Cards Beginning the school year, unless the State has received a 1 year extension, the State is required to prepare and disseminate an annual State report card. The report card should be presented in an understandable and uniform format, and in a language that parents can understand. District School Report Cards Beginning the school year, a LEA receiving funds is required to prepare and disseminate an annual local educational agency report, except the State may provide the LEA with a one year extension due to exceptional or unforeseen circumstances. Section 1111 (d) –Report Cards The Report Card provides vital information on what each student is learning in school. It provides information on testing in all grades and all subject areas. The state and district must prepare an annual report card in order for parents to know what the child and school is accomplishing. All states and local education agencies (LEAs) receiving Title I funds must prepare and disseminate annual report cards. State and local school district report cards are critical tools for promoting accountability for schools, local school districts, and States by publicizing data about student performance and program effectiveness for parents, policy makers, and other stakeholders School Report Cards: The Annual School Report Card should contain the following information in compliance with federal regulations all school report cards must include: 1. Information, in the aggregate, on student achievement, at each proficiency level on the State academic assessments (disaggregated by (1) race,and ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) disability status, (4) migrant status, (5) English proficiency, and (6) status as economically disadvantaged); 2. The percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by the same categories and subject to the same exception); 3. The most recent 2-year trend in student achievement in each subject area, and for each grade level; 4. Aggregate information on any other indicators used by the State to determine the adequate yearly progress of students in achieving State academic standards; 5. Graduation rates for secondary school students; 6. Information on the performance of local educational agencies in the State regarding making adequate yearly progress, including the number and names of each school identified for school improvement; 7. Information on the professional qualifications of teachers in the State, the percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the State not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregate by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools; and 8. Information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement level of each group of students described and the State's annual measurable objectives for each group of students on each of the academic assessments. Source:No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance -

39 Assessment Data NCLB District School Report Card
Districts are required to report the following components of assessment data: The percentage of students tested Student achievement at each proficiency level (i.e., advanced, proficient, partially proficient) disaggregated by the seven subgroups Performance of students in the district on State academic assessments compared to students in the State as a whole The most recent 2-year trend data in student achievement for each subject and for each grade District (LEA) Report Cards Assessment Information The following four components of assessment data must include all students in the grades tested in the LEA as a whole and all students in the grades tested in each school served by the LEA, not just those students enrolled for a full academic year, as defined by the State. At a minimum, an LEA must provide assessment data from its State’s reading/language arts and mathematics assessments. For each grade and subject tested, the LEA report card must include for the LEA as a whole and for each school served by the LEA, including non Title-I schools: Information on the percentage of students tested. LEAs must report the percentage of students not tested or the inverse, the percentage of students tested. Either approach is acceptable. This information must be disaggregated by the seven subgroup areas Information on student achievement at each proficiency level (e.g., advanced, proficient, basic, below basic), disaggregated by the seven subgroup areas. Information that shows how students in the LEA achieved on State academic assessments as compared to students in the State as a whole; and for each school in the LEA information that shows how students in the school achieved on State assessments as compared to students in the LEA as a whole and as compared to students in the State as a whole. The most recent 2-year trend data in student achievement for each subject and for each grade. Note that the subgroups of migrant and gender are subgroups for reporting purposes only and are not among the required subgroups for adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations. Source: No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance - Source:No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111

40 Accountability Data NCLB District Report Card
Districts are required to report the following on accountability data: A comparison between the actual achievement levels of students in the LEA as a whole and for each school within the LEA. Secondary indicators used to determine AYP (i.e., attendance rate and graduation rate) Additional information that must be included on the district report card includes: total number of schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring) LEA Report Cards Accountability Data The three components of accountability data required on LEA report cards include a comparison between student achievement levels and the State’s annual measurable objectives in reading/language arts and mathematics, data on student performance on the State’s additional academic indicators used in making AYP determinations, and information on LEAs and schools making AYP. A comparison between the actual achievement levels of students in the LEA as a whole and for each school within the LEA and the State’s annual measurable objectives in reading/language arts and mathematics for the following subgroups: Note that the subgroups of migrant and gender are subgroups for reporting purposes only and are not among the required subgroups for adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations. All Students Major Racial & Ethnic Groups Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Economically Disadvantaged In presenting this comparison, LEAs should report student assessment scores used by the LEA to make AYP determinations at the LEA level. Schools should report student assessment scores used to make AYP determinations at the school level. These are the assessment scores of students enrolled for a full academic year, as defined by the State in its approved accountability plan. Information on the other academic indicators used for AYP determinations, including the graduation rate for high schools and the State’s “additional academic indicator (s)” for elementary and middle school, as each are defined by the State in its approved accountability plan. This information must be disaggregated for the subgroups. Source: No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance -

41 Teacher Quality Data NCLB District Report Cards
Districts are required to report the following about teacher quality data: The professional qualifications of all public elementary and secondary school teachers, as defined by the State (e.g., bachelors and advanced degrees, licensure) The percentage of all public elementary and public school teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials The percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers Teacher Quality Data For every public elementary and secondary school teacher in an LEA, the LEA must provide, for the district as a whole and for each school within the district, information for the following three components: The professional qualifications of all public elementary and secondary school teachers, as defined by the State (e.g., bachelors and advanced degrees, licensure); The percentage of all public elementary and public school teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials; and The percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers (as the term is defined in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools which (for this purpose) means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. The requirement that teachers be highly qualified, as defined in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA, applies to public elementary and secondary school teachers who teach a core academic subject. For purposes of reporting information on the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers, LEAs must only report on elementary and secondary classes in the core academic subjects. The term “core academic subject” means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography (Title IX, Section 9101(11)). Source: No Child Left Behind Act of Congress 1st Session – Title I -http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 New Jersey School Report Cards - School Report Cards- Non-Regulatory Guidance -

42 Stronger Accountability Standards and Assessments
Beginning in the school year, schools must administer tests in each of three grade spans: 3-5, 6-9, and in all schools. By the school year, schools must administer tests every year in grades 3 through 8 and once in grades By the school year, states must develop standards in science Beginning in the school year, states must administer tests in science. Accountability: Standards and Assessments To implement NCLB accountability, according to the NCLB rigorous testing is required to assess the deficiency of students at various grade check points. State are now required to develop standards in Science and a assessment aligned to the standards. It is important to know that the state of New Jersey has begun the process of developing the standards and assessment required under law. In 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act required states to develop standards and assessments. Therefore, in May of 1996 the state of New Jersey adopted a set of Core Curriculum Content Standards that outlined what students should know and be able to do and assessments aligned to those standards. No Child Left Behind has required additional testing and the development of the science standards and aligned assessment. Science is not considered for determining AYP. The state administers the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK) in grade 4, the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment in grade 8 and the High School Proficiency Assessment in grade 11.

43 Assessment Guidelines
NCLB requirements for assessing students At least 95 percent of each student group must participate in the assessment process. Students who have been enrolled for less than one academic year will not be included in the accountability process. Students with disabilities may be assessed with accommodations or an Alternative Proficiency Assessment (A.P.A.). Assessment Guidelines The following two critical questions are important to insure that the district has adhered to the guidelines for assessing student. Districts and schools are now required to test at least 95 percent of each student group. Did 95% of all students enrolled in the school, as of July 1st for grade 4 and September 15 for grade 8 & 11, participate in the assessment, including LEP and special education students? Did 95% of all students within each student subgroup participate in the assessment? (Subgroups include: racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.) If a school or district answers “no” to either question, than adequate yearly progress has not been made. Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA): A test designed for those students with disabilities who are unable to participate in the general statewide assessments. Any student that has not been enrolled in the school by July 1 (except those who transfer from a school within the same LEA), would take the test, but the results would not be included in the school’s profile. Special education students are required to take the regular assessment or the APA. The federal regulations specify a limit for the number of students taking the APA and passing at 1% for inclusion in the AYP calculations. All other students above the 1% limit (passing or not) are considered partially proficient. Sources: Consolidated Accountability Workbook Understanding Accountability in New Jersey USDOE Guidance Web site: NJDOE Guidance Web site:

44 AYP Sample Chart School Improvement – The Process
This chart illustrates how a school makes AYP.

45 Accountability Guidelines
Students with disabilities and LEP students who are moved from their neighborhood school to receive services at another school are included in their home school’s accountability process. Students with limited English proficiency must be assessed. Accommodations are permissible. Accountability through Standards and Assessments: Guidelines Students with disabilities and limited English proficiency must also be assessed. Students with disabilities who are moved from their neighborhood school to receive services at other schools will be included in their home school’s accountability process. LEP students must also be assessed, with accommodations. Students with disabilities who are moved from their neighborhood school to receive services at other schools will be included in their home school’s accountability process. Students with limited English proficiency must also be assessed, with accommodations; translation of directions, longer test time and use of bilingual dictionaries. Sources: Consolidated Accountability Workbook Understanding Accountability in New Jersey USDOE Guidance Web site: NJDOE Guidance Web site:

46 Adequate Yearly Progress
Each state must establish a definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to measure the yearly incremental progress of schools in reaching 100 percent proficiency by the school year. Each state must establish a minimum standard for percentage of students proficient for each year during that period. Under NCLB, states are required to calculate the participation rates and student performance of all students on the state assessments. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) In New Jersey, those schools that do not meet state standards for two consecutive years, are expected to make incremental progress toward attaining standards by Every state is required to set AYP starting points based on data. Definition of AYP: AYP is a method of determining progress of student success within the local school. AYP is used to establish subgroup and school compliance with the incremental goals of success and achievement of the state’s established benchmark for success. State Flexibility: States are required to define their own definition of AYP. Under NCLB, each state must establish a definition of “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) to use each year to determine the achievement of each school district and school. The new definition of AYP is diagnostic in nature, and intended to highlight where schools need improvement and should focus their resources. The statute gives states and LEAs significant flexibility in how they direct resources and tailor interventions to the needs of individual schools identified for improvement. The Aggregate: AYP must be met for the whole, the aggregate, and for each of the subgroups (disaggregated). Race/ethnicity: White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific, Native American, and other. To meet AYP, the total school and all subgroups must attain the benchmarks for total school, race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged status, limited English proficient (LEP), disabled, and secondary measures. DEFINITION- Adequate yearly progress' shall be defined by the State in a manner that-- (i) applies the same high standards of academic achievement to all public elementary school and secondary school students in the State; is statistically valid and reliable; results in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students; measures the progress of public elementary schools, secondary schools and local educational agencies and the State based primarily on the academic assessments described in paragraph (3); includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for each of the following: (I) The achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students. (II) The achievement of-- (aa) economically disadvantaged students; (bb) students from major racial and ethnic groups; (cc) students with disabilities; and (dd) students with limited English proficiency; Handout USDOE Web site: AYP Starting Points NJDOE Web site: Understanding Accountability in New Jersey Source: Title I web site

47 Preliminary Starting Points for AYP in New Jersey
ESPA GEPA HSPA Language Arts/Literacy 68 58 73 Mathematics 53 39 55 State of New Jersey AYP Starting Points Under NCLB, states are required to use spring 2002 assessment results to identify the starting points for the AYP standard for Title I schools and districts. The starting points are as follows: Language Arts Literacy Starting points were established for language arts/literacy and math for the: 4th, 8th, and 11th grades. NJASK – New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge - 68 GEPA – Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment - 58 HSPA – High School Proficiency Assessment - 73 Mathematics NJASK – New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge - 53 GEPA – Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment - 39 HSPA – High School Proficiency Assessment - 55 Source: Handout USDOE Web site: AYP Starting Points NJDOE Web site: Understanding Accountability in New Jersey Source: Title I web site NJDOE Web site: AYP Calculator and Understanding Accountability in New Jersey

48 Establishing Adequate Yearly Progress
States are required to raise the standard once in the first two years, then at least every three years afterward. Standards will be raised 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2014. In 2014 all groups must attain 100% proficiency in language arts/literacy and math. Adequate Yearly Progress Read Slide. Please refer to the following illustration. Source: USDOE Web site: AYP Starting Points NJDOE Web site: Understanding Accountability in New Jersey Source: Title I web site NJDOE Web site: AYP Calculator and Understanding Accountability in New Jersey

49 Incremental Increases in Expectations
2003 Starting Point 2005 2008 2011 2014 Language Arts/Literacy Elementary Grades 3& 4 68 75 82 91 100 Middle Grades 6,7, & 8 58 66 76 87 Grade 11 73 79 85 92 Math Grades 3, 4, & 5 53 62 Grades 6, 7, & 8 39 49 55 64 74 86 Starting Point and Incremental Expectations Please refer to page 7 of Understanding Accountability in New Jersey to assist you in understanding how starting points are determined for the years until The chart used shows the incremental progress from benchmark to benchmark. These increments must be achieved in the given year in order for the school to be compliant with AYP requirements. The incremental expectations increase every three years until 2014. AYP Increments: Example In order to meet AYP goals for and , the school population as a whole, as well as specific subgroups of students, are expected to meet or exceed the following percentages. Percent of Students Proficient by Subject Language Arts Literacy (Reading/Writing) − NJASK 68%, GEPA 58%, HSPA 73% Mathematics − NJASK 53%, GEPA 39%, HSPA 55% The AYP goals will increase in future years until, as required, all students are proficient in In addition, by the school year, tests must be administered every year in grades 3 through 8 and one year in grade span States must develop standards in science by the school year. Beginning in the school year, science achievement must also be tested. Sources: Consolidated Accountability Workbook Understanding Accountability in New Jersey USDOE Guidance Web site: NJDOE Guidance Web site:

50 School-level Accountability
Each school’s proficiency data in reading and math for each student subgroup will be compared to the statewide benchmark. Results for subgroups with fewer than 20 students will be suppressed or excluded from the analysis. Results for 35 or less students with disabilities are excluded. Results for 40 students or less are excluded for participation. A misclassification rate of 5% is applied. “Safe harbor” may be reached if the percentage of students not meeting AYP has decreased by 10% from the previous school year. School Level Accountability To meet AYP, each school and district must meet the following criteria: 95% Participation: Students as a whole and each student subgroup above 40 students must have a participation rate of 95% or above on state assessments. Meet or Exceed Proficiency: Students as a whole and each student subgroup must meet the state’s measurable AYP goals regarding the percentage of students scoring proficient or better on the state assessments. For performance calculations, subgroups must have at least 20 students; at least 35 for students with disabilities. Secondary Measure: Each school, school district, and the state as a whole must show progress on an additional measure (graduation/dropout rate for high school and attendance rate for elementary and middle schools). The secondary measure must also be met for safe harbor calculations for any student subgroup. Refer to slide. Sources: Consolidated Accountability Workbook Understanding Accountability in New Jersey USDOE Guidance Web site: NJDOE Guidance Web site:

51 “Safe-Harbor”-Students Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress
2002 Results Show 30% LEP students are proficient and 70% are not proficient (failure rate) Then 10% of 70% = 7% increase in proficient rate Then 30% pass + 7% proficiency increase = 37% proficient rate needed for LEP students to make safe harbor AYP Chart with Safe Harbor For each student subgroup that fails to attain the state benchmark, then a safe harbor determination will be made. Essentially this is a measure of improvement for subgroups. To determine whether a subgroup made safe harbor, the pass rate for the group from the previous year is compared to the current year’s pass rate. If the failure rate from the previous year is decreased by 10%, the group has made safe harbor. For example, the subgroup is limited English proficient (LEP) students; in 2002, 30 percent of the LEP students scored proficient. Thus, there was a 70 percent failure rate. If the failure rate is reduced by 10%, this student group will make safe harbor. The safe harbor calculation is indicated on the slide. The term “Safe Harbor” is only applicable if the total school performance meets AYP from the previous year. If the performance of a subgroup did not reach the objective for AYP, it may still be considered as having met state objectives for AYP, if the failure rate of the subgroup was reduced by 10% from one year to the next. Sources: AYP Starting Points

52 Presentation Overview Section Two
School Improvement and Accountability in New Jersey Presentation Overview This next series of slides will focus on School Improvement and Accountability in New Jersey. We have fully addressed the area of school improvement in the School Improvement module however, because accountability is directly related to school improvement we will briefly discuss the process. The components for this presentation are outlined on New Jersey’s Title I web site at Source:

53 School Improvement Identification
There is a direct correlation between school improvement and accountability. The State and district the annual review of school progress primarily to determine (1) if a school has made adequate yearly progress toward all students meeting or exceeding the State’s student academic achievement standards by , and (2) if a school has narrowed the achievement gap. Schools that have not made adequate yearly progress for two consecutive school years in the same content area will be identified as in need of improvement. School Improvement Identification Refer to Slide. As you can see school improvement refers to accountability and adequate yearly progress which was discussed previously. The SEA and LEA use the annual review of school progress primarily to determine (1) if a school has made adequate progress toward all students meeting or exceeding the State’s student academic achievement standards by , and (2) if a school has narrowed the achievement gap. The results of the annual review also provide the SEA and LEA with detailed, useful information that they can use to develop or refine technical assistance strategies they employ with schools. Section 1116: Notification of School Improvement (E) Local District Responsibility - A local educational agency shall promptly provide to a parent or parents (in an understandable and uniform format and, in a language the parents can understand of each student enrolled in an elementary school or a secondary school identified for school improvement. The New Jersey Department of Education has posted letters on the Title I web site and a copy of the notification has been submitted in the NCLB sub grant. The local district should also offer the following explanations concerning the schools identification as in need of improvement: The notice should include: An explanation of what the identification means, How the school compares in terms of academic achievement to other elementary schools or secondary schools served by the local educational agency and the State educational agency involved; The reasons for the identification; An explanation of what the school identified for school improvement is doing to address the problem of low achievement; An explanation of what the local educational agency or State educational agency is doing to help the school address the achievement problem; An explanation of how the parents can become involved in addressing the academic issues that caused the school to be identified for school improvement; and An explanation of the parents' option to transfer their child to another public school under paragraphs (with transportation provided by the agency when required by paragraph (9)) or to obtain supplemental educational services for the child. Sources: School Improvement and LEA Guidance: School Improvement Status Letter: Supplemental Educational Services Guidance:

54 The Process of Schools Identified in Need of Improvement
Year of Improvement Status Sanctions Year 1 Does not make AYP Early warning; no sanctions Year 2 School in need of improvement Public school choice, technical assistance Year 3 Public school choice, supplemental educational services, technical assistance Year 4 School in need of improvement – corrective action Public school choice, supplemental educational services, corrective action, technical assistance Year 5 Does not make AYP- Restructuring 1- Planning Public school choice Supplemental educational services, corrective action, technical assistance and planning phase for restructuring of schools Year 6 Does not make AYP- Restructuring 2 - Implementation Supplemental educational services, corrective action, technical assistance. School staff may be reassigned, school may use options to become private charters or use other educational entities. The Process of Schools Identified in Need of Improvement SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – YEAR ONE – Early Warning Causes of School Improvement Status A school that does not make AYP for two consecutive years, as AYP is defined by the State’s accountability system, must be identified for school improvement. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – YEAR TWO Causes of School Improvement Status in year two If a school in school improvement status for one school year does not, during the course of that year, make AYP as it is defined by the State accountability system, it must be identified for year two of school improvement status. For example, if a school that implements year one of school improvement during the school year does not make AYP by the end of that year, it must implement year two during the school year. If, after two years of undergoing school improvement, implementing a school improvement plan, and receiving extensive technical assistance, a school still does not make adequate yearly progress, the SEA and LEA must identify it for corrective action. Identifying a school for corrective action signals the LEA’s intention to take greater control of the school’s management and to have a more direct hand in its decision-making. Sources: School Improvement and LEA Guidance: School Improvement Status Letter: Supplemental Educational Services Guidance:

55 The School Improvement Process Sanctions
Schools Identified in Need of Improvement Schools must receive technical assistance from the district to address the academic achievement problem that caused the school to be identified for improvement. Each school identified for improvement must develop a two year school improvement plan in consultation with parents, school staff, the district, and other experts. The plan must incorporate scientifically based strategies, professional development, extended learning time, strategies to promote effective parental involvement and mentoring of new teachers. Schools Identified in Need of Improvement Schools must receive technical assistance from the district to address the academic achievement problem that caused the school to be identified for improvement. Each school identified for improvement must develop a two year school improvement plan in consultation with parents, school staff, the district, and other experts. The plan must incorporate scientifically based strategies, professional development, extended learning time, strategies to promote effective parental involvement and mentoring of new teachers. Schools Identified in Need of Improvement The following requirements apply for Title I schools in in their first year of school improvement: (Year 2) Schools must receive technical assistance from the district to address the academic achievement problem that caused the school to be identified for improvement. The district is required to provide technical assistance as the school develops and implements their improvement plan. Each school identified for improvement must develop a two-year school improvement plan in consultation with parents, school staff, the district, and other experts. The plan must incorporate scientifically based strategies, professional development, extended learning time, strategies to promote effective parental involvement, and mentoring of new teachers. This improvement plan is part of the annual NCLB Consolidated Grant. A 10-percent reserve of the school’s Title I funds must be dedicated for professional development. All students are offered intradistrict public school choice. A 20-percent reserve of the district’s Title I funds must be dedicated for this purpose. The choice to attend another eligible district public school is available to all students enrolled in schools that are in the first year of improvement status and for subsequent years the school remains in improvement status. The sanctions increase in subsequent years if the school continues to miss AYP. All of the sanctions continue with additional requirements Year 3 - SES requirements Year 4 - Corrective Action Year 5 - Planning to Restructure Year 6 – Implement the Restructure Plan Sources: School Improvement and LEA Guidance: School Improvement Status Letter: Supplemental Educational Services Guidance:

56 Accountability for School Improvement
Collaborative Assessment & Planning for Achievement (CAPA) CAPA is a collaborative effort between the New Jersey Department of Education and local educators designed to empower schools and districts to go beyond current efforts to improve student achievement. The program strives to pinpoint obstacles to student achievement, identify needs, and develop solutions to improve school performance. Accountability for School Improvement: The Collaborative Assessment and Planning for Achievement (CAPA) Process The New Jersey Department of Education is working with rigor to assess the needs of school identified in need of improvement. A new process CAPA is a collaborative effort between the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) and local educators designed to empower schools and districts to go beyond current efforts to improve student achievement. The program strives to pinpoint obstacles to student achievement, identify needs, and develop solutions to improve school performance. CAPA is a thorough, well-defined review process with a successful track record in Kentucky. Ten-member teams, composed of highly skilled education professionals, will conduct on-site reviews of New Jersey’s under-achieving schools, starting in the school year. To assist in the review process, the NJDOE is asking all districts with schools identified as "in need of improvement" to assign highly skilled district educators to participate as team members in other districts. Source:

57 CAPA Standards Focus Area 1: Academic Performance
Curriculum Classroom Assessment and Evaluation Instruction Focus Area 2: Learning Environment School Culture Student, Family and Community Support Professional Growth, Development and Evaluation Focus Area 3: Efficiency Leadership Organizational Structure and Resources Comprehensive and Effective Planning CAPA Standards Refer to Slide. The school improvement module will go into further details about the CAPA process but the standards and focus areas are provided to give you an overview of how the process is structured. Source: CAPA Manual

58 Presentation Overview Section Three
New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) Presentation Overview The following slides will discuss the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum. The components for this presentation are outlined on New Jersey’s Title I web site at Source:

59 New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum
Major Purpose To measure students, school districts and school’s performance in meeting State and Federal standards with its primary focus to improve overall student achievement. New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) A single system promotes equity, efficiency and effectiveness. It helps build a public understanding among educators, policy makers, legislators, and citizens. Finally, but not primarily, it addresses responsibly the mandates and intent of the Federal legislation. With all of the competing requirements, we need to simplify our monitoring of school progress and quality by developing one set of standards that apply to all districts rather than by using many different, and sometimes, conflicting standards. Source:

60 New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC)
Major Goal To implement a quality single accountability continuum through the current education structure in New Jersey that would ensure that all students achieve proficiency in the Core Curriculum Content Standards and ensure that all school districts and schools have support for quality teaching and learning. New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) A single system promotes equity, efficiency and effectiveness. It helps build a public understanding among educators, policy makers, legislators, and citizens. Finally, but not primarily, it addresses responsibly the mandates and intent of the Federal legislation. With all of the competing requirements, we need to simplify our monitoring of school progress and quality by developing one set of standards that apply to all districts rather than by using many different, and sometimes, conflicting standards. Source:

61 New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC)
Principles: The QSAC rests on the following key principles: Standards Simplicity Effectiveness Efficiency Prevention New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) The QSAC rests on principles of standards, simplicity, effectiveness, efficiency, and prevention. QSAC is the Department of Education’s proposed new monitoring system. It simplifies the old monitoring system and integrates all of the requirements of the existing Code and Statute, Abbott Mandates, State Takeover Law and No Child Left Behind Federal Legislation The single system will cost no more than our present expenditures and it has the potential to reduce costs by removing redundant requirements from districts and schools. Source:

62 New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC)
QSAC Implementation To measure students, school districts and schools’ performance in meeting state standards. To streamline requirements to lessen administrative burden. To implement a comprehensive approach to assessing, evaluating, and monitoring school district performance. The NJQSAC system focuses on early identification of problems in critical areas and flexibility in making mid-course correction. New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) The QSAC provides a clear continuum to all school districts which begins with little or no involvement with the Department of Education if the monitoring and reporting system indicates that they are high performing. The QSAC therefore accelerates the work that has begun to support progress in districts by allowing them to continue their work without the unnecessary intrusions of the Department of Education. In instances of low performing districts, the QSAC provides expanded authority for the Commissioner to intervene quickly when significant problems occur. Finally in terms of State takeover districts, the QSAC provides for return to local control in the areas where performance has been demonstrated as satisfactory in certain areas while continuing state control in areas where problems still exist. Because future intervention in districts with significant problems will be targeted exclusively in the areas of need, it will be unlikely that full state control will be needed again. Source:

63 New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC)
QSAC Implementation The NJQSAC system focuses on early identification of problems in critical areas and flexibility in making mid-course correction. Approach for Evaluation of Districts 5 components governing school district effectiveness Instruction and Program; Personnel; Fiscal Management; Operations; and Governance New Jersey Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) The QSAC provides a clear continuum to all school districts which begins with little or no involvement with the Department of Education if the monitoring and reporting system indicates that they are high performing and minimal involvement if the district is regarded as performing at a moderate level. The QSAC therefore accelerates the work that has begun to support progress in districts by allowing them to continue their work without the unnecessary intrusions of the Department of Education. In instances of low performing districts, the QSAC provides expanded authority for the Commissioner to intervene quickly when significant problems occur. Finally in terms of State takeover districts, the QSAC provides for return to local control in the areas where performance has been demonstrated as satisfactory in certain areas while continuing state control in areas where problems still exist. Because future intervention in districts with significant problems will be targeted exclusively in the areas of need, it will be unlikely that full state control will be needed again. The current system includes an annual review via the Quality Assurance Annual Report (QAAR), and a 7-year certification cycle. The proposed change is a streamlined QAAR, referred to, as the "Statement of Assurance," and NJQSAC Quality Indicators Checklist would allow for early intervention within that 7-year certification, if conditions warrant it, as was in the past. The NJDOE aligns the current multiple accountability system into a single comprehensive system of accountability by streamlining and integrating the multiple system into 5 key components. They are. Refer to slide. Source: New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC) Questions and Answers and Fact Sheet

64 Presentation Overview Section Four
Title I Program Accountability Comparability Consolidated State Performance Report Monitoring of Districts Title I Audit Consolidated NCLB application Presentation Overview This next series of slides will focus on the following. The components for this presentation are outlined on New Jersey’s Title I web site at Read slide. Source:

65 Comparability LEAs receiving Title I, Part A funds are required to assure compliance with comparability requirements and to maintain documentation that is available for audit or monitoring purposes. [NCLB §1120A(c)] An LEA may receive Title I, Part A funds only if it uses state and local funds to provide services in Part A schools that are at least comparable to the services provided in schools that are not receiving Part A funds. Comparability LEAs receiving Title I, Part A funds are required to assure compliance with comparability requirements and to maintain documentation that is available for audit or monitoring purposes. An LEA may receive Title I, Part A funds only if it uses state and local funds to provide services in Part A schools that are at least comparable to the services provided in schools that are not receiving Part A funds. If the LEA serves all of its schools with Part A funds, the LEA must use state and local funds to provide services that are substantially comparable in each Part A school. An LEA may determine comparability on a district wide basis or on a grade-span basis, according to the following guidelines: A sample comparability report plus instructions for completing the report are provided in the NCLB Reference Manual Comparability Section and APPENDIX G: TITLE I COMPARABILITY REPORT SAMPLE AND INSTRUCTIONS Source: Comparability :http://www.nj.gov/njded/grants/entitlement/nclb/nclbrefman_comp.pdf New Jersey Department of Education No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Title I Comparability Report Form APPENDIX G: TITLE I COMPARABILITY REPORT SAMPLE AND INSTRUCTIONS

66 Title I Consolidated State Performance Report
The purpose of the Title I Performance Report is to determine the impact of Title I funds on student performance and to report how Title I funds were used. The New Jersey Department of Education provides the assessment data for those schools and students that received Title I services. However, the school district must provide the demographic and service data using EWEG. This information contributes to the State Performance Report that is submitted to the USDE. Consolidated Performance Report The purpose of the Title I Performance Report is to determine the impact of Title I funds on student performance and to report how Title I funds were used. The New Jersey Department of Education provides the assessment data for those schools and students that received Title I services. However, the school district must provide the demographic and service data. This information contributes to the national perspective of the impact of Title I. Since the inception of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and with later reauthorized versions of the Title I through the Improving America Schools Act (IASA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires the collection of data from school districts receiving Title I funds. This information contributes to the State Performance Report that the department must submit to the U. S. Department of Education. The Office of Title I Program Planning and Accountability is collecting information for the Title I Performance Report for the school year through an Internet data collection system. This is the fifth year that Title I data will be collected through this format. While the report is essentially the same as in past years, poverty data for is new in this report. Source: Consolidated Performance Report -

67 Title I Monitoring of LEAs
Circular A-133 A financial and compliance audit must be performed per Federal Office of Management and Budget (USOMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, issued pursuant to the Single Audit Act of 1984, P.L and as amended by The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, P.L Monitoring of LEAs A financial and compliance audit must be performed per Federal Office of Management and Budget (USOMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, issued pursuant to the Single Audit Act of 1984, P.L and as amended by The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, P.L The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, P.L , were signed into law in July 1996 and are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 30, Circular A-133, issued June 24, 1997, implements the 1996 Single Audit Act Amendments and rescinds USOMB Circular A-128. The audit must conform to standards established by the U.S. Comptroller General. The current audit standards are specified in Government Auditing Standards (Comptroller General of the U.S Revision, available from the Government Printing Office - Superintendent of Documents: Stock Number ). Please note that if a school district is being audited for the second time under Circular A-133 the auditor must follow the risk-based approach to determine major programs in accordance with section .520 of Circular A-133. Section .520(i) of Circular A-133 allows auditors to deviate from the use of the required risk-based approach when determining major programs during the first year that an entity is audited under the revised Circular A-133 or the first year of a change of auditors. NJOMB Circular Letter also requires the use of the same risk based approach to audit and monitor State financial assistance as used in federal programs. AICPA Statement of Position (SOP) 98-3, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Not-for-Profit Organizations Receiving Federal Awards, and Circular A-133 (Section .520) should be referenced for guidance on this approach. For further information please review the following documents: New Jersey Department of Education NCLB Act of 2001 FY 2004 Consolidated Subgrant Evaluation of Local School Districts-Group 2 NLCB Reference Manual Title I Audit PowerPoint Presentation Source Federal and State Auditing Requirements CIRCULAR A- 133 Evaluation of the Performance of School Districts NCLB FY 2004 Reference Manual No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Consolidated Formula Subgrant Fiscal Year 2004 Reference Manual- Title I audit training

68 Title I Monitoring of LEAs
Evaluation of the Performance of School Districts Presently, the evaluation of the performance of school districts is prescribed by State law (N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-10) and rules in N.J.A.C. 6:8. The enactment of the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Funding Act reinforces the mandate that the Commissioner of Education develop a process to determine each school district's performance against standards set by the Department. The law also requires school districts to report annually to the Commissioner their progress toward meeting these standards and to share this report with the public at a regularly scheduled board meeting. This law also establishes incremental steps of intervention that the Commissioner may invoke when individual schools experience three consecutive years of not meeting State standards. QSAC will replace the current evaluation system Monitoring of LEAs A financial and compliance audit must be performed per Federal Office of Management and Budget (USOMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, issued pursuant to the Single Audit Act of 1984, P.L and as amended by The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, P.L The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, P.L , were signed into law in July 1996 and are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 30, Circular A-133, issued June 24, 1997, implements the 1996 Single Audit Act Amendments and rescinds USOMB Circular A-128. The audit must conform to standards established by the U.S. Comptroller General. The current audit standards are specified in Government Auditing Standards (Comptroller General of the U.S Revision, available from the Government Printing Office - Superintendent of Documents: Stock Number ). Please note that if a school district is being audited for the second time under Circular A-133 the auditor must follow the risk-based approach to determine major programs in accordance with section .520 of Circular A-133. Section .520(i) of Circular A-133 allows auditors to deviate from the use of the required risk-based approach when determining major programs during the first year that an entity is audited under the revised Circular A-133 or the first year of a change of auditors. NJOMB Circular Letter also requires the use of the same risk based approach to audit and monitor State financial assistance as used in federal programs. AICPA Statement of Position (SOP) 98-3, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Not-for-Profit Organizations Receiving Federal Awards, and Circular A-133 (Section .520) should be referenced for guidance on this approach. For further information please review the following documents: New Jersey Department of Education NCLB Act of 2001 FY 2004 Consolidated Subgrant Evaluation of Local School Districts-Group 2 NLCB Reference Manual Title I Audit PowerPoint Presentation Source Federal and State Auditing Requirements CIRCULAR A- 133 Evaluation of the Performance of School Districts NCLB FY 2004 Reference Manual No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Consolidated Formula Subgrant Fiscal Year 2004 Reference Manual- Title I audit training

69 Title I Monitoring of LEAs
NCLB Consolidated Application Program Annual Comprehensive Needs Assessment Analysis of targets achieved Fiscal Final Report NCLB Consolidated Application For further information please review the following documents: New Jersey Department of Education NCLB Act of 2001 FY 2004 Consolidated Subgrant Evaluation of Local School Districts-Group 2 Title I Audit PowerPoint Presentation- Source NCLB FY 2004 Reference Manual No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Consolidated Formula Subgrant Fiscal Year 2004 Reference Manual-

70 Resources Title I Laws OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B EDGAR
No Child Left Behind OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B EDGAR Compliance Supplement (A-133) ce/04/04toc.html Research Materials The following web site links have been provided to encourage your study and further investigation of the subject. Refer to slide.

71 New Jersey State Resources
New Jersey Title I web site CAPA -http://www.nj.gov/njded/abbotts/capa/ QSAC -http://www.state.nj.us/njded/genfo/qsac/ NCLB web site Office of Grants Management State Resources The following web site links have been provided to encourage your study and further investigation of the subject. Refer to slide.

72 Office of Title I Program Planning and Accountability
Contact Information Office of Title I Program Planning and Accountability Contacts and Others Suzanne Ochse, Director Karen Campbell, Manager Clare Barrett Pat Mitchell David McNair Michele Doughty General Title I - State Resources The following web site links have been provided to encourage your study and further investigation of the subject. Refer to slide.


Download ppt "A Single Accountability System New Jersey Districts and Schools"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google