1. Annual Student Performance Report September 2013 1

2. Overview Review of NCLB requirements 2013 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps 2

3. No Child Left Behind Act and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Overall goal is 100% proficiency in Reading and Math by 2014 Targets increase nearly every year Recent target proficiencies: 2010: 77.5% 2011: 85% 2012: 85% (Illinois waiver) 2013: 92.5% 3

4. No Child Left Behind Act and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 4

5. Making AYP: Subgroups Target must be met by all subgroups: Ethnic group Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities Limited English proficiency Applies to all subgroups with at least 45 members 5

6. Making AYP: Overall Requirements Three overall requirements: 1. At least 95% of students in each subgroup must be tested in reading and math. 2. At least 92.5% (in 2013) of students must meet or exceed standards in the subject. If the percentage is less than 92.5%, the 95% confidence interval is applied. If a subgroup did not make AYP the previous year, but decreased the percentage not meeting standards by at least 10%, the Safe Harbor provision will allow it to meet the conditions. 3.School must have at least a 92% attendance rate. 6

7. Making AYP: Additional Factors Annual target percentages are lowered in specific circumstances: 95% confidence interval based on group size Safe Harbor provision of 10% decrease in percent not meeting from one year to next 7

8. Making AYP: Complicating Factors Home school versus serving school May 1 attendance cutoff Some students in multiple subgroups 8

9. Why Cut Scores Were Raised Focus on college and career readiness Closer alignment to PARCC test Common Core State Standards set higher bar 9

10. Changes to Cut Scores ReadingMath Grade2012201320122013 3191207184214 4203217200224 5215228214235 6220237225247 7226239235257 8231248246267 10

11. Student Progress: 2012-2013 Reminders: AYP compares different sets of students from year to year Vast majority of students do improve from one year to next 11

12. 2013 Reading Compared to 2012 12

13. 2013 Math Compared to 2012 13

14. Past Performance Under New Cut Scores 14

15. Disproportionate Effect on Subgroups Old cut scores New cut scores 15

16. 2013 AYP Status One school made AYP in both subjects Nine schools did not make AYP in one or both subjects for one or more subgroups One failed for the third consecutive year One failed for the fourth consecutive year The District as a whole did not make AYP for the third consecutive year 16

17. 2013 AYP Status: District 97 Subgroups Making AYP Spring break READING Subgroup% Meets or ExceedsSafe Harbor Target White students90.0%89.4% Economically disadvantaged students 52.4%53.7% MATH Subgroup% Meets or ExceedsSafe Harbor Target Asian students87.2%89.3% Students of two or more races 79.5%80.6% 17

18. 2013 AYP Status: District 97 Subgroups Not Making AYP in Reading READING Subgroup% Meets or ExceedsSafe Harbor Target ALL students79.7%80.5% Black students 55.9%57.7% Hispanic students 65.7%69.4% Asian student 83.7%90.6% Students of two or more races 80.8%86.5% Students with disabilities 40.3%48.1% 18

19. 2013 AYP Status: District 97 Subgroups not Making AYP in Math MATH Subgroup% Meets or ExceedsSafe Harbor Target ALL students76.6%79.5% White students 88.0%89.8% Black students 48.0%54.7% Hispanic students 62.8%71.9% Students with disabilities 38.2%50.3% Economically disadvantaged students 47.1%52.8% 19

20. 2012 AYP Status Update SCHOO LNot Making AYP: Subjects and Subgroups 2013 State Status 2013 Federal Status BeyeMath: White studentsAcademic Early Warning: Year 2 Choice and SES BrooksReading: Students with disabilities Math: All students, Black students, Students with disabilities, Economically disadvantaged students Academic Watch: Year 1 Does not apply JulianReading: Students of two or more races, Students with disabilities Math: Students with disabilities, Economically disadvantaged students Academic Early Warning: Year 2 Does not apply District AYP status State: Academic Early Warning Year 2 Federal: District Improvement Year 2 20

21. Federal and State Requirements for Schools not Making AYP First year: No consequences Second consecutive year: Complete a School Improvement Plan and receive change in status: Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (School choice) State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 1 Third consecutive year: Complete a School Improvement Plan and receive change in status: Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (School choice and Supplemental Educational Services) State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 2 21

22. Student Growth Model Local growth model (ECRA) ISAT, MAP, EXPLORE, and DIBELS Uses past student performance to predict future Compares actual to predicted to identify areas needing attention 22

23. School Improvement Planning Rising Star plans at district level and all ten schools Continuous improvement model Focused on research-based indicators West 40 again engaged as consultant 23

24. Questions? 24