Student Growth and Performance Update: A Comparison of RttT & Non-RttT Ohio Public School Districts An Overview of Local LEA Data: Nordonia Hills City.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Halftime Highlights Minnesota at Mid-Decade. Minnesota Ranks 1 st in home ownership 2 nd in labor force participation 3 rd highest in high school completion.
Advertisements

Jamesville-DeWitt School Report Card Presented to the Board of Education May 10, 2010.
Rules and Legislation Regarding A-F Report Cards June 2013 Jennifer Stegman, Program Manager CTB.
OVERVIEW OF H.B HB 555  Revises benchmarks for Indicators Met and Performance Index to 90% for A  Raises performance proficiency benchmark to.
The North East Economy: A great place to invest. Overview of North East LEP Area.
Indianapolis-Carmel MSA
Demographic Trends Northeast Landscape Plan Update 2012 Minnesota Forest Resources Council April 18, 2012.
1 Union County School District Instructional Update 10 December 2007 Dr. David Eubanks Superintendent.
EBDI Project Area Community Profile 2000 to 2010 Sources: Census 2000, Census 2010, American Community Survey (ACS) year estimates. *Note:
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
S AFE C ITY M ISSISSAUGA C RIME SEVERITY INDEX  New method of quantifying crime  Attaches higher weights to major crimes and lower weights to.
Demographic Trends from the 2000 Census Presented by Janet Harrah, Director Center for Economic Development and Business Research Wichita State University.
Demographic Trends and Missouri’s Children Missouri State Board of Education April 21, 2005 Dr. Bill Elder University of Missouri-Columbia Office of Social.
An Economic Comparison of Cleveland and Atlanta Edward W. Hill Senior Research Scholar, The Urban Center Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs.
Grape Creek Report Card Grape Creek Intermediate School Robin Graham Erica Crawford Dee Ann Shelton Carol Anderson.
Understanding Wisconsin’s New School Report Card.
DISTRICT MCAS RESULTS November 19, Charts by Grade vs. The State Charts by Grade Comparing 2001 through 2007 Longitudinal Comparisons CONTENTS.
Chronic Absence in Oregon Attendance Works The Children’s Institute The Chalkboard Project ECONorthwest.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
School Performance Index School Performance Index (SPI): A Comprehensive Measurement System for All Schools Student Achievement (e.g. PSSA) Student Progress.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
PVAAS – Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System added_assessment_system_(pvaas)/8751.
State Board Update: Accountability System March 2013.
Data Review. Consecutive Year Grade Grouping Comparisons READING Proficiency 3 rd to 4 th 73% to 87% UP 14% 4 th to 5 th 69% to 62% Down 7% 5.
2014 A - F Letter Grades - AIMS The State of Arizona utilizes AIMS to measure student growth. In measuring student growth, the State of Arizona then identifies.
General Demographics Missouri and Its Southwest Region in perspective.
South Lewis Central School District. Student Outcomes – Percent Meeting Common Core Expectations (District-Wide) ELA - Grade % Levels 3 and 4 BOCES Rank.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
HANOVER HIGH SCHOOL GRADE 11 NECAP SCORES
Welcome to the AHS PCF! September 12, :00 a.m. Room 92 TOPIC: New State Report Card.
State and Federal Accountability Old English Consortium Assistant Principals’ Conference October 2009.
Demographic Trends in Massachusetts Charter Schools Preliminary Analysis October 2015.
LESSON 14 INCOME DISTRIBUTION 14-1 HIGH SCHOOL ECONOMICS 3 RD EDITION © COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION, NEW YORK, NY Household Income Activity 1. Rank.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
District 11 CSAP Results School Year D11 Board Presentation August 9,2006.
1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.
County-level M-STEP Data Mathematics From the Golden Package.
Southern Regional Education Board Overview of SREB Data Services Joe Marks Director of Education Data Services SAIRP Annual Conference Charleston, South.
CINS Community Meeting: Data Dig January 2016 APS Research & Evaluation John Keltz & Rubye Sullivan.
Demographic & Attrition Trends in Massachusetts Charter Schools Preliminary Analysis December 2015.
Measuring Turnaround Success October 29 th, 2015 Jeanette P. Cornier, Ph.D.
Accountability Training Review Agenda for Today: Review of calculation changes and what’s new In depth review of Closing Gaps calculations Graduation Rates.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
SUPPORTING DATA 1 Pipeline Subcommittee June 29, 2010 DRAFT.
North Kingstown School Committee March 11, 2014 MH 3/11/2014.
2017 Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
State of Wisconsin School Report Cards Fall 2014 Results
Lakeview Community Schools NeSA Results
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Economics of Education Regional Data Region 11 Updated May 2017
Buckeye Central Local Schools
Economics of Education Regional Data Region 6 Updated May 2017
State System of the.
2016 READY ACCOUNTABILITY DISTRICT RESULTS
School Accountability Report Cards
Texas Academic Performance Report TAPR)
What’s Driving Chicago’s Educational Progress?
مفاهيم أساسية حول الموهوبين ذوي صعوبات التعلم . إعداد الطالبتين
Student Growth and Performance Update:
Meredith cargilL director of curriculum, instruction, and technology
Economics of Education Regional Data Region 5 Updated November 2017
Economics of Education Regional Data Region 11 Updated November 2017
Economics of Education Regional Data Region 1 Updated November 2017
Central City Elementary School
Chronic Absence in Oregon
Economics of Education Regional Data Region 9 Updated November 2017
Economics of Education Regional Data Region 6 Updated November 2017
2019 Report Card Update Marianne Mottley Report Card Project Director
Findley Oaks Elementary Data Overview
Presentation transcript:

Student Growth and Performance Update: A Comparison of RttT & Non-RttT Ohio Public School Districts An Overview of Local LEA Data: Nordonia Hills City Schools NE Region Winter 2013

Ohio RttT/Non-RttT Cohorts # OHIO Students RttTNon- RttT Public Districts Enrollment1,637,29955%45% Poverty704, 20962%38% Minority332,38877%23% Minority (excludes large urban districts) 200,12262%38% Student with Disabilities (SWD)218,49759%41%

District Demographics Type 5 (Suburban – low student poverty and average student population) 3,720 Enrollment $42,752 Median Income 17% Poverty 21.2% Minority population 10.2% Students with Disabilities

Performance Index Gain of 2.4 RttT & Non-RttT Districts (3-year average before RttT and LRC)

District Performance Index Gain/Loss Three-year Average before RttT (08-10 LRC) Performance Index LRC Gain/Loss gain

RttT, Non-RttT & District Performance Index Gain (3-year average before RttT and LRC)

Value Added Growth A = 2 or more year’s growth B = 1 year of growth, but less than 2 C = Greater or equal to -1 but less than +1 D = Greater or equal to -2 but less than -1 F = Less than -2 Overall Gifted Students With Disabilities Lowest 20%

Percent of RttT vs Non-RttT Districts Adding More than 1 Year’s Growth

Gifted Value Added (based on distribution of scores for the entire state over several years) Percent of districts Adding More than 1 year's Growth

SWD Value Added (based on distribution of scores for the entire state over several years) Percent of districts adding more than 1 year's growth ( LRC)

Value Added - Lowest 20% (based on distribution of scores for the entire state over several years) Percent of districts adding more than 1 year's growth LRC

Value Added Growth –District A = 2 or more year’s growth B = 1 year of growth, but less than 2 C = Greater or equal to -1 but less than +1 D = Greater or equal to -2 but less than -1 F = Less than -2 A - Overall C - Gifted A - Students With Disabilities A - Lowest 20%

District Performance compared to All Ohio Districts Letter Grade All OH 610 Districts Overall Percent of Districts Gifted Percent of Districts SWD Percent of Districts Lowest 20% Percent of Districts A B C D F NR822

RttT/Non-RttT 3 rd Grade Reading % at or above Proficient ( 3-year average before RttT and LRC)

District - 3 rd Grade Reading 87.7% Three-year average before RttT Percent at or above Proficient 93.7% LRC + 6.0% Gain

3 rd Grade Reading % at or above Proficient ( 3-year average before RttT and LRC)

RttT/Non-RttT 4-Year Average Graduation Rate

District Graduation Rate (4 Year) 2010 Rate 94.7% (“On-time”) 2012 Rate 94.7% (4-Year Longitudinal) Gain or Loss: - 0.1%

RttT, Non-RttT & District Graduation Rates