CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN 2013-14 Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
Advertisements

AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013 Thank you to Nancy Katims- Edmonds School District for much of the content of this presentation Ben Gauyan.
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind Act © No Child Left Behind Act ©Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special Education.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
Hickory Ridge Elementary School Annual Title One Parent Meeting
Essential Questions: What are the components of the (SPP)? How is PVAAS used as part of the calculation for the School Performance Profile (SPP)?
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
> Tom Corbett, Governor Ron Tomalis, Secretary of Education Title of Presentation > Tom Corbett, Governor Ron Tomalis, Secretary of Education Pennsylvania’s.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Data for Student Success Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report “It is about focusing on building a culture of quality data through professional development.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.
4 Principles of ESEA Flexibility 1 January College-and-Career-Ready Expectations for All Students ( ) 2.State-Developed Differentiated Recognition,
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS October 5, 2011.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
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.
School Performance Profile and PVAAS.  Federal accountability and PA law dictate that school effectiveness must be measured looking at multiple.
DLT September 28, State Indicators and Rating for OFCS (have) Key Factors and Points to Keep in Mind (have) This power point presentation (will.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
September 13, Title I is a federal program which provides financial assistance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers.
ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status School Committee Presentation September 24, 2013.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Understanding the SPP September 26, > Purpose The PA School Performance Profile is designed to:  Provide a building.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
Pennsylvania’s ESEA Flexibility Proposal PAFPC Conference Summary of comments made by Amy Morton, Executive Deputy Secretary Pennsylvania Department of.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING OVERVIEW IU 5. CHAPTER 4 - STANDARDS Effective March 1, 2014 PA Core Standards English Language Arts (ELA) Mathematics Reading.
Ohio’s New Accountability System Ohio’s Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act a.k.a. ESEA January 8, 2002.
We are a Title I school What does this mean?. We are Title I because… Our school has a high number of students who are eligible for Free and Reduced Price.
Title I School Improvement Presented by: Evonne Irondi Federal Programs Supervisor.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Pennsylvania’s ESEA Flexibility Proposal May 23, >
SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY/ESEA Ann M. Renker, Ph.D. Sequim School District August 17, 2015.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
AYP and Report Card. AYP/RC –Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. –Understand the purpose and role of the Report Card in Oregon.
Annual Student Performance Report September
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
Parents as Partners: How Parents and Schools Work Together to Close the Achievement Gap.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
PA School Performance Profile 1 Tamaqua Area Middle School.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
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.
No Child Left Behind Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
What just happened and what’s next? Presenters: Steve Dibb, MDE Debra Landvik, MDE AYP 2011.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
1. Every Student Succeeds Act ESSA December
Southern Huntingdon County Title 1 Annual Meeting October 20, 2014.
Where Are We Now? ESSA signed into law December 10, 2015
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
PA School Performance Profile
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
A Brief History Data-Based School & District Improvement
Indiana Area School District
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
AYP and Report Card.
Kansas Leads the World in the Success of Each Student.
Maryland State Board of Education October 25, 2011
Presentation transcript:

CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit

Federal  New school accountability system based on PA’s approved NCLB waiver State  School performance profiles  Academic standards  Teacher effectiveness law KEY CHANGES

OLD  All public schools in PA  100% proficiency on state tests by 2014  “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP)  Disaggregated subgroups: N=40  Each school receives a designation based on AYP status NEW  Only Title I schools  Close “achievement gap” by half in 6 years  Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs)  Two student groups: N=11  Only highest and lowest Title I schools receive designations FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY - DIFFERENCES

 Name of school (if only one or two schools, may want to include details such as grade levels, enrollment, % free and reduced lunch) (add photo of school or students within that school) TITLE I SCHOOLS IN ___ SCHOOL DISTRICT

AMO: CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP ALL STUDENTS IN [INSERT NAME OF SCHOOL]

AMO: CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP HISTORICALLY UNDERPERFORMING STUDENTS IN [INSERT NAME OF SCHOOL]

(insert photos of students in school) Schools must achieve a 90% attendance rate OR improvement in attendance from the previous year if less than 90%. Attendance rate data is always one year behind data will be used for accountability. AMO: ATTENDANCE

AMO: ATTENDANCE ALL TITLE I SCHOOLS IN DISTRICT

AMO: TEST PARTICIPATION 2013 At least 95% of the students eligible to participate in state testing must take the PSSA/Keystone Exams if given in their grade level/course. [insert your choice of photo]

AMO: TEST PARTICIPATION 2013 STUDENTS IN [INSERT NAME OF SCHOOL]

For Accountability  N = 11  Two groups:  All students  Historically underperforming students  Unduplicated count of students with IEPs, students classified as ELL and economically disadvantaged students For Reporting Purposes  N = 11  Traditional disaggregated subgroups  By race/ethnicity  IEP  ELL  Economic disadvantage  Duplicate count RECOMMENDATION UNDERSTANDING STUDENT GROUPS

FEDERAL TITLE I SCHOOL DESIGNATIONS

High Achievement  Highest 5% Title I Schools (based on aggregate math and reading PSSA or Keystone scores) AND  Meets all Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) High Progress  Highest 5% Title I schools (based on aggregate PVAAS growth score in reading and math) AND  Meets all AMOs AND  Not a Reward: High Achievement School TITLE I REWARD SCHOOLS

 Lowest 10% of Title I schools (based on highest achievement gap for the Historically Low Performing students AMO) OR  Does not meet 95% test participation AMO OR  Title I school with a Graduation Rate below 60% AND  Not a Priority School TITLE I FOCUS SCHOOLS

 Lowest 5% of Title I schools (based on aggregate math and reading PSSA or Keystone scores) OR  Title I school receiving School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds TITLE I PRIORITY SCHOOLS

 To date: School districts have verified data used to make determinations  September 23: PDE to allow districts to see their federal designations and state accountability information prior to PDE accountability website going public  September 30: PDE to make accountability website public TIMELINE