Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.

Slides:



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

‘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.
Update on Data Reporting April LEAP Changes LEAP software will be released shortly. Final LEAP software will not be available before mid-July. We.
Accountability Updates Testing & Evaluation Department May 21, 2014 Mission High School MISSION CISD DEIC MEETING.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Lessons Learned from AYP Decision Appeals Prepared for the American Educational Research Association Indiana Department of Education April 15, 2004.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
1 Utah Performance Assessment System for Students U-PASS Accountability Plan Judy W. Park Assessment & Accountability Director Utah State Office of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
1 Cohort Graduation Rate October 1, 2010 Jonathan Wiens, Assessment and Accountability Greg Houser, Student Learning and Partnerships Oregon Department.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data The New York State Education Department November 12, 2014.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress Fresno Unified School District 2005 Data Review.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
ESEA ACCOUNTABILITY JAMESVILLE-DEWITT
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
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.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind California Department of Education Policy and Evaluation Division July 2003.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
1 Cohort Graduation Rate October 1, 2010 Jonathan Wiens and Sara Berscheit Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
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.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
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.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
Preliminary AYP Preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Data.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
Update on Accountability March “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.
Communication Webinar:
School Report Card and Identification Progression
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
2012 Accountability Determinations
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
ABCs/AYP Background Briefing
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
AYP and Report Card Last updated: 08/20/09.
AYP and Report Card.
2017 MCAS Reporting Michol Stapel, Associate Commissioner Bob Lee, MCAS Chief Analyst October 23, 2017.
Michigan School Report Card Update
How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Is Determined Using Data
AYP and Report Card.
Presentation transcript:

Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004

AYP: What’s new? AYP Determinations for Denominator For AYP Alternate Standards Definition of Economic Disadvantage Counting ELL student test scores Identification Report Card Revisions

AYP Determinations for Same targets (achievement targets in will be 50% in ELA and 49% in Math) grad data for economically disadvantaged and ELL groups reported Attendance not lagged Writing responses in Spanish count as meeting standard for AYP for qualified students - Numbered Memo

New Denominator For AYP and Assessment Reports No longer answer sheets returned Enrollment as of May 1 (Participation) –Participation – ALL students enrolled –Performance - Highest score of students enrolled for FAY Spring Participation Collection on May 3 Numbered Memo

Alternate Standards New (Dec.) Guidance From USDoE Adopted by State Board in March for Extended Assessments and CLRAS

Alternate Standards No more than 1% of student tests used to determine AYP for a district may meet alternate standards. No Change in Choice of Test for Any Student (IEP process). Numbered Memo

Economic Disadvantage U.S. Departments of Education and Agriculture Allow Use of Free and Reduced Lunch Status with strict confidentiality requirements Numbered Memo May 15 Collection

ELL Student Test Scores USEd announcement February 19th Scores of students during first year in U.S. not counted for performance Reading and writing assessments not required during first year in U.S. Transitioning students remain in LEP group for two years

Identification for School Improvement Only Title I schools not meeting AYP for two consecutive years in an area (ELA, Math, Other Indicator) are identified for School Improvement

District AYP  USDoE recently indicated that it would approve using grade span (elementary, middle, high) data to determine district AYP.  Districts would be identified for improvement only if they didn’t meet AYP targets in the same content area at each grade span two years in a row.  ODE is investigating the feasibility of adopting this change.  More information to follow.

Report Card Update November 10 release date No significant changes to formula Detail sheets part of data validation Display of science assessment results on detail sheets Review of report card policy and formulas through February for and cards

Data Collection Rolling validation Consolidated Student File Format

AYP Step by Step AYP “Tests” –Participation –Performance Status Safe Harbor –Other Indicator

AYP Tests for Each Subject and Subgroup English/Language Arts –Total –Students w/ Disabilities –Limited English Proficient –Poverty –American Indian –Asian –African American –Hispanic –White –Multi-Ethnic Mathematics –Total –Students w/ Disabilities –Limited English Proficient –Poverty –American Indian –Asian –African American –Hispanic –White –Multi-Ethnic

Minimum N for each “test” Participation – 40 expected tests in content area over two years Performance tests in content area over two years (If total school population has fewer than 42 scores, additional data or methods are used to determine AYP.) Other indicator – 84 students enrolled over two years combined

Participation 95% Criteria Participation = Number of valid test scores from all students enrolled in the school on May 3, 2004 divided by (The expected number of tests - the number of students without test scores that were not enrolled during the testing window(s) for the assessment – home schooled – district SpEd)

Academic Performance Criteria –ELA: 40% (50% for 04-05) –Math: 39% (49% for 04-05) Target met if achievement within margin of error. Performance = Number tests met/ number of tests from students enrolled for a full academic year –Scores from first year LEP students excluded – 10 th grade MPS results for excluded

Achievement Safe Harbor Academic Growth –Reduce the percent not meeting by 10% –Example: If group’s 2003 achievement (single year of data) = 27%, the percent not meeting is 73%. The growth target is 7.3% increase or an achievement level of 34.3% in AND must meet other indicator

Other Indicator Graduation Rate for High Schools –Federal Formula Required in Definition –Grad rate = grad/(grad + dropouts) –Standard Diploma Only –68.1% Criterion Attendance for All Other Schools –92% Criterion 2 Years Data Used, but graduation is lagged

How AYP Tests Are Applied: N> 40 ? Yes Participation > 95%? Yes No District Method Yes Status Target? No Safe Harbor Target? No AYP Other Indicator? No AYP No AYP N> 42? Yes -

AYP: Key Points Conjunctive Model A school meets AYP only if each and every subgroup is successful in each subject. Fundamentally different from the Oregon School Report Card, which combines all data into a single, overall rating.

AYP: Key Points (continued) There will be significant differences in the achievement levels among schools not meeting AYP. Schools and districts will have to analyze the data to determine appropriate responses to not making AYP.

What Happens After Preliminary Designations? Review period – through October 14 –District corrections to collections and test records –Compliance with 1% cap –AYP Substantive appeals by districts District Preliminary AYP - October 1 target Final Designations on School and District Report Cards – November 10

03-04 Preliminary AYP Results 66% of schools met AYP 76% of elementary and 24% of high schools met 82% of Title I elementary and 48% of Title I high schools met 38 Title I schools are identified for school improvement 110 schools did not meet participation

NCLB Accountability Single accountability system required Required actions for Title I schools and districts that do not make AYP in the same content area for two consecutive years Accountability for non-Title I districts – restricted use of SRSA funding and REAP-Flex

Accountability Revise SIP and submit to ODE – schools with “low” and “unacceptable” overall ratings on school report card Revise SIP and submit to district – schools not making AYP in the same content area for two consecutive years

Resources Documents, tools, guidance – – (click on policy link) Contacts –AYP: –Title I requirements: