Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?
Advertisements

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’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
Data for Student Success Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report “It is about focusing on building a culture of quality data through professional development.
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
School Progress Index 2012 Results Mary Gable- Assistant State Superintendent Division of Academic Policy Carolyn Wood - Assistant State Superintendent.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
Torrance Unified School District Annual Student Achievement Dr. George W. Mannon, Superintendent Dr. E Don Kim, Senior Director of Elementary Education.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
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.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
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.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.
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 California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
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.
C R E S S T / CU University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
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.
HISD Becoming #GreatAllOver 1 Accountability Rating System Commissioner’s Final Rules 2014.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
2017 Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
A Brief History Data-Based School & District Improvement
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Bixby Public Schools OCCT Data and AYP/API December 12, 2011.
2012 Accountability Determinations
Bixby Public Schools OCCT Data and AYP/API September 13, 2010.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
New Accountability System: District and Site Report Cards
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Danvers Public Schools: Our Story
Wade Hayashida Local District 8
Michigan School Report Card Update
Birmingham City Schools Report Card Indicators
AYP and Report Card.
Academic Achievement Report for Washington Manor Middle School
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Presentation transcript:

Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP Bixby Public Schools December 8, 2008

API “The API is the numeric index or score reflecting a particular school’s or district’s academic performance, as well as the influence of other factors tied to educational success.” Its use in the last five years has been to document compliance with NCLB (4 components), to reward schools (Triple A financial rewards) and to increase accountability to all schools. Source: Oklahoma Academic Performance Index District Report, Oklahoma State Department of Education, July 2008.

Overview for API Mandated by Title 70 O.S. 3-150 Developed by the Oklahoma State Board of Education Seven mandated indicators Law requires that testing is weighted at least 60% Law stipulates performance targets each year Scores are assigned to individual schools as well as to the district.

No Child Left Behind Act NCLB mandates that 100% proficiency be reached by the year 2013-14 SDE established a growth target of 1500 API by 2013-14 to be equivalent to 100% NCLB requires AYP (Annual Yearly Progress) for the District and each School Site Growth must be overall and by subgroup.

No Child Left Behind Act AYP is measured in part by reading and math API scores for each of the following student groups: All students, regular students, special education, ELL, Economically Disadvantaged, and each Major Racial/Ethnic Group (Black, White…etc)

No Child Left Behind Act AYP requires that 95% of each student group within a school site or district must participate in the student academic assessments. Reading and Math API’s are calculated and AYP determined only for student groups within a school site or district meeting minimum sample size. All students and Regular students = 30: All other student groups decreased this year from 52 to 30. Additional Indicators: Graduation Rates and Attendance

STATE API: Seven Indicators---Three Categories Oklahoma School Testing Program (OSTP) Reading and Mathematics from all state-mandated tests given in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and EOI High School School Completion Attendance: 2007-2008 data Dropout Rates: 2006-2007 data Graduation Rates: 2006-2007 data

Seven Indicators---Three Categories Academic Excellence API* ACT Data: Scores and Participation College Remediation Rates in Mathematics and Reading Advanced Placement Participation *This indicator utilized only in high school (9-12) and K-12 District accountability.

Goal Level of Performance for AYP Federal Requirements NCLB 95% of students participating in testing 1500 API in Math and Reading by 2014 for all students and sub-groups Attendance 94% (164.5 days of the 175 days taught) Graduation Rate of 82.4% and must increase yearly once attained.

Goal for Level of Performance API Same as NCLB but also Drop out rate of 1.0% ACT participation rate of 86.1% ACT composite score of 24 College Math and Reading Remediation rates of 5% or less

District API Components Subscores API Math 932 Reading 914 OSTP (80%)* Reading and Math scores for Grade 3, 5 and 8 CRT, and High School EOI Math All Students = 1353 Reading All Students = 1325 Total All Students API = 1314 Reg Ed API = 1363 99.2% of All Students were tested district-wide School Completion (10%) Attendance Rate 2007-08 Dropout Rate 2006-07 Graduation Rate 2006-07 School Completion API 904 1456 1393 1289 Rate Target 93.2 91.2% 1.4 1.0% 94.7 67.8% *Data Disaggregated by ethnicity and socioeconomic status

District API Components Subscores API Academic Excellence (Overall 10%) Total ACT (60%) Total Remediation (10%) Advanced Placement Credit (30%) 1051 938 1500 ACT Participation 2006 (69.0%) 1040 ACT Composite 2006 (20.7) 1029 Math Remediation Rate (30.6) 990 Reading Remediation Rate (14.2) 886 Academic Excellence API 1174

Annual Yearly Progress? District Why? Yes Subgroup IEP Target Math of 932 Subgroup IEP Target Reading of 914 1082 984 Is our district designated a School Improvement District NO These scores were designated as “Safe Harbor” which is A 10% decrease in % of students scoring below Satisfactory or A 10% increase in the difference between the previous year’s API score and the API upper limit of 1500 No safe harbor for 2008 in any category.

Individual School API: High School Subscores API Target 2010 OSTP (80%) EOI Exams (All Students) in English II and Algebra I 1081 914 1060 1368 932 1074 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 1456 1.4 1.0% 1393 94.7 67.8% 532 94.0 91.2% Academic Excellence (10%) ACT (Total) College Remediation, and AP Credit API 1051 938 1500 Annual Yearly Progress? Yes

Individual School API: Middle School Subscores API Target OSTP (90%) 7th and 8th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1362 914 1386 932 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate Target of 91.2% = 159.6 of the 175 days taught API Rate Target 940 93.5 91.2% Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? Percentage Tested YES 99.8%

Individual School API: North 5 & 6 Subscores API Target OSTP (90%) 5th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1398 914 1396 932 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 1096 94.8 91.2 Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? YES Percentage of Students Tested 100.0%

Individual School API: Brassfield Subscores API Target OSTP (90%) 5th and 6th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1317 914 1317 932 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 988 93.9 91.2 Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? YES Percentage of Students Tested 99.3%

Individual School API: Central Elementary Subscores API Target OSTP (90%) 3rd and 4th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1299 914 1348 932 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 1144 95.2 91.2 Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? Yes Percentage of Students Tested 98.6%

Individual School API: North Elementary Subscores API Target OSTP (90%) 3rd and 4th Grade (All Students) Reading and Math 1351 914 1446 932 School Completion (10%) Dropout Rate, Graduation Rate, and Attendance Rate API Rate Target 1120 95.0 91.2 Academic Excellence ACT Scores and Participation, College Remediation, and AP Credit Not Applicable Annual Yearly Progress? YES Percentage of Students Tested 100%

Implications Target Professional Development to improve student achievement Reading (1060) and Math (1074) 2010 Targets Specific Subgroups such as Special Education, ELL, American Indian, Economically Disadvantaged Increased importance of accurate data collection and reporting Increased monitoring of number of students taking the test (95%) Continued emphasis on increasing number of students taking ACT (69.0% to goal of 85%) Increased emphasis on attendance (93.2% to a goal of 98%) Continue to take preventative action to reduce drop-outs (1.0% or less—current is 1.4%)

Historical Test Data = API & AYP Gr. 3-8   2005 2006 2007 2008 % Sat/Above Target API Math 790 Reading 768 % Sat/Above Target API Math 932 Reading 914 Mathematics Grade 3 75 79 88 87 Grade 4 84 92 91 96 Grade 5 82 85 94 Grade 6 NA 83 90 Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading 98 93 99 89

Historical Test Data = EOI Tests for AYP and API

Historical Test Data = API & AYP Indicators High School and District Year Graduation Rate* Grad. API Drop-Out Rate* Drop-Out API 2003 95.3 1340 1.2 1480 2004 88 1084 3.2 1240 2005 94.5 1312 1.4 1456 2006 91.9 2.7 1300 2007 91.2 1326 0.7 1540 2008 94.7 1393

Historical Test Data = API Indicators High School Year Attendance Rate Attendance API ACT % Taking ACT API 2003 94.7 1084 63.6 938 2004 93.6 952 64.9 970 2005 94.6 1072 70.8 1118 2006 93.9 988 67.7 1040 2007 2008 90.1 532 69.0 1073

Historical Test Data = API & AYP Indicators Attendance by Site & District Year District HS MS Brsf North 5/6 Central North 2003 94.7 94.9 95.0   93.9 2004 94.3 93.6 94.0 2005 94.6 93.4 94.1 95.6 95.5 2006 92.1 92.8 95.7 2007 94.8 95.1 94.5 95.3 2008 93.2 90.1 93.5 95.2

Questions?