‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
Advertisements

1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
Title I School Improvement in North Carolina. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determines if a Title I school goes into Title I School Improvement.
Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?
IDEA and NCLB The Connection Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction December 2003.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.
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.
1 8//03 Virginia Department of Education NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 Implementation of Virginia’s Consolidated Plan Dr. Patricia I. Wright Assistant.
The Evolution of the Virginia School Report Card Board of Education School & Division Accountability Committee February 25, 2015.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
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.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
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.
1 STUDENT PROGRESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 2013 September 10, 2013 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation.
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.
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
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 Tecumseh Local Schools. No Child Left Behind OR... 4 No Educator Left Unconfused 4 No Lawyer Left Unemployed 4 No Child Left Untested.
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.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
Annual Student Performance Report September
Accreditation and AMO I.ACCREDITATION (Virginia’s Accountability System) – ACCREDITATION is Virginia’s Accountability System – No membership groups, no.
No Child Left Behind Education Week
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.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
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.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.
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.
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
Update on Accountability March “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
ABCs/AYP Background Briefing
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Michigan School Report Card Update
AYP and Report Card.
Presentation transcript:

‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction

NCLB requirements measure school and school district effectiveness using “annual measurable objectives” (AMO) and “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) based on Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL).

VA SOL Tests and NCLB English/Reading and Math in grades 3, 5, 8 and High School End-of-Course (EOC). Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2 English 11 In spring 2005, SOL tests will be required in English/Reading and Math in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and EOC. Science test scores in grades 3 or 5, and 8 will count toward AYP in Spring 2008

NCLB: Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Criteria for AYP: Attendance rate: elementary and middle schools Graduation rate: high schools Participation: 95% of students in each of the seven sub-groups must take the state test. Student achievement must attain starting points (AYP) and annual measurable objectives (AMO). Only first time test takers will be counted in determining AYP.

AYP Requirement: Attendance Rate Attendance: -VA starting point: 94% -LCPS: Grade 3: 96.5% Grade 5: 96.5% Grade 8: 95.6%

AYP Requirement: Graduation Rate Graduation rate for NCLB is defined by National Center for Educational Statistics: Number of graduates minus cohort dropouts from grade 12, 11, 10, 9. NCLB excludes graduates with GED, Modified Standard Diplomas, Special Diplomas. Only Advanced and Standard Diplomas count toward AYP VA 2002 starting point: 68% (by NCES) In 2002, LCPS graduation rate exceeded the state AMO exclusive of modified diplomas, certificates, GED’s

AYP requires 95% Participation A Participation rate of 95% is required for the whole school (students enrolled in class to be tested) AND for each subgroup Quiz: In a school with 75 Free and Reduced Lunch students, how many students could miss the test and meet the 95% participation rule? Answer - 3 Students

AMO’s must be met by each of the seven subgroups All students White students (not of Hispanic Origin) Black students (not of Hispanic Origin) Hispanic students Economically Disadvantaged students (Free or Reduced Lunch) Special Education students Limited English Proficient (LEP) students

Subgroup AYP Calculations Aggregate test results by subject by each subgroup within school. Report only first time test takers proficiency level. Math/English RLR ES: Grades 3 and 5 MS: Grade 8 and EOC HS: EOC

AYP Requirement: Student Achievement Starting points and Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO’s) based on formula applied to 2002 statewide scores: English Math 2003: 61%59% 2004:61%59% 2005:70%70% 2006:70%70% 2007:70%70%

Student Achievement (cont’d) English Math 2008: 80%80% 2009: 80%80% 2010: 80%80% 2011: 90%90% 2012: 90%90% 2013: 90%90% 2014:100%100%

Make AYP: Method 1 At least 95% of enrolled students participate in testing program (by subgroup) AND All students and all subgroups score at least proficient in statewide assessments, at AYP targets for that year AND All students meet AYP target for graduation or attendance

Making AYP: Method 1

Alternative Route to AYP: “SAFE HARBOR” Participation rate is 95% The Percentage of failing students in subgroup(s) has been reduced by > 10% from the prior year AND School shows improvement on academic indicators: In the future it will be attendance and graduation rates. In it will be science scores.

Making AYP Using Safe Harbor

Accountability Sanctions for Title I Schools that Fail to Meet AYP A Title I school is identified for “School Improvement” by failing to make AYP for two consecutive years.

Accountability First-Year School Improvement Beginning with the school year, Title I schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years will be placed on School Improvement status. Parents must be notified in writing prior to the start of the school year that the school their child is attending has not met AYP and offer them the option of public school choice (transfer to a high performing school)

Accountability Second-year School Improvement Continue to offer public school choice Include tutoring, remediation services and academic services outside of the school day. Local Education Agency pays for supplemental services

Accountability Sanctions increase in severity if the school continues not to make AYP!

Virginia Accreditation VA’s standards-based accreditation system remains in place, but the rules are different. Participation requirements differ Pass rates are different: VA currently greater than NCLB Sanctions are different: VA currently greater than NCLB

Virginia Accreditation continued Provisional accreditation phases out in 2004: schools will meet the 70% pass rates or be Accredited with Warning Graduation in June, 2004 will require 6 verified credits: English RLR, Writing, four elective verified credits. More prescribed content for verified credits in 2006.

Virginia Accreditation continued English passing rate for grade 3 increases to 75% in LEP (ESL) participation for accreditation remains different than NCLB. Special Education remains different.