1 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
Advertisements

Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance.
Preparing for 2005 Mid-Cycle IV Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations Massachusetts Department of Education August, 2005.
Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.
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.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
Poway Unified Board of Education Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) October 15, 2012.
Instructions for Use This presentation slideshow is intended for school and district leaders to use to explain Adequate Yearly Progress to faculty, school.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information Session Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability & Targeted Assistance Massachusetts Department of.
2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
NCLB Title I, Part A Parent Notification Idaho SDE Title I Director’s Meeting September 15, 2008 Cathryn Gardner, Senior Program Advisor Northwest Regional.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 17 &
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.
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.
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.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District.
MCAS REPORT Spring 2013 Presented to the Hingham School Committee November 18, 2013 by Ellen Keane, Assistant Superintendent.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
School & district accountability reporting Title I Technical Assistance & Networking Session October 17, 2013.
ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status School Committee Presentation September 24, 2013.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Pittsfield Public Schools September 23, 2009.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
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.
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.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) Elements School Improvement District.
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)
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
ESEA Flexibility NCLB Waiver Discussion October 24, 2011.
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.
RECYCLE Jenkins Independent District Data STATE NCLB DATA 103 of 175 school districts (58.9%) met 100% of their No Child Left Behind (NCLB) AYP goals.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
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.
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology Overview of MCAS Results and Adequate Yearly Progress Determinations 2007 Brockton School Committee November.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
Preliminary AYP Preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Data.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
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.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
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.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Braintree Public Schools Spring 2007 MCAS Tests Braintree High School.
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Communication Webinar:
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
2012 Accountability Determinations
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Meeting the challenge Every Classroom Every Student Every Day
Presentation transcript:

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2008

2 Adequate Yearly Progress – Facts AYP reports show the progress schools and districts are making toward having all students reach proficiency by the year 2014 – the principal goal of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). School and district AYP determinations are issued separately for English language arts/reading (ELA) and for mathematics each year. For each subject there are multiple AYP determinations - for all students (the aggregate) and for student groups. Students are counted in each group to which they belong.

3 Adequate Yearly Progress – Facts District AYP determinations are based on grade-span results (3-5; 6-8; 9- 12). Positive results for all groups in any grade-span yields a positive AYP determination. Schools and districts that do not make AYP for two or more consecutive years in the same subject are identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to focus efforts on improving student performance. Schools and districts with an accountability status that make AYP for a single year remain at the previous year’s status.

4 The CPI is: a metric we use to measure school and district performance and improvement; a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in standard MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in the MCAS-Alt. MCAS Performance LevelScaled Score Range OR MCAS-Alt Performance LevelPoints Per Student Proficient or Advanced240 – 280Progressing100 Needs Improvement High230 – 238Emerging75 Needs Improvement Low220 – 228Awareness50 Warning / Failing High210 – 218Portfolio Incomplete25 Warning / Failing Low200 – 208Portfolio not Submitted0 Composite Performance Index (CPI)

5 CPI: Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performance level, then divide the total number of points by the total number of students (example below) MCAS Performance Level MCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics Points Per Student # StudentsPoints Proficient or Advanced / Progressing Needs Improvement High / Emerging Needs Improvement Low / Awareness Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not Submitted 050 Totals90 students4875 Points 4875 ÷ 90 = 54.2

6 Four Factors Determine AYP A ParticipationDid at least 95% of students participate in MCAS in 2008? B PerformanceDid the student group perform at or above the 2008 state performance target? C ImprovementDid the student group meet its own 2008 improvement target? D Additional Indicator Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)? A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

7 Performance targets established between 2001 and 2014, as required by NCLB Targets set separately for ELA and for mathematics Performance expectations increase every 2 years Performance is measured using CPI AYP determinations based on one year of data each year PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2008 performance target? B

8 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2008 performance target? B ELA Math 2001 & & & & & & & Composite Performance Index (CPI)

9 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2008 performance target? B (B) Performance N2008 CPI Met Target (85.4) Aggregate Yes Lim. English Prof Special Ed Low Income5073.0No Minimum “N” Size Rules: 20 in the aggregate 40 for student groups (and at least 5% of total; groups of 200+ always included)

10 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2008 improvement target? C Performance…Improvement… Is an absolute measureIs a relative measure Is measured by comparing a group’s 2008 CPI to the 2008 state performance target Is measured by looking at a group’s change in CPI from 2007 to 2008 Answers the question, “Did the group perform at or above the 2008 state performance target?” (ELA: 85.4, Math 76.5) Answers the question, “Did the group improve from 2007 to 2008 so that it is on track to 100% proficiency by 2014?”

11 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2008 improvement target? C ELA 2001 & & & & & & & (2007) 75.2 (2008) Did this group meet its 2008 performance target? 2008 ELA state perf. target = CPI for group = 75.2 No, because 75.2 < 85.4 Composite Performance Index (CPI)

12 A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2008 improvement target? C ELA 2001 & & & & & & & (2007) 75.2 (2008) Did this group meet its 2008 improvement target? 100 – 65.4 = 34.6 (dist. betw ) 34.6 ÷ 7 = 4.94 (2008 gain target) = 70.3 (2008 impr. target) Yes, because 75.2 > 70.3 Group is on track to 100% Prof. by 2014 Composite Performance Index (CPI)

13 (B) Performance(C) Improvement N2008 CPI Met Target (76.5) 2007 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target Aggregate11060No Yes Lim. English Prof No No The improvement target is expressed as a range An “error band” surrounds the target number Error bands range from 2.5 to 4.5, depending on size of group; 2.5 is typical IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2008 improvement target? C A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

14 ADDITIONAL INDICATOR: Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)? D A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination (D) Attendance %Change Met Target Aggregate Yes Low Income No Have an attendance rate of 92% or higher, or Improve by at least 1 percentage point from the previous year Student groups in schools and districts serving grades 1-8 must:

15 ADDITIONAL INDICATOR: Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)? D A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination (D) Graduation Rate %Change Met Target Hispanic60Yes White582.0Yes Have a 2007 graduation rate of 60% or higher, or Improve by at least 2 percentage points from 2006 to 2007 Student groups in schools and districts serving grades 9-12 must: NEW

16 NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions (School Level) Years Not Making AYP NCLB Accountability StatusRequired Actions 0 – 1No StatusNone 2Improvement (Year 1)Parent/Guardian notification, Planning, School Choice * 3Improvement (Year 2) Above requirements plus SES * 4Corrective ActionAbove requirements plus district takes 1+ corrective actions 5Restructuring (Year 1)Above requirements plus district plans for fundamental reform 6+Restructuring (Year 2+)Above requirements plus district restructures school * School Choice & SES apply to Title I schools only.

17 NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions (District Level) Years Not Making AYP NCLB Accountability Status Required Actions 0 – 1No StatusNone 2Improvement (Year 1)Parent/Guardian Notification Planning 10% set aside of Title I funds for P.D. Limitations on transferability of federal funds 3Improvement (Year 2)Same as above 4+Corrective ActionAbove requirements plus: Prohibition on transfer of federal funds State takes 1+ corrective actions

18 Sample AYP Report (School Summary)

19 Sample AYP Report (School Detail)

20 Sample AYP Report (District Summary)

21 Sample AYP Report (District Detail)

AYP Determinations – Key Dates August 15 – 25 –MCAS Discrepancy Reporting Window ( August 25 – September 5 –AYP Discrepancy Reporting Window (ESE Security Portal) August 26 –Notification letters to Districts and Schools Identified for Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring September 19 –Public Release of Lists of Districts and Schools Identified for Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring September 24 –Public Release of All School & District AYP Reports

AYP Determinations – Resources MCAS / AYP Data Reporting and Review Schedule 2008 Glossary of AYP Terms School Leaders' Guide to the 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reports School and District Accountability Status and Required Actions Federal Non-Regulatory Guidance on District and School Improvement Links to Sample Parent/Guardian Notifications (NCLB Accountability Status/NCLB School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services (SES), and Right-To-Know) Questions?