Subtitle Title I Federal School Accountability Office of School Improvement and Turnaround Indiana Department of Education March 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ESEA Title III AMAOs Ensuring Academic Success for English Learners Dr. Shereen Tabrizi, Manager Special Populations Unit Maria Silva, EL Consultant Office.
Advertisements

Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
IMPLICATIONS FOR KENTUCKY’S SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS SUPERINTENDENTS’ WEBCAST MARCH 6, 2012 NCLB Waiver Flexibility 1.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER RENEWAL Overview of Proposed Renewal March 6, 2015 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVERS Gayle Pauley Assistant Superintendent Special Programs and Federal Accountability
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Focus-Targeted Schools for Webinar – February 2015.
1 School Designation Detailed Methodology Reward Identify the “highest-performing schools” and “high-progress schools” based in all-students group over.
New DC OSSE ESEA Accountability. DC OSSE ESEA Accountability Classification Overview I. DC OSSE Accountability System II. Classification of Schools III.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
FIELD-TEST FLEXIBILITY: AN OVERVIEW October 31, 2013.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
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.
Review Planning Faribault Public Schools DATA DAY.
Subtitle 1003(g) School Improvement Grants April 2, 2012.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Arizona LEARNS: Overview of the Achievement Profiles.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
SIP Training Harnett County Schools Thursday, March 29, 2012.
Mississippi Department of Education Office of Innovative Support February 17, 2010 Federal Programs Committee of Practitioners Meeting.
DRAFT Title I Annual Parent Meeting Elliott Point September 15, 2015 Janet Norris.
July,  Congress hasn’t reauthorized Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  U.S. Department.
ESEA Flexibility: Gap Reduction Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 5 of 8.
1 Requirements for Focus Schools Contractors’ Meeting March 4, 2013 Presenter: Yvonne A. Holloman, Ph.D.
ESEA Renewal What does it Mean for Title I? Program Improvement and Family Support Branch Title I Administrative Meeting September 17, 2015.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Pennsylvania’s ESEA Flexibility Proposal May 23, >
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
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.
Indiana Student Achievement Institute InSAI STEERING TEAM Setting the Data Targets InSAI Raising the bar: Meeting the challenge.
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)
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
Understanding AMAOs Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives for Title III Districts School Year Results.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Fulton City School District CDEP Plan Implementation Update Fulton Board of Education October 27, 2015.
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.
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.
703 KAR 5:225 Next-Generation Learners Accountability System Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:cw,ko.
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.
1 Restructuring Webinar Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D. Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary.
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.
Tift County High School ANNUAL TITLE I MEETING SY16 Tap Knowledge – Capture Wisdom - Harness Talents -Sculpt Minds.
March 2013 Training Session The content of this PowerPoint is contingent upon approval of the Alabama PLAN 2020 ESEA Flexibility Request by the USDOE.
ESEA Flexibility Waiver Renewal What to Expect for the Upcoming School Year June 17, 2015.
Diane Mugford – Federal Accountability, ADAM Russ Keglovits – Measurement and Accountability, ADAM Renewing Nevada’s ESEA Waiver Flexibility Request.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
ESEA Title III Accountability System. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 22 Title III Requires States to: Define two annual measurable.
Transition to ESSA WVDE Office of Federal Programs March 8, 2016 Alternate Audio Access: #
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Federal Programs Committee of Practitioners Meeting
2012 Accountability Determinations
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
KAESP 2012 Spring Retreat April 2, /15/2018.
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
AYP and Report Card.
November 09, 2012 Suzanne M. Wright Joe Prather
Presentation transcript:

Subtitle Title I Federal School Accountability Office of School Improvement and Turnaround Indiana Department of Education March 2012

Agenda School Placement Category… Overview Definitions Scenarios

Terminology AMO: Annual Measurable Objective is the annual target for the percentage of students whose test scores must be proficient or above in English/Language Arts and Mathematics. TAT: This refers to the Technical Assistance Team visit Priority and Focus schools could receive from IDOE. Bottom 25%: The bottom 25 percent of student scores in each school, whether or not they belong to a subgroup. ESEA Subgroup: Groups of at least 30 students that represent Overall, Asian, African American, Hispanic, White, Free or Reduced, Limited English Proficient, and Special Education test takers.

What has changed? Current Federal Accountability for Title I Schools Based on AYP 4 special designations –Comprehensive-intensive –Comprehensive –Comprehensive-support –Focus Prescribed interventions New Federal Accountability for Title I Schools Based on A-F model 4 special designations –Reward –Priority –Focus –Focus-targeted LEA- and school-selected interventions

School Placement Category Overview Title I Served Schools Only Reward Schools Focus-Targeted Schools Focus Schools Priority Schools The state’s Highest Performing Schools and High-Progress Schools ‘A,’ ‘B, ‘or ‘C’ school which fails to meet the requirements for each subgroup. Schools which earn a ‘D’ rating that are not Priority or have a graduation rate <60% for 2 years. Schools which earn an ‘F’ and/or are classified as persistently low-achieving.

Agenda School Placement Category… Overview Definitions Scenarios

Reward Schools Highest Performing Schools Schools which receive an ‘A’ for two consecutive years (Begins ) High-Progress Elem. & Middle Schools High Growth in bottom 25% and top 75% subgroup for both E/LA & math (Begins Immediately ) High-Progress High Schools Significant improvement in its not- proficient population in E/LA & Math (Begins Immediately ) Reward Schools Receive (at a minimum): Excellence in Teaching Grant bonus Best practices highlighted by IDOE

Focus-Targeted Schools Bottom 25% Focus-Targeted schools can simultaneously be Priority, Focus or Reward ESEA Subgroups - Fails to meet growth requirement from baseline year, or - Is 2+ grades behind the school overall 1 or more ESEA subgroups… - Do not meet their AMO, or - Earn a ‘D’ or ‘F,’ or - scores 2+ grades below the school OR To exit Focus-Targeted status a school must… Meet the performance targets from the AMO for each subgroup Improve grade for each subgroup to a ‘C’ or higher

Scenarios Made-Up Middle School ( ) Performance Rating Overall the school earned a ‘B.’ ESEA Subgroups 9 of 12 subgroups did not meet AMOs Reward School and Focus-Targeted year 1. Reward status comes from high growth in Bottom 25% The Focus-Targeted status comes from the 9 of 12 ESEA subgroups failing to meet AMOs. Bottom 25% Showed high growth in E/LA and Math

Scenarios Mock Middle School ( ) Performance Rating Overall the school earned a ‘A.’ ESEA Subgroups All subgroups met AMOs and growth targets. Focus-Targeted year 1. Focus-Targeted status comes from the Bottom 25% receiving a ‘C,’ two grades lower than the overall performance grade. Bottom 25%Rating of a ‘C’

Focus-Targeted School Requirements Focus-Targeted Yr 1 & 2 Modify School Improvement Plan to target deficient subgroups. LEA must notify families the school did not meet requirements for this/these subgroups. Focus-Targeted Yr 3 & 4 Same as Year 1 & 2 LEA must modify relevant federal grant applications to include specific intervention strategies for this/these subgroup(s) IDOE will offer technical assistance to LEAs to made the appropriate modifications to the school’s School Improvement Plan and federal grant application Focus-Targeted Yr 5 & beyond Same as 1-4 LEA must complete quarterly monitoring reports with evidence of progress towards goals tied to the specific intervention strategies

Focus Schools School Performance Rating Schools that receive a ‘D’ and had a C or higher the previous year. Consistently Low Graduation Rate High schools with a graduation rate <60% for 2+ consecutive years (n ≥ 30) To exit Focus status a school must… Improve performance rating to a ‘C’ or higher for consecutive years or Earn reward school status just one year and Improve graduation rate to 60+% for consecutive years (if needed)

Focus School Requirements Universal Requirements All interventions must align to Mass Insight’s High Quality, High Poverty Framework and the Turnaround Principles, and are subject to review by IDOE. Focus Yr 1 Identify and implement THREE interventions based on a school- based root cause analysis. Focus Yr 2-4 Revise school improvement plan based on previous year’s data Option to focus resources on 1 strategically selected intervention. Focus Yr 5 Revise school improvement plan based on previous year’s data Participate in IDOE School Quality Review Focus Yr 6 Implement interventions identified in previous year’s IDOE report. SIG funding will not be provided to LEAs that do not comply.

Priority Schools School Performance Rating Schools that receive a ‘F’ rating Persistently Low-Achieving Schools Schools which earn a ‘D’ and/or an ‘F’ for two or more consecutive years To exit Focus status a school must… Improve performance rating to a ‘C’ or higher for consecutive years or Earn Reward school status just one year

Priority School Requirements Universal Requirements All interventions must align to Mass Insight’s High Quality, High Poverty Framework and the Turnaround Principles, and are subject to review by IDOE. Priority Yr 1 Identify and implement 3 interventions based on a school-based root cause analysis. Priority Yr 2-3 Revise school improvement plan based on previous year’s data Flexibility to focus resources on 1 strategically selected intervention. Priority Yr 4 Revise school improvement plan based on previous year’s data IDOE Technical Assistance Team Quality Review Priority Yr 5 Implement interventions identified in previous year’s IDOE report. SIG funding will not be provided to LEAs that do not comply. Priority Yr 6 Schools will be subject to state intervention pursuant to PL 221.

Agenda School Placement Category… Overview Definitions Scenarios

Bayside High School ( ) Performance Rating Graduation Rate Not- Proficient Overall the school earned a ‘C.’ 58% Grad Rate Did not show high growth. ESEA Subgroups 2 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs Focus-Targeted year 1. The Focus-Targeted status comes from the 2 of 14 ESEA subgroups failing to meet AMOs.

Scenarios Bayside High School ( ) Performance Rating Not- Proficient Overall the school earned a ‘C.’ High growth in Math Graduation Rate 59% Grad Rate Focus-Targeted School 58% Graduation Rate Focus School year 1 Focus Target year 2 Despite the ‘C’ rating, the graduation rate is below 60% for the second straight year. High growth in math alone does not increase the school status.

Scenarios Glenbrook North Middle School ( ) Performance Rating Overall the school earned a ‘C.’ ESEA Subgroups 9 of 12 subgroups did not meet AMOs Reward School and Focus-Targeted year 1. Reward status comes from high growth in Bottom 25% The Focus-Targeted status comes from the 9 of 12 ESEA subgroups failing to meet AMOs. Bottom 25% Showed high growth in E/LA and Math

Scenarios Glenbrook North Middle School ( ) Bottom 25% Reward School and Focus Targeted Showed high growth in Math ESEA Subgroups 4 of 12 subgroups did not meet AMOs Focus-Targeted year 2. Lost Reward School due to Bottom 25% only showing high growth in Math. The Focus-Targeted status comes from the 4 of 12 ESEA subgroups failing to meet AMOs. Performance Rating Overall the school earned a ‘C’

Scenarios Happiness Elementary School ( ) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘D.’ Did not show high growth. ESEA Subgroups 7 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs Focus School year 1 Focus Targeted year1 Focus status is due to the ‘D’ performance rating.

Scenarios Happiness Elementary School ( ) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘C.’ High growth in Math ESEA Subgroups 4 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs Happiness was a Focus School Holding year for a Focus School and Focus Targeted year 2. Holding because they need another year of ‘C’ or higher to remove from Focus status. High growth in math alone does not increase the school status.

Scenarios Happiness Elementary School ( ) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘D.’ Bottom 25% did not show high growth ESEA Subgroups 6 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs Happiness was in a holding year. Focus School year 2 Focus-Targeted year 3 Year 2 because the count does not reset in a holding year.

Scenarios Joyful Elementary School ( ) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘D.’ Did not show high growth. ESEA Subgroups 5 of 12 subgroups did not meet AMOs Focus School year 1 Focus Targeted year 1 Focus status is due to the ‘D’ performance rating.

Scenarios Joyful Elementary School ( ) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘D.’ High growth in Math ESEA Subgroups 6 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs Joyful was a ‘D’ Focus School year 1 Priority School Focus Targeted year 2 Priority comes from being a persistently low-achieving school.

Upcoming Trainings March 29 –Intervention Criteria WebEx: Mass Insight, Turnaround Principles, Rigor Tiers and Funding April 10 –Intervention Selection WebEx: Root Cause Analysis, Data–Driven Intervention Selection, Logic Model to Guide Implementation April 24 –Intervention Monitoring WebEx: Protocols and Documentation Requirements

Reminders Join School Improvement Learning Connection Community FAQ will be posted and updated weekly All WebEx’s are recorded and posted in the Learning Connection Community

Contact Information Accountability Questions bility/f-accountability Laura Cope Jim Larson