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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Future Ready Schools ABCs/AYP Background Briefing August 23, 2007 Lou Fabrizio, Ph.D. Director of Accountability Services NC Department of Public.
Advertisements

NCLB Program Improvement Status Report for Chipman Middle School Presentation to the Board of Education October 23, 2007.
New Jersey Statewide Assessment Results: Highlights and Trends State Board of Education, February 6, 2008 Jay Doolan, Ed.D., Assistant Commissioner,
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
School Intervention Recommendations Oakland Unified School District November 2, 2005.
A presentation to the Board of Education
1 R-2 Report: Read and write at the end of third grade Review of Progress and Approval of Targets A presentation to the Board by Vince.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
August 8, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon Housson, Director Overview of.
Accountabil ity System Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performanc e Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Overview.
MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
CELEBRATE OUR SUCCESS! School Year 1 st Year of Transformation.
- 0 - Update: Recommended school interventions in response to loss of enrollment, academic under-performance, and NCLB Oakland Unified School District.
Annual Title 1 Parent Meeting
Regional Assessment Network (RAN) Update Chun-Wu Li, Ph.D. Assessment and Accountability Services Division of Educational Services March 21, 2014.
AYP: Making Adequate Yearly Progress in Washington State Spring 2012.
25 seconds left…...
AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013 Thank you to Nancy Katims- Edmonds School District for much of the content of this presentation Ben Gauyan.
Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.
‘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.
Poway Unified Board of Education Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) October 15, 2012.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 6, 2011.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report September 20, 2011.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
ON TARGET WITH AMAOS 1, 2, 3 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS September 29, 2009 Welcome.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Assessing California Standards Test (CST) Data.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress Fresno Unified School District 2005 Data Review.
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.
Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.
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.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Analysis of the Mathematics Section of the California Standards Test (CST) Data Elementary.
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)
Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.
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.
1 No Child Left Behind: Identification of Program Improvement (PI) Schools and Districts July 2003.
Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind California Department of Education Policy and Evaluation Division July 2003.
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.
Daniel Melendez. School Demographics  Language  English Learners  7% (55 students)  Socio-Economic  35% qualify for free or reduced lunch (276) 
California Standards Test (CST) and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results, Oakland Unified School District Division of Student Achievement.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.
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.
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.
- 0 - OUSD Results MSDF Impact Assessment State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API) The API is a single number, ranging from a low.
2007 – 2008 Assessment and Accountability Report LVUSD Report to the Board September 23, 2008 Presented by Mary Schillinger, Assistant Superintendent Education.
2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012.
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
2012 Accountability Determinations
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
Presentation transcript:

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

2 Overview of the AYP Components Participation Rate Annual Measurable Objectives API Graduation Rate Status Report for AYP Components Participation Rate Annual Measurable Objectives API Graduation Rate Program Improvement (PI) Status NCLB Timeline OUSD Program Improvement Schools Celebration of Success Agenda

3 AYP represents the Adequate Yearly Progress a school must make under No Child Left Behind. What is AYP?

4 95% Participation Rate AMOs in ELA and Math API (Californias additional indicator) Graduation rate (High Schools Only) A Y P Four Requirements To Make AYP

5 Requirement 1: Participation Rate 95% of students in grades 2-11 continuously enrolled from the CBEDS date (in October) must take each segment of required assessments; students who enroll prior to the first day of testing must also be tested. Schools and the District must meet participation rates for each numerically significant subgroup (e.g. ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantaged…) as well as for the school/district as a whole.

6 Requirement 2: Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) 2005 AMOs School Level ELAMath Elementary or Middle Schools 24.4 % Proficient 26.5% Proficient High Schools 22.3% Proficient 20.9% Proficient District 23.0% Proficient 23.7% Proficient AMOs represent the percentage of students scoring proficient or above in English- Language Arts and Math. Students must meet or exceed the AMO goals prescribed by the state. The statewide goals are applicable to ALL: –Schools (including alternative and charters) –Subgroups –Districts –States Note: 2005 AMOs represent a significant increase over 2004 targets.

7 Requirement 3: API Other AYP Indicator- API API or 1 Point Growth Schools are required to achieve growth in the API of at least one point from base to growth, OR meet an API status target. The API base for each school is uniquely set by the state. The 2005 API status target for all schools is 590.

8 Requirement 4: Graduation Rate 2005 Graduation Rate Requirement 82.9% High schools must meet the minimum graduation rate (82.9 for 2005) or show improvement of at least 0.1% from the previous year or improvement of 0.2% in the average two-year rate.

9 Overview of the AYP Components Participation Rate Annual Measurable Objectives API Graduation Rate Status Report for AYP Components Participation Rate Annual Measurable Objectives API Graduation Rate Program Improvement (PI) Status NCLB Timeline OUSD Program Improvement Schools Celebration of Success Agenda

10 Note: Graph excludes charters schools and schools that are not Title I. What percentage of schools met all four AYP requirements? More district schools met all four AYP requirements in 2005 compared to *Alternative Schools Accountability Model

11 Participation Rates District-wide participation rates for 2005 were about 98% -- up 2 percentage points from 2004 All sub-groups met or exceeded the 95% participation rate requirement OUSD participation rates are comparable to the state (99%), West Contra Costa Unified (98%), and San Francisco Unified (99%) Overall, participation rates were high.

12 Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs): % Proficient in English-Language Arts, 2005 Percent Proficient or Above District AMO Target=23.0% Four of the 10 NCLB subgroups met or exceeded the AMO target for English- Language Arts.

13 Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs): % Proficient in Mathematics, 2005 Percent At or Above Proficient District AMO Target=23.7% Eight of the NCLB subgroups met or exceeded the AMO target for Math.

14 Academic Performance Index As a district, OUSD showed significant API Growth last year. However, we still fall behind the State average.

15 API Growth by Subgroup All subgroups witnessed API growth in 2005.

16 California Standards Test Results by Grade Level A primary attribution to increased API growth was the advancement of all grade levels toward proficiency for both ELA and Math on 2005 CSTs.

17 Graduation Rates Graduation rates declined by 6.4% in 2005.

18 Overview of the AYP Components Participation Rate Annual Measurable Objectives API Graduation Rate Status Report for AYP Components Participation Rate Annual Measurable Objectives API Graduation Rate Program Improvement (PI) Status NCLB Timeline OUSD Program Improvement Schools Celebration of Success Agenda

19 NCLB Program Improvement Timeline Miss AYP Year 1 Year 2: Supplemental Education Services Miss AYP Year 3: Corrective Action Miss AYP Year 4: Restructure (Planning Year) Miss AYP Year 5: Restructure (Implementation Year) Advancement Timeline: Schools and districts exit PI after two consecutive years of meeting AYP requirements. Currently, OUSD is in Year 1 of Program Improvement.

20 Why is OUSD a PI District? 2004 OUSD did not meet the participation rate for students with disabilities PI identification rules were modified. OUSD did not make AYP in the same content areas (ELA or Math) for the 6-8 and 10 th grade spans for 2 consecutive years.

21 Met ELA AMO? Met Math AMO? 2004Grades 2-5NoYes Grades 6-8No Grades 10No 2005Grades 2-5NoYes Grades 6-8No Grades 10No Beginning in 2005, a district is identified as PI if it does not make AYP in the same content area (English-language arts [ELA] or mathematics) AND does not meet AYP criteria in the same content area in each grade span (grades two through five, grades six through eight, and grade ten) for two consecutive years. Changes to PI Identification for Districts As a district, OUSD is in Year 1 of Program Improvement.

22 Percentage of OUSD Schools in Program Improvement % of OUSD schools are currently in Program Improvement status Total Number of Schools Excluding Charters: 102

23 SituationsNumber At risk of Entering Year 118* Entered PI Year 111 Maintained at Year 12 Advanced from Year 1 to Year 212 Maintained at Year 21 Advanced from Year 2 to Year 37 Advanced from Year 3 to Year 40 Maintained at Year 42 Advanced from Year 4 to Year 510 Program Improvement Overview In , more OUSD schools could be in Program Improvement status. *8 schools do not have API Growth Rates

24 The Schools At Risk of Entering PI Year 1 At-risk schools with API Growth Rates 1. ASCEND 2. Brewer (Edna) Middle 3. Bunche 4. Far West (Cont.) 5. Hoover Elementary 6. International Community 7. Markham Elementary 8. Merritt Middle College High (Alt) 9. Santa Fe Elementary 10. Emerson Elementary At-risk schools without API Growth Rates (Most are New Schools) 1. Business and Information Technology High 2. East Oakland Community High (EOCH) 3. East Oakland School of the Arts 4. Leadership Preparatory High 5. MetWest High 6. Oakland Community Day High 7. Street Academy (Alter) 8. YES, Youth Empowerment

25 Celebration of Success: Exiting PI Franklin Elementary

26 Celebration of Success: Exiting PI Glenview Elementary

27 Celebration of Success: Exiting PI Laurel Elementary

28 Conclusion As a district we are pleased with the growth achieved in with all grade levels moving in the direction of proficiency on the California Standards Test. However, we also recognize the work ahead with many schools currently in PI or at risk of entering PI. To proactively improve our schools, we will: Continue refining our system for effectively intervening in schools before they require mandated action based on their Program Improvement status Share best practices from schools that have effectively exited Program Improvement.