SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NCLB Program Improvement Status Report for Chipman Middle School Presentation to the Board of Education October 23, 2007.
Advertisements

NCLB Program Improvement Status Report for Chipman Middle School Presentation to the Board of Education October 28, 2008.
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.
1 Overview: What is “No Child Left Behind”?. 2 Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“ESEA”) of ’65 Money to states for specific.
School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?
No Child Left Behind The New Age: No Child Left Behind.
‘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.
MSDE Alternative Governance Plan Development School: James Madison Middle School January 2012.
1 Supplemental Educational Services Office of Elementary and Secondary Education June 2002.
EDU 221.  Group Presentation Reflections due for 7 & 8  Quiz #2 (Tuesday, Nov. 16 th ) – Problem- based ◦ What makes an outstanding response? Referring.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information Session Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability & Targeted Assistance Massachusetts Department of.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SIP). AYP INDICATORS, COMPONENTS AND STANDARDS  Reading/ELA  Performance: 87% Proficiency Rate  Participation: 95% Participating.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County May 2011.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
STAR (Support through Assistance & Reforms) Report.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
A Guide to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County April 2010.
State Accountability and Federal Adequate Yearly Progress.
The New Age: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) By Don Bertucci, Chaffey Unified School District ROP.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
1 Title IA Online Coordinator Training School Improvement.
Title I School Improvement Committee of Practitioners Bridgeport Conference Center June 9, 2008.
Texas Public School Accountability Presented at Midwinter by the Texas Education Agency.
May 25,  MSP scores are compared against a uniform bar.  The MSP scores compared against the uniform bar are not representative of individual.
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
State Test Results & AYP Status Shelton School District SY Pam Farr, Director of Teaching & Learning Gail Straus, Director of ECE & Federal Programs.
Title I Faculty Presentation (Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation) 1 Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
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.
NCLB Federal Funding Planning Meeting Private Non Profit Schools LEA Date.
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.
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.
Testing & Accountability Update TAKS, EOC, & STAAR.
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.
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.
Ware County High School State of the school. 12 th grade 448 students entered the 9 th grade in 2003/ students have left the county or state 243.
No Child Left Behind Education Week
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind  NCLB Overview  Assessment and Accountability Requirements  Educator Quality.
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.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
From the Board Room To the Classroom PDK Panel Discussion September 19, 2002.
No Child Left Behind Application 1 Title I, Part A Part 1.
No Child Left Behind Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents Highland Renaissance Academy.
Coordinator’s Academy Local District 6 Program Improvement Thursday October 27, 2005.
 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). About AYP  Initiated by NCLB  Student performance and participation rates on ISTEP+ in English/language arts and mathematics.
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.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2004 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Implementation of the.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
OVERVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY BECCA MARSH, DIVISION OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND SUPPORT TEA, CHARTER SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION ©2013.
School Report Card and Identification Progression
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Presentation transcript:

SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation

What is “No Child Left Behind (NCLB)”? Reauthorizes and amends federal programs established under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) Calls for all public schools to be reevaluated yearly for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Each state designs its own assessment system for this measure, but it must be approved by the federal government The provision of “Title I” funding provides the rationale for this federal legislation

Standards for AYP All schools have two measures:  Elementary and Middle Schools are evaluated on student performance/participation and attendance  High Schools are evaluated on student performance/participation and completion rate

Standards for AYP Student performance/participation indicators are currently in reading and math. Measurement includes these groups: All Students African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP)

When was the AYP standard in place? In Texas AYP was measured in 2000 – 2001 and in 2001 – 2002 using “Low Performing” status on the state accreditation system to identify schools. In 2002 – 2003 the state set targets in alignment with the new law (NCLB) and based the standard on the change in the level of difficulty with the new TAKS test.

What is the position of SAISD at this time? All SAISD schools are Title I schools and are subject to the requirements outlined. This includes alternative schools and “satellite schools.” We had no schools with two consecutive years of designation. We have 14 schools identified for AYP Participation, with one of these for AYP Performance as well. Two schools have yet to be evaluated. Current thinking at the state level is that participation/performance will be considered as one measure.

What Student Performance Measures Have Been Established For Texas? 2002 – – – – – – – – – – – % 2 SEM 1SEM 53.5% Panel 60.1%66.8%73.4%80.1%86.7%93.4%100.0% 33.4% 2 SEM 1 SEM 41.7% Panel 50.0%58.3%66.6%74.9%83.2%91.5%100.0% Math Reading

What Other Performance Measures Have Been Established For Texas? 2002 – – – – – – – – – – – % 70% Completion RateHigh Schools AttendancePreK - 8

What is the test participation measure (currently considered as part of performance…decision not final) ? This measure is currently under debate between the state and federal government. For the 2003 – 2004 school year, the state’s definition will be used under a “hold harmless” clause. The final decision has not been made for the future.

What is the test participation measure (currently considered as part of performance…decision not final) ? State definition: 95% of all students must take TAKS, SDAA (the State Developed Alternative Assessment for special education), LDAA (the locally designed alternative assessment for special education), or RPTE (the Reading Proficiency Test in English for Limited English Proficient students). Federal definition: 99% of all students must take TAKS

When are serious sanctions triggered by the designation of “Needs Improvement”? Sanctions only apply to schools receiving Title I funds. If a school fails to meet AYP criteria on the same measure two years in a row they enter Year 1 of AYP Improvement Requirements. If a school fails to meet AYP criteria on the same measure three years in a row they enter Year 2 of AYP Improvement Requirements. A school is no longer subject to AYP Requirements when they meet the AYP criteria for two consecutive years for the same measure that originally triggered AYP “Needs Improvement Status”.

Campus Level Sanctions in Year 1 Develop/revise a two-year school improvement campus plan Notify parents of campus school improvement status Offer school choice, and provide transportation Establish a district peer review process to provide assistance to the campus

Campus Level Sanctions in Years 2 – 3 (All prior year sanctions remain in effect) Year 2: Supplemental Education Services must be offered to eligible students on the campus at the expense of the district Year 3: Must do one of the following: replace the school staff relevant to not meeting AYP, implement curricular and staff development activities, significantly decrease management authority at the campus, appoint an outside expert adviser to the campus, extend the school year or school day of the campus, restructure the organization of the campus

Campus Level Sanctions in Years 4 – 5 (All prior year sanctions remain in effect) Year 4 and 5 Must implement one of the following: reopen school as charter school, replace principal and staff, contract with a private management company, state takeover, other major restructuring of campus governance