Urbana School District #116 AYP Status Report 2009 Report to the Board of Education October 6, 2009 Donald Owen, Assistant Superintendent.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Guided Tour of the 1% Exception Process From Documentation to Approval.
Advertisements

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.
No Child Left Behind Act © No Child Left Behind Act ©Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special 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.
Before IDEA One in five children with disabilities was educated. One in five children with disabilities was educated. More than 1 million children with.
1 Test Data Review and Adequate Yearly Progress. 2.
EDU 221.  Group Presentation Reflections due for 7 & 8  Quiz #2 (Tuesday, Nov. 16 th ) – Problem- based ◦ What makes an outstanding response? Referring.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.
Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.
Data for Student Success Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report “It is about focusing on building a culture of quality data through professional development.
School District of University City Jackson Park Elementary School SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Joylynn Wilson, Superintendent Monica Hudson, Principal.
2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Graduation – 2013 Cohort New Jersey Department of Education.
Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
ESEA NCLB  Stronger accountability  More freedom for states and communities  Use of proven research-based methods  More choices.
* AYP stands for Adequate Yearly Progress. As a part of the No Child Left Behind Act, schools are held accountable for their students reaching certain.
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.
Maryland School Assessment (MSA) 2010 Results Leslie Wilson, Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability and Assessment July 20, 2010 State.
1 No Child Left Behind Critical Research Findings For School Boards Ronald Dietel UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Daniel H. Holloway Senior at Old Dominion University Coordinator of Database Services Gloucester County Public Schools.
Agenda (5:00-6:30 PM): Introduction to Staff Title I Presentation PTA Information Classroom visits (two 30 minute rotations)
SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
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.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
Parent Data Information Night. New Terms School Progress Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) AYP no longer exists.
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
Riverview Gardens Moline Elementary School School Progress Report September 11, 2012.
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.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
Annual Student Performance Report September
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)
MCAS 2007 October 24, 2007 A Report to the Sharon School Committee and Dr. Barbara J. Dunham Superintendent of Schools Dr. George S. Anthony Director of.
Accountability Scorecards Okemos Board of Education September 2013.
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 Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.
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.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
Nevada Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators A Systemic Approach to Educator Equity: Carson City School District’s Aligned “Learner-Centered”
No Child Left Behind. Origins of NCLB Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) first enacted in Periodic reauthorization by Congress.
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.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
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)
Demystifying and Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
Annual Title I Meeting & Curriculum Night
Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement
Presentation transcript:

Urbana School District #116 AYP Status Report 2009 Report to the Board of Education October 6, 2009 Donald Owen, Assistant Superintendent

Definitions NCLBNo Child Left Behind (2001) U.S. Law intended to get all students performing at grade level by AYPAdequate Yearly Progress. The rating of how well schools and districts are meeting targets and goals. SubgroupSeven racial, socioeconomic and special ability groups that have to be disaggregated for AYP. A minimum of 45 students is required before the subgroup is applied to AYP. Safe HarborIf a school can improve overall or subgroup % who meet/exceed standards by 10% the school has made AYP. ISATState assessment for grades 3-8 in Reading, Math, Science, and Writing (2007). Only Reading and Math count toward AYP. PSAEState assessment for grade 11. (ACT is a portion of PSAE) Confidence IntervalA statistical formula that is used to equalize the impact of the size of the subgroup. (If a subgroup is 45 there is more statistical error than if a subgroup is 500.)

Elementary FRL Gaps 2009

Summary of 2009 AYP Data 3 elementary schools (King, Prairie, and Wiley) and UMS made AYP. – First time since 2006 UMS has made AYP – First time since 2007 that any elementary school has missed AYP UHS did not make AYP in Reading or Math overall, and did not reach AYP for African American students in Math, and Economically Disadvantaged students in Reading and Math. Of the 36 testing hurdles in 2009, USD students passed 33 of them. 91.7%. – The District reached all AYP targets for Math in African American, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups did not make AYP in Reading at the district level. Focusing on a variety of student data to inform instructional and curricular decisions is one key factor to success. – This includes Response to Intervention, Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, and Professional Learning Community models. Schools (teachers and students) continue to work harder than ever at meeting state standards in a variety of ways (not just on state tests).

Current Status ISBE published “Pathways” of State/Federal Improvement Status September, 2009 (included in packet). – UHS is Academic Watch Status Year 3 (Restructuring). – UMS is Academic Watch Status Year 2 (Restructuring Planning) – No Change from – District is in Academic Early Warning Year 1 (Status has not changed since 2004).