1 No Child Left Behind: Identification of Program Improvement (PI) Schools and Districts July 2003.

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.
Delaware Statewide Title I Conference 1 School Improvement – The Ever-Changing Landscape – Part I June 29, 2010 Bill McGrady U. S. Department of Education.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
1 Overview: What is “No Child Left Behind”?. 2 Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“ESEA”) of ’65 Money to states for specific.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Program Improvement Year 3 Corrective Action.
No Child Left Behind The New Age: No Child Left Behind.
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.
1 Supplemental Educational Services Office of Elementary and Secondary Education June 2002.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
EDU 221.  Group Presentation Reflections due for 7 & 8  Quiz #2 (Tuesday, Nov. 16 th ) – Problem- based ◦ What makes an outstanding response? Referring.
Poway Unified Board of Education Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) October 15, 2012.
Determining Validity For Oklahoma’s Educational Accountability System Prepared for the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Oklahoma State.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information Session Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability & Targeted Assistance Massachusetts Department of.
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.
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.
Cambrian School District Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Program Improvement (PI) Report.
A Guide to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County April 2010.
The New Age: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) By Don Bertucci, Chaffey Unified School District ROP.
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.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
1 Title IA Online Coordinator Training School Improvement.
Title I School Improvement Committee of Practitioners Bridgeport Conference Center June 9, 2008.
1 No Child Left Behind Critical Research Findings For School Boards Ronald Dietel UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center.
2011 School Improvement Technical Assistance Meeting Dr. Reginald Eggleston Assistant Superintendent Division of Federal and Special Programs October 27,
May 25,  MSP scores are compared against a uniform bar.  The MSP scores compared against the uniform bar are not representative of individual.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
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.
SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation.
Overview of the Title I Program at [school name] Presenter Date Location.
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.
1 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Steve Martin, CMT Program Manager Bureau of Research, Evaluation, and Student Assessment Connecticut State Department.
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.
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.
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.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
AYP and Report Card. AYP/RC –Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. –Understand the purpose and role of the Report Card in Oregon.
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind California Department of Education Policy and Evaluation Division July 2003.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
GUIDANCE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Region VII Comprehensive Center The University of Oklahoma 555 Constitution Street Norman, OK David.
Jamal Abedi CRESST/University of California,Los Angeles Paper presented at 34 th Annual Conference on Large-Scale Assessment Boston, June 20-23, 2004.
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.
Springs 2006 and 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Results Potential Challenges with 2008 Annual Measurable Objectives & District Corrective Action.
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.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
School Report Card and Identification Progression
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP and Report Card.
Presentation transcript:

1 No Child Left Behind: Identification of Program Improvement (PI) Schools and Districts July 2003

2  New definition of AYP and PI  Identification of PI schools and districts  PI appeal process  PI sequential requirements under NCLB  PI implementation timelines No Child Left Behind

3 AYP for Title I Schools and Districts  Applies to all schools and districts that receive Title I funds  Title I schools and districts must meet all four components of AYP  Percent of students proficient or above on statewide assessments  Student participation rate in the statewide assessments  API  Graduation rate (high schools)

Title I Schools Identified for PI Did not meet the annual measurable objectives (AMOs) in the same content area (English-language arts or math) in both and or Did not meet any one of the other components of the AYP.

5 Title I Districts Identified for PI Did not meet the annual measurable objectives (AMOs) in the same content area for two consecutive years for any significant subgroup or district- wide or The district did not meet any one of the other components of AYP.

6 Appeal Process for PI Schools and Districts A district may appeal on its own behalf or for a school. Appeal must be based on substantive or statistical error (to be defined). 30-days to file appeal and to receive final determination. Appeal is one-time, for August, October, or December 2003 AYP report only.

7 NCLB PI School Requirements Year 1 Program Improvement Revise school plan. Use 10% funds for staff development. Provide school choice with paid transportation. District provides technical assistance (TA).

8 NCLB PI School Requirements Year 2 Program Improvement Continue –Staff development –Choice –District TA Add –Supplemental services/tutoring

9 NCLB PI School Requirements Year 3 Corrective Action Continue –District TA –Choice –Supplemental services Add –District corrective action

10 NCLB PI School Requirements Year 4 Corrective Action Continue –District TA –Choice –Supplemental services Add –Development of plan for alternative governance

11 NCLB PI School Requirements Year 5 Restructuring Implement alternative governance plan –Reopen as charter. –Replace staff. –Contract with external entity. –Takeover by state.

12 PI District Requirements Year 1 Program Improvement Revise LEA Plan. Use 10% funds for staff development. Target students not making AYP. Provide extended learning opportunities. Involve parents. Receive TA from state.

13 PI District Requirements Year 2 Implement Plan Year 3 State Corrective Action State takes one corrective action: –Reduce funds; –Institute new curriculum and staff development; –Replace personnel; –Appoint trustee; –Restructure LEA; And authorize choice.

14 PI Schools Identified Prior to NCLB Placed in Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 for the entire school year, in accordance with NCLB.

15 Options for Existing PI Schools (Years 1 and 2) in Schools will exit PI status: –Made AYP in 2002 and Schools will remain in place: –Made AYP in Schools will advance to the next level under NCLB: –Did not make AYP in 2003.

16 Options for Year 3 Corrective Action Schools Identified for school year. –Made AYP in 2002 and 2003, will exit PI. –Did not make AYP in 2003, will advance to Year 4. –Made AYP in 2003, will remain in Year 3. Identified for school year. – All will remain in Year 3 for

17 After August 2003 AYP Report New PI schools must move immediately to implement school choice. Advancing PI schools must move immediately to implement new requirements. PI schools remaining at the same level must continue required activities.

18 After October 2003 AYP Report Schools that made AYP for August Report, but did not make AYP for October Report, must immediately move to implement the requirements of NCLB.

19 After December 2003 AYP Report Schools that made AYP for August and October reports, but did not make AYP for Final December Report, must immediately move to implement the requirements of NCLB.