Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Track Performance Division of Performance Accountability.
Advertisements

‘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.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
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.
1 Prepared by: Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress.
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.
A Guide to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County April 2010.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
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 School Grades & AMO Overview Paul Houchens Director Student Assessment & Research.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
1 Putting It All Together Training August 18, 2009 School Name (and motto or theme) ODMS PD SIP.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
AYP Prediction By Diagnostics in the Educational Data Warehouse.
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.
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
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.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
Welcome and Introductions H.O.B. – Helping Our students “BE” successful!
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.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.
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.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
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.
Overview “School Grading Rule” 6A Proposed CS/SB 1522 ESEA Waiver CAO March 2012.
1 School Grades and AYP for New Accountability Coordinators.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
Differentiated Accountability Title I Conference Daytona, Florida April 29, 2009.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Accountability Update School Grade Changes Dr. Karen Schafer Office of Accountability and Testing March 14, 2012.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
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.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
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.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
American Education Research Association April 2004 Pete Bylsma, Director Research/Evaluation/Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
FY 11 School Grade Calculation
Online Data Workshop SIP Office of Curriculum and Instruction Office of School Improvement.
Presentation transcript:

Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability and the Statewide School Grading System

 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires All public schools, including Charter Schools and Alternative Schools to measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  ALL public schools receive AYP Designation

 Measures progress in PROFICIENCY of ALL accountable students in reading, math, and writing in 9 subgroups.  Requires schools to receive a Florida grade of “C” or better  If the school does not make AYP, consequences are applied to remediate the school.

9 Total Subgroups  White (W)  Black (B)  Hispanic (H)  Asian (A)  American Indian (I)  Economically Disadvantaged (ED)  English Language Learners (ELL)  Students with Disabilities (SWD)

Economically Disadvantaged (ED) Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch English Language Learners (ELL)  LY (currently active in program) AND  LF (up to 2 years monitoring after exit from program) Students With Disabilities (SWD) Students with exceptionalities other than gifted

 Greater than or equal to 30 students and represents more than 15% of total tested population or  At least 100 students in the subgroup count

School must receive grade of “C” or better AND 95% of each subgroup must be tested AND The Total subgroup must meet writing and graduation indicators AND Each subgroup must meet the proficiency targets in reading and math

 Participation (95% of students in attendance of survey 3 in February)  Writing At least 90% of students earn a score of 3.0 points or Greater OR 1% improvement from previous year  Graduation (High Schools Only) 85% or greater OR 1% improvement from previous year  Reading  Math Increase Each Year

Year ReadingMath % ProfIncrease% ProfIncrease was now

Reading and MathWriting FCAT Level 3 and above Score 3 and above FAA Achieved and Commended (Level 4 and above) 4 and above

% Prof % Tested Writing and Graduation Safe Harbor Growth Model Sub groups

AYP Rules at Bottom of Report

1. School Grade 2. Participation Rate 3. Graduation Rate 4. Proficiency in Writing 5. Proficiency in ▪ Reading ▪ Mathematics 6. Safe Harbor 7. Growth Model What are the components of the AYP Calculation?

Did the school receive a D or F? NO Go on to STEP 2 (Participation Rate)

Did the school test at least 95% of every group? YES Go on to STEP 3 (Writing and Graduation Criteria)

Did the Total subgroup meet the writing and graduation requirements? Writing 90% or 1% improvement of students met criteria. Graduation (High Schools Only) 85% or greater or 1% improvement for graduation. YES Go on to STEP 4 (Proficiency Targets)

NO Did each sub group meet the proficiency targets for reading and math? Year ReadingMath % Prof YES School Made AYP! Go on to Step 5 (Safe Harbor)

Writing: 90% proficient or 1% improvement from previous year Graduation: (high school only) 85% graduating or 1% improvement from previous year YES Go on to SAFE HARBOR

You try the next 3! 10% of 63=7 63-7= 56 Safe Harbor Calculation 10% of 66=7 10% of 56=656-6= = % of 62 = = 55 10% of 56 = = 50 10% of 81 = = 72

_sip_safe_harbor_reading.htmwww.palmbeach.k12.fl.us/SchoolImprovement/new_develop _sip_safe_harbor_reading.htm Go on to the Growth Model.

 If any subgroup does not meet the proficiency and safe harbor requirements……  The percentage of students in that subgroup who are on track to be proficient within three years meet criteria in reading and math.

Trajectory Set Count three years from FY2006 (Base Score) Subtract Proficiency Target from Base Score Determine the Proficiency Target Divide the difference by 3 FY 2007 Current Grade DSS from FY 2006 (previous year) Base score for trajectory 285/3 = 95 Year 1 DSS + 95 = 1620

 Review the sample report at your table  What do you notice?

 Although ALL schools receive an AYP status only Title I schools may be identified as “School in Need of Improvement” (SINI) schools.  After 2 consecutive years of not meeting AYP, the school is identified as a “SINI”  The school must make AYP for 2 consecutive years to be removed from the “SINI” school list.

Prevent IPrevent II Not Made AYP for 3 or less years A, B, C, or Ungraded schools Meet at least 80% of AYP criteria Not Made AYP for 3 or less years Meet less than 80% of AYP criteria All Title I D and F schools All non-Title I D schools. Correct ICorrect II Not Made AYP for 4 or more years Schools planning for or implementing Restructuring A, B, C, or Ungraded schools Meet at least 80% of AYP criteria. Not Made AYP for 4 or more years Schools planning for or implementing Restructuring That meet less than 80% of AYP criteria All Title I D and F schools; and All non-Title I Repeating F and F schools.

Intervene D or F Title I school OR Repeating F (two F grades in a four year period), regardless of Title I or SINI status in 2009 AND Has answered “Yes” to three out of four: 1. Has the percentage of non-proficient students in reading increased in 3 years? 2. Has the percentage of non-proficient students in math increased in 3 years? 3. Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in reading? 4. Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in math? Also included are chronic F schools (Title I and non-Title I) that are current repeating F schools and have earned four F grades in last six school years.

34 yes & NA cells /39 applicable cells=90%

State of Florida School Grading: THE A+ PLAN

 The State of Florida determines school grades by using 8 separate FCAT components (Elementary and Middle).  This makes up 50% of High School Grading Components.  Each component is worth up to 100 points.  The sum of those components determine a school’s grade. A = At least 525 points B = 495 – 524 C = 435 – 494 D = 395 – 434 F = less than 395

FCATReadingMathWritingScience Accountability Students Level 3 & above % Meeting Standards % Meeting Standards % Meeting Standards % Meeting Standards All Students Includes LEP & ESE % Making Learning Gains % Making Learning Gains All Students Includes LEP & ESE (Lowest 25%) % Making Learning Gains % Making Learning Gains % of retakes meeting the FCAT graduation requirement % Meeting Standards (50% min) DSS: 1926 % Meeting Standards (50% min) DSS: 1889 Proficiency Family Learning Gains Family High School Only FOR THE TOTAL POINTS: Add all 8 cell percentages. 100 points per cell= 800 total Retake bonus= 10 points. Standard Curriculum Accountability ONLY: LEP more than 2 years Speech and Hospital Homebound All accountability students: Who took the FCAT the previous year. Lowest 25% accountability students by Developmental Scale Score: Grade level scores lined up highest to lowest. Students here both FTEs for 2 years prior: 50% of reading AND 50% math retake students who meet the FCAT graduation requirements. 3 ways to make gains: 1.Improve an FCAT level. 2.Maintain a FCAT level 3,4, or 5 3.Improve more than 1 year within a level- without being retained the previous year. FLORIDA ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT 1. Remain a 4 or higher. 2. Improve a level

Goal Type Percent of Current Year Lowest 25% Learning Gains School Grade Related Action* Performance 50% + No Reduction Improvement 40% - 49% Reduced unless improvement of 1% pt. or more is made over the prior year Stretch 39% and Below Reduced unless improvement of 5% pt. or more is made over the prior year *Applies to schools with letter grades of A, B, or C.

I. Primary Benchmarks: District-led using Curriculum Frameworks (same for all schools) – Whole Group Instruction II. Secondary Benchmarks: Data Driven based by school, which is based on need (different for each school) – Whole Group Instruction III. Tailored Benchmarks: Teacher selected based on students’ need, which is determined by data; may be different for each group or each child – Small Group Instruction

PrimarySecondaryTailored Bell to Bell Component Whole Group Small Group Developed byDistrict School Grade Department Individual Teacher Data Base District Wide FCAT Results by Grade Level FCAT Results Embedded Assessments Diagnostics FCAT Diagnostics Embedded Assessments RRR SRI Teacher Observation Conference Notes Reported In Curriculum Frameworks School Instructional Focus Calendars Teacher Grouping Decisions/Skill Focused Data Chats

Diamond Reports Sorted by district, cluster, and previous year PANS reports By grade level By teacher By student Content Focus By grade level By subject By FCAT tested year Content Categories Charts Found in FCAT Test Design & Summary

 Jeffrey Hernandez – Chief Academic Officer  Vanessa DeLaPena – Reading Manager  Adam Miller – Reading/LA & Data Instructional Specialist –