Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.

CELEBRATE OUR SUCCESS! School Year 1 st Year of Transformation.

Using Data to Meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Middle School Principal’s Breakout Session November 16, 2005.

‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.

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.

Alaska’s New Accountability System for Schools 1.

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.

Assessment & Accountability TEP 128A March 7, 2006.

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.

California Standards Test and CAHSEE Correlation Use of Student Data for Targeted Preemptive Intervention November 1, 2006 Dr. Janis Fries-Martinez, Principal.

Title I Coordinators’ Meeting: Guiding Students to Proficiency December 07, 2005.

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.

1 STUDENT PROGRESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 2013 September 10, 2013 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Understandin g the API & the AYP APLUS+ Annual Conference October 2010 Del Mar, California Diane Grotjohn

School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.

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.

Spring 2012 Testing Results. GRANT API HISTORY

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) and Analysis of the Mathematics Section of the California Standards Test (CST) Data Elementary.

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.

Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)

Your High School Name 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.

Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.

State and Federal Accountability Old English Consortium Assistant Principals’ Conference October 2009.

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

Parents as Partners: How Parents and Schools Work Together to Close the Achievement Gap.

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) 

Meeting AYP and Generating API: Preventing “Leakage”

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.

Sample Elementary School 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.

SANGER HIGH SCHOOL CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHED SCHOOL CALSTAT LEADERSHIP SITE FOR COLLABORATION

School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.

C R E S S T / CU University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Measuring Adequate Yearly.

Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.

2007 – 2008 Assessment and Accountability Report LVUSD Report to the Board September 23, 2008 Presented by Mary Schillinger, Assistant Superintendent Education.

Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.

2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012.

2017 Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.

Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP

Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP

Accountability in California Before and After NCLB

Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.

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

STAR CST Reports and AYP Predictions

Wade Hayashida Local District 8

Key Concepts & Questions Adequate Yearly Progress

Academic Achievement Alameda County School Districts

Presentation transcript:

Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09 1

2 Accountability Systems Federal –No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Defines NCLB mandates for Title I schools failing to meet proficiency target Requires all students to perform at or above proficiency by 2014 in English Language Arts and Math State –SB 1X: Public Schools Accountability Act 1999 –Academic Performance Index LACOE/LAUSD Fall 20092/5/2016

3 Federal Testing Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) No Child Left Behind

4 4 Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 1.Participation Rate 2.Minimum Proficiency Rates or Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) 3.Minimum Academic Performance Index (API) [680] 4.Minimum Graduation Rate [83.1% or +.1%] Curricular Areas: Language Arts and Math LACOE/LAUSD2/5/2016

CAHSEE Proficiency English Language Arts: 380 Scaled Score –97% Ninth and Tenth Grade Standards Mathematics: 380 Scaled Score –85% 6th, 7th and Grade Standards 5

6 AYP Criteria High School Level: Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) 2.Testing Proficiency (AMO): English Language Arts Mathematics CAHSEE 33.4%44.5%55.6%66.7%32.2%43.5%54.8%66.1%

Alternate Way of Meeting Proficiency Safe Harbor 7

8 An LEA, school, or subgroup must show a decrease in the percentage of students below proficient by 10% over the prior year to qualify for Safe Harbor

9 Safe Harbor Option Becomes an option to meet AYP proficiency when the gap between the new AMO and the current level of proficiency is greater than 10% New Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) [55.6 ELA/54.8 Math] Gap Greater than 10% Current Proficiency (School wide or Subgroup)

ELA 10 th Grade CAHSEE Percent Proficient 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% EL Subgroup Spring % Non-Proficient 21.1% Proficient EL Subgroup Safe Harbor Target Spring % Non-Proficient 28.99% Safe Harbor Proficiency Rate for EL Subgroup EL Subgroup AMO Target Spring % Non-Proficient 55.6% Proficient Senior High School Proficient equals a scale score of 380 or above 10

Calculating Estimated Safe Harbor 11

12 State Testing Accountability Academic Performance Index (API) Senate Bill 1X [SB1X]

High School API Participation Rate: 85% participation rate must be met in California Standards Tests (CST) Grade Level Exams: ELA Grades 9,10, and 11 US History Grade 11 Life Science Grade 10 13

Failure to Meet the 85% Participation Rate: No Academic Performance Index (API) for the next school year 14

High School: The Big Six API Component Breakdown 15

1.ELA grade level CST(9-11): 27.1% 2.Math EOC CST: 18.1% 3.Science CSTs 1.Life Science 10 grade level CST 2.EOC Grade 9-11: 22.9% 4.History CSTs 1.US History 11 grade level CST 2.EOC Grades 10-11: 13.9% 5.CAHSEE ELA : 9% 6.CAHSEE Math: 9% 16

Calculating API Key to Understanding API Growth

Wade Hayashida LD8 LAUSD GradePoints A4 B3 C2 D1 Fail0 Calculating Grade Point Average

Wade Hayashida LD8 LAUSD CreditsGradePoints English= 3A4 Algebra= 3B3 History= 3C2 Chemistry= 3D1 PE =3Fail0 Calculating Grade Point Average

Wade Hayashida LD8 LAUSD CreditsGradePoints Credits X Points 3A412 3B39 3C26 3D13 3Fail00 Total Credits 15 Total grade points=30 Calculating Grade Point Average

Wade Hayashida LD8 LAUSD 30 grade points 15 credits Equals 2.0 GPA

QuintileAPI Weight Advanced1000 Proficient875 Basic700 Below Basic500 Far Below Basic 200 Academic Performance Index (API) CST Quintile Rankings paired with API Weights 2/5/201622LACOE/LAUSD

# StudentsQuintileAPI Weights# Students X API Weight Advanced 1000 Proficient 875 Basic 700 Below Basic 500 Far Below Basic 200 Total Students Total weighted pts Calculating Academic Performance Index 2/5/201623LACOE/LAUSD

# StudentsQuintileAPI Weights# Students X API Weight 100 Advanced , Proficient 87587, Basic 70070, Below Basic 50050, Far Below Basic 20020, Total Students 327,500 Total weighted pts. Sample API Calculation: Same number of students in each quintile level. 2/5/201624LACOE/LAUSD

327,500 Total weighted pts. 500 Total # of Students Equals 655 API

QuintileAPI Weight Highest API: 1000 Advanced1000 State API Goal: 800 Proficient875 Basic700 Below Basic500 Lowest API: 200 Far Below Basic 200 Academic Performance Index (API) Highest Possible API/State API Goal/Lowest Possible API 2/5/201626LACOE/LAUSD

QuintileAPI Weight Change in API Weight Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic200N/A Academic Performance Index (API): Change in API Weights 2/5/201627LACOE/LAUSD

Academic Performance Index (API) and CST Performance Levels Far Below BasicBelow BasicBasicProficientAdvanced 150 to to to to to 600 API For Academic Performance Index (API), greatest gains will occur when moving students from the lowest CST levels due to weighting factors. API 2/5/201628

# StudentsQuintileAPI Weights# Students X API Weight 120 Advanced , Proficient 87570, Basic 70070, Below Basic 50050, Far Below Basic 20020, Total Students 330,000 Total weighted pts. Sample API Calculation: Moving 20 students from Proficient to Advanced 2/5/201629LACOE/LAUSD

330,000 Total weighted pts. 500 Total # of Students Equals 660 API [655+5 gain]

# StudentsQuintileAPI Weights# Students X API Weight 100 Advanced , Proficient 87587, Basic 70070, Below Basic 50060, Far Below Basic 20016, Total Students 333,500 Total weighted pts. Sample API Calculation: Moving 20 students from Far Below Basic to Below Basic 2/5/201631LACOE/LAUSD

333,500 Total weighted pts. 500 Total # of Students Equals 667 API [ gain]

33 “LEAKAGE” Hidden Loss of API Points LACOE/LAUSD2/5/2016

# StudentsQuintileAPI Weights# Students X API Weight 80 Advanced , Proficient 87587, Basic 70084, Below Basic 50060, Far Below Basic 20016, Total Students 327,500 Total weighted pts. Sample API Calculation: 20 students falling from Advanced to Basic 20 students advancing from Far Below Basic to Below Basic 2/5/ Hayashida/Keith

327,500 Total weighted pts. 500 Total # of Students equals 655 API [0 growth]

Wade Hayashida LD8 LAUSD Scaled ScoreAPI Weight Pass XXX FailBelow Academic Performance Index (API) Criteria: CAHSEE Weighting

37 Key to Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Generating Academic Performance Index (API): Positive Annual Gains 37 LACOE/LAUSD Fall 20092/5/2016

38 Goal: Advance One Testing Level Per Year regardless of assessed level. Far Below BasicBelow BasicBasicProficientAdvanced 150 to to to to to 600 LACOE/LAUSD Fall 20092/5/2016

Local District 8 Title I Website 2/5/2016LACOE/LAUSD Fall

Wade Hayashida, PI Coordinator Local District /5/201640LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009