Springs 2006 and 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Results Potential Challenges with 2008 Annual Measurable Objectives & District Corrective Action.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
No Child Left Behind Public School Choice. Federal/State Requirements Federal System No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Choice Supplemental Educational Services.
Advertisements

NCLB Program Improvement Status Report for Chipman Middle School Presentation to the Board of Education October 23, 2007.
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.
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’ 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.
Rules and Regulations.  Requirements (Title I and Title III)  Notices  Timeline  Schools on Improvement  Use of Funds.
North Carolina ESEA Flexibility Request Frequently Asked Questions April 30, 2012 April 27,
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.
Title I School Restructuring Meeting NH Department of Education April 14, :00am-12:00pm.
NCLB Title I, Part A Parent Notification Idaho SDE Title I Director’s Meeting September 15, 2008 Cathryn Gardner, Senior Program Advisor Northwest Regional.
A Guide to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County April 2010.
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 LEARNS: Overview of the Achievement Profiles.
1 STUDENT PROGRESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 2013 September 10, 2013 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
1 Title IA Online Coordinator Training School Improvement.
Title I School Improvement Committee of Practitioners Bridgeport Conference Center June 9, 2008.
1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Iowa Support System for Schools in Need of Assistance (SINA) Overview and Audit Iowa Department of Education and AEA 267 August 2011.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) Elements School Improvement District.
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.
Appoquinimink School District A Bright Horizon for MHS Corrective Action Plan 3 Year Plan December, 2007.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
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.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Title I What Parents Need to Know!. What is Title I? Title I is a program that provides funds from the federal government to improve student learning.
1 Title IA Coordinator Training Preparing for Title IA Monitoring
1 No Child Left Behind: Identification of Program Improvement (PI) Schools and Districts July 2003.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
From the Board Room To the Classroom PDK Panel Discussion September 19, 2002.
GUIDANCE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Region VII Comprehensive Center The University of Oklahoma 555 Constitution Street Norman, OK David.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
No Child Left Behind Application 1 Title I, Part A Part 1.
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!
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
Presentation transcript:

Springs 2006 and 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Results Potential Challenges with 2008 Annual Measurable Objectives & District Corrective Action

Presentation Highlights  Components of Arizona’s School Accountability  Criteria for Determining AYP  What Happens When Only One AYP Criterion is Not Met?  Currently, What AYP Consequences Must Schools Confront?  When Looking at 2008,  What Are Our Greatest Potential Challenge?  What happens to AMOs?  What Can Happen if a School is Labeled Underperforming for Three Consecutive Years?  Springs 2006 and 2007 AYP Results  Graduation Rates  District AYP Indicators Leading to Corrective Action

Components of Arizona’s School Accountability {

Criteria for Determining AYP

What Happens When Only One AYP Criterion is Not Met?

Currently, What AYP Consequences Must Schools Confront? Timeline for AYP Consequences Year one = Warning Year – notification of status to parent; development of ASIP; and district must offer technical assistance. Drexel STAR Year two = School Improvement Year 1 – Year one consequences + district must offer public choice (transfer); school must set aside 10% of Title I funds for Professional Development. Apollo Sierra Sunnyside Year three = School Improvement Year 2 – Year two consequences + offer supplemental educational services (free tutoring) to eligible students Chaparral Desert View Year four = Corrective Action – Year three consequences + Implement at least one of the following: replace school staff; adopt research-based curriculum, including professional development; decrease school’s management authority; appoint external expert; extend school year/day; or restructure Year five = Planning for Restructuring – Year three consequences + prepare a plan & necessary arrangements for alternate governance Year six = District must implement an alternative governance action. Work with State Intervention to implement restructuring plan. A school must demonstrate AYP for two consecutive years to reset the schools AYP status.

When Looking at 2008, What Are Our Greatest Potential Challenge? 9% Increase

When Looking at 2008, What Happens to AMOs? Table 1. Grade and 2007 AYP Math Results – 2008 AMO Equals 54.6%.

What Can Happen When a School is Labeled Underperforming for Three Consecutive Years?

Springs 2006 and 2007 AYP Results Potential Challenges with 2008 AMOs School Results Schools Not Making AYP Equals District Corrective Action

Graduation Rates

District AYP Indicators Leading to Corrective Action