AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013

Report
AYP to AMO –
2012 ESEA Update
January 20, 2013
Ben Gauyan
Director of Title 1/LAP
[email protected]
(253) 571-1049
Pat Cummings
Director of Research and Evaluation
[email protected]
(253) 571-1280
Thank you to Nancy Katims- Edmonds School District for much of the content of this presentation
Background
• The federal government granted
Washington State a flexibility waiver from
the original ESEA No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) requirements, including the
calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP).
• The changes in the accountability system
take effect starting this school year.
2
Background -- To get waiver, states must
address three priorities
Priority 1:
Ensure college- and career-ready
expectations for all students
Washington state is addressing this priority
by adopting:
• Common Core State Standards [CCSS]
• Smarter Balanced Assessment [SBA]
3
…three priorities continued
Priority 2:
Support effective instruction and leadership
Washington state is addressing this priority
by implementing the:
• Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
[TPEP]
4
…three priorities continued
Priority 3:
Implement state-developed system of
differentiated recognition, accountability,
and support
Washington state is addressing this priority
by adopting a new accountability system.
5
What has not changed
• Goals are still determined for:
• Performance on state assessments
• Participation in state assessments
• Unexcused absence rate for elementary and
middle schools
• Graduation rates for high schools
-- for all sub-groups (ethnicity groups, English
language learners, special education, poverty)
• Performance is still determined by scores for
continuously enrolled students.
6
What has changed
• Add two more ethnic groups to sub-groups:
• Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup split into two
subgroups
• “Two or More Races” subgroup added
• Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) replace AYP
goals:
• By Spring 2017 reduce by half the proficiency gap
between each group’s 2011 level and 100% proficiency
• Add equal increments (1/6 of overall target) to create
annual targets between 2011 and 2017
• Result in unique annual targets for each subgroup,
school, district, and state.
• Do not include a margin of error
7
STATE Uniform Bar GOALS Under Old NCLB
Requirements
8
Example:
Sample High School - 10th Grade Reading
1. 20% met standard in 2011
2. 80% did not meet standard
3. The goal is to decrease the percent not
meeting standard by half in six year
(40%)
9
Example:
Sample High School - 10th Grade Reading
4. Therefore the goal in 2017
is 60% meeting standard
(20% baseline + 40% growth
= 60%)
10
What has changed
• Elimination of:
• Sanctions on Title I schools
• Classification of schools in “School Improvement
Status”
• Public listing of schools that did not make AYP
• New classification of Title I schools:
• Priority
• Focus
• Emerging
• Reward
11
PRIORITY, FOCUS, & EMERGING SCHOOLS – Cohort 1
Category
PRIORITY
FOCUS
EMERGING
Description (Based on 2009 -2011 Data)
• Lowest performing in all students group over 3 years
• Can include Title I-eligible secondary schools that
graduate students if grad rate < 60%
• 46 (5%) schools in state
•
•
•
•
Lowest performing subgroups over 3 years
Title I schools only
92 (10%) schools in state
Tacoma has two Focus Schools
• Includes next 5% up from bottom of Priority Schools
list (46 schools) and next 10% up from bottom of
Focus Schools list (92 schools)
• Tacoma has seven Emerging-Focus schools
12
Priority, Focus, and Emerging
Schools
Focus:
Based on
“Subgroup”
Performance
Priority: Based on
“All Students”
Performance
Next 10% (N=92)
Next 5% (N=46)
Lowest 5% (N=46)
Lowest 10% (N = 92)
Emerging:
Next 5% of
Priority and 10%
of Focus
Total N = 138
13
REWARD SCHOOLS – Cohort 1
Category
HIGHEST
PERFORMING
TITLE I
SCHOOLS*
Description (Based on 2009 -2011 Data)
• Title I schools only
• Met AYP in “all students” and/or all subgroups for 3 years
in both R and M
• Up to 92 (10%) Title I schools showing greatest
HIGH-PROGRESS
improvement and performance in R/M or graduation rates
TITLE I
over 3 years
SCHOOLS*
• Tacoma did not have a Rewards school
* School cannot have significant gaps among subgroups and cannot be a Focus or
Emerging School.
14
Other Details
• Cohort 1 schools are based on 2009-2011 data and
will remain in these categories for the 2012-13
school year.
• Spring 2012 assessment results will determined
Cohort 2 schools in these categories and will be used
for 2013-14.
• Cohort 1 schools were determined using “N-size” of
30 as minimum number of students for a cell to be
counted. Beginning with 2012 data, the “N-size” will
change from 30 to 20.
15
Other Details
• AMO calculations will be on State
Report Card website for all schools.
• State Achievement Index data will be
published in late December/early
January for all schools similar to the
last two years.
16
AMO calculations on State Report Card website
17
AMO calculations on State Report Card website
18
State Achievement Index
https://eds.ospi.k12.wa.us/WAI/IndexReport/dropdown
19
2012–13 Waiver Tasks for State
• The State Board of Education (SBE) and OSPI are required
to submit a revised accountability system request, which
is likely to include growth data.
• Legislature must pass a law to require focused teacher
evaluations to use student growth as a significant factor.
• State must establish rules regarding use of student
growth as a significant factor in teacher and principal
evaluation and support systems.
20

similar documents