Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?

1. Adequate Yearly Progress:What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next? Department of Shared Accountability August, 2004

2. What’s Old

3. The Goal of No Child Left Behind 100 percent of students proficient in reading and mathematics by the year 2014

4. Maryland’s AYP Components

5. Measuring Progress Towards AYP: Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) • AMOs define the annual target • 2003 baseline • Increments until reach 100% in 2014 • AMOs are established for reading proficiency, mathematics proficiency, attendance, and graduation rate • AMOs are the same for each subgroup

6. Making AYP in Maryland:2004 AMOs for School Districts

7. Confidence Intervals to Determine Whether AMOs Have Been Met • MSDE applies Confidence Intervals (CI) to each AMO for proficiency. • The smaller the group, the larger the interval. The larger the group, the smaller the interval. • Performances within the CI are considered to be meeting the AMO and, by extension, AYP.

8. Confidence Intervals to Determine Whether AMOs Have Been Met

9. School Improvement Steps • If a school does not make AYP for a first year, it goes on “Alert Status.” • If any school does not make AYP for 2 consecutive years and continues to fail AYP year-by-year it enters School Improvement: • School Improvement Year 1 • School Improvement Year 2 • Corrective Action • Restructuring

10. Identification of Schools • Met 2003, not met 2004: Alert Status • Not met 2003, not met 2004: School Improvement Year 1 • Not met 2003, met 2004: Must meet in 2005 or move to School Improvement Year 1 • If already in School Improvement : • Met 2003, Met 2004: Exit School Improvement • Not Met 2003, Met 2004: Maintain current status • Not met 2003, not met 2004: Corrective Action

11. What’s New

12. Safe Harbor • First used in 2004 • Applied to Subgroup(s) • Subgroup decreased by 10% in basic category • Subgroup improved in other academic indicators • Confidence intervals were also applied

13. MCPS Systemwide 2004 AYP Performance: Preliminary Data

14. LEP Students • Exemption from MSA if first year in US school • Still take the IPT • AYP calculations for the subgroup included students who exited the ESOL program within the past two years

15. Invalidation of Reading Scores • Invalidation in 2003 due to verbatim reading accommodation • Subtest scores used to categorize students with this accommodation • No invalidation in 2004

16. Graduation Rate • 2003 AMO was 80.99 percent. • 2004 AMO requires schools to show improvement over the 2003 graduation rate by at least 0.1 percent. • The 2014 graduation rate target is still 90 percent.

17. Geometry • In 2003 used cohort model. • ALL students tested in 2004 will now be included in calculations of AYP at the district level. • For high schools, scores for students in Grades 9 through 12 will be used to calculate AYP.

18. What’s Next

19. Final AYP Determinations for 2004 • Final AYP decisions in late August • Geometry • Attendance • Graduation rate • Appeals are still pending.

20. AYP in 2005 • Proficiency in Reading MSA and Alt MSA: Grades 3 through 8 and Grade 10 • Proficiency in Mathematics MSA and Alt MSA: Grades 3 through 8 and Geometry MSA • Student Participation in MSA and Alt MSA • Graduation Rate • Attendance

21. Maryland AMOs for School Districts(Percent Students at Proficient)

22. AYP Implications and Cautions • More grades included • Larger cell size • Smaller confidence interval • The expected rate of growth will increase, become steeper, to reach 100% by 2014.