1 / 22

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SIP). ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP). AYP INDICATORS, COMPONENTS AND STANDARDS. Reading/ELA Performance: 87% Proficiency Rate Participation: 95% Participating Mathematics Performance: 83% Proficiency Rate Participation Rate: 95% Participating Other Indicator

dmitri
Download Presentation

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SIP) ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)

  2. AYP INDICATORS, COMPONENTS AND STANDARDS • Reading/ELA • Performance: 87% Proficiency Rate • Participation: 95% Participating • Mathematics • Performance: 83% Proficiency Rate • Participation Rate: 95% Participating • Other Indicator • Graduation Rate (High School): 75% Target • Attendance Rate (Junior and Elementary Schools): 90% Rate

  3. AYP MEASURES All Students and the following student groups: • African American • Hispanic • White • Economically Disadvantaged • Special Education • Limited English Proficient

  4. FEDERAL CAP • Federal regulations limit the number of proficient assessment results from alternate assessments that may be counted as proficient in evaluating AYP. • A district’s federal cap limit is based on the total number of students enrolled in the district in grades 3-8 and 10 on the day of the test. • 1% Cap: STAAR Alternate • 2% Cap: STAAR Modified/TAKS-M

  5. 2012 AYP STATUS: MEETS AYP • IMPACT ECHS • Peter Hyland Program • Highlands Junior • Austin Elementary • Bowie Elementary • San Jacinto Elementary • Hopper Primary

  6. 2012 AYP STATUS: “MISSED AYP” • District: Reading Performance: AA, Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed., LEP Math Performance: AA, ED, Sp. Ed., LEP Graduation Rate: Sp. Ed. • Lee High School: Reading Performance: All, Hispanic, White, ED, Sp. Ed. Math Performance: All, Hispanic, White, ED, Sp. Ed. Graduation Rate: Sp. Ed. • Sterling High School: Reading Performance: AA, ED, Sp. Ed. Math Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed. Graduation Rate: Sp. Ed. • Memorial High School: Math Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED • Baytown Junior: Reading Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED Math Performance:: All, AA, Hispanic, ED • Cedar Bayou Junior: Reading Performance: Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed. • Gentry Junior: Math Performance: AA, ED, Sp. Ed. • Horace Mann Junior: Reading Performance: All, AA, White, ED, Sp. Ed. Math Performance: All, AA, ED, Sp. Ed

  7. 2012 AYP STATUS: “MISSED AYP” • Alamo Elementary: Reading Performance: All, Hispanic Math Performance: AA, ED • Ashbel Smith Elementary: Reading Performance: All, Hispanic, ED, LEP Math Performance: All, Hispanic, ED • Carver Elementary: Reading Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED Math Performance: All, AA, ED • Crockett Elementary: Reading Performance: ED • De Zavala Elementary: Reading Performance: Hispanic, ED • Harlem Elementary: Math Performance: AA, ED • Highlands Elementary: Reading Performance: AA, LEP • Lamar Elementary: Reading Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed,, LEP Math Performance: All, AA,, Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed., LEP • Travis Elementary: Math Performance: AA • Victoria Walker Elementary: Reading Performance: AA Math Performance: AA, ED

  8. TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT • Districts and campuses receiving Title I, Part A funds are subject to School Improvement requirements if they do not meet the AYP standard for the same indictor (Reading/ELA, Mathematics, Graduation Rate or Attendance Rate) for two or more consecutive years. • Districts and campuses are no longer subject to School Improvement when they meet the AYP standard for two consecutive years for the same indicator that originally triggered School Improvement.

  9. GOOSE CREEK CISD SIP STATUS • District: Stage 2 (Reading) • Alamo Elementary: Stage 1 Year 1 (Reading) • Carver Elementary: Stage 1 Year 1 (Reading) • Travis Elementary: Stage 1 Year 1 (Math)

  10. DETERMINING SIP STATUS • District Stage 2: Result of missing AYP in Reading for three years in a row. • Campus Stage 1 Year 1: Result of missing AYP in the same indicator two years in a row

  11. SIP REQUIREMENTS: DISTRICT STAGE 2 • Select a District Coordinator of School Improvement (DCSI) by September 7, 2012 • Parent notification by September 15, 2012 • Establish a District Leadership Team to conduct and monitor improvement activities • Implement and revise the district improvement plan developed under Stage 1

  12. SIP REQUIREMENTS: CAMPUS STAGE 1 YEAR 1 • Principals view applicable webinars in September • Principals attend Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS), Part 1 training at Region 4 on September 10, 2012 • Establish Intervention Team • Conduct a student level review and data analysis • Conduct a needs assessment

  13. SIP REQUIREMENTS: CAMPUS STAGE 1 YEAR 1 (Cont.) • Develop an improvement plan • Conduct a targeted student analysis • Revise CIP within 3 months • District provides technical assistance as the campus develops and implements the CIP • District reviews CIP

  14. REQUIREMENTS: NON-TITLE I CAMPUSES • Non-Title I schools that do not meet AYP for two consecutive years are required to amend their school improvement plan to address the deficit areas. Non-Title I campuses and school districts will not be subject to other school improvement activities, supplemental services and corrective actions. • Sterling High School (Math) • Cedar Bayou Junior (Reading)

  15. SIP FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES • Professional development (District) • Professional development (Stage 1 campuses) • School Choice transportation

  16. Systems for Continuous District and School Improvement

More Related