1 / 30

Impact of NCLB Requirements in Washington State Challenges and Successes

This presentation discusses the process used to set policies and the challenges and successes of implementing NCLB requirements in Washington State. It provides an overview of state AYP policies, first-year results and reactions, and proposed changes.

gertrudeg
Download Presentation

Impact of NCLB Requirements in Washington State Challenges and Successes

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. Impact of NCLB Requirements in Washington StateChallenges and Successes American Education Research Association April 2004 Pete Bylsma, Director Research/Evaluation/Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

  2. Overview of Presentation • Process used to set policies • Overview of state AYP policies • First year results and reactions • Changes proposed

  3. Context of NCLB in Washington • NCLB is long and complex • Implementation is complicated and still evolving • Previous state accountability system not well developed • More work in less time with higher stakes

  4. Process Used to Establish Policies • Many analyses of alternative policies projecting results based on 2002 data • Widespread stakeholder input and review of data • Peer review went very smoothly • Plan was relatively simple • Impact data available to support all key decisions • Making policies operational required lots of thought • Eliminating ways to “beat the system”

  5. Overview of State AYP Policies • Annual goals on “straight-line” to 100% in 2014 • Separate results for tests in grades 4, 7, and 10 • N of 30 for accountability (10 for reporting) • Continuous enrollment from October 1 through the testing period (ends in mid-May) • Standard error at 95% confidence level • On-time graduation rate goal = 73% or 1 point above previous year (85% goal in 2014) • Unexcused absence rate goal = 1% or a reduction from previous year

  6. Reading Mathematics 100.0 96.0 100 92.0 88.1 Increment of 4.0 needed 100.0 84.1 90 80.1 94.1 76.1 88.3 80 72.1 68.1 82.4 64.2 70 76.6 60.2 56.2 70.7 52.2 60 64.9 Percent Meeting Standard 59.0 50 53.1 Increment of 5.9 needed 47.3 40 41.4 30 35.6 20 29.7 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 GRADE 4 YEARLY TARGETS AYP can be made if the percent meeting standard is below the yearly target either via safe harbor or when the standard error is included in the total. (Increments are rounded)

  7. Summary of State AYP Results • State made AYP in 78 of 111 categories (70%) • Of the proficiency categories, the state made 21 of 54 (39%) • All Students, Asian/Pac. Is., and White groupsmade AYP in all grades in both reading and math • American Indian, Black, and Low-Income groups made AYP in just one of six proficient categories (Grade 4 Math) • Hispanic, Special Education, and Limited English groups did not make AYP in any proficiency category • Graduation rate initially 79%, later changed to 66% • Unexcused absence rate 0.5%

  8. First Year Results • Total number of districts and schools not making AYP was very close to projected numbers (42% and 22%) • But far above previous results (0% and 3%) • Safe harbor helped very little • Not making AYP is a function of the N • (Secondary schools less likely to make AYPdue to larger enrollment in tested grades) • Most students are in districts that did not make AYP

  9. Responses to NCLB • Much more attention being given to data quality and achievement gap (motivation to change) • Widespread cynicism about law and lack of funding to meet federal mandates • Negative impact on public perception of testing in general • Narrowing curriculum to tested subjects • Some focus on beating the system rather than serving students – temptation to lower standards

  10. 2003 Goal 67.5% 60.6% 48.8% 52.9% 56.2% 35.9% Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 State 2003 Results – Adequate Yearly Progress “All Students” Category in Reading 2002-03 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent meeting standard 2003 figures include results from the alternate assessment, include the standard error, and are based on results of continuously enrolled students

  11. Grade 4 Math by Race/Ethnicity 100% 90% 80% 70% 61.9% 61.8% 60% Percent meeting standard 50% 40.7% 40% 36.1% 31.9% 30% 20% 10% 0% American Indian Asian/Pac Is Black Hispanic White 2003 figures include results from the alternate assessment, include the standard error, and are based on results of continuously enrolled students. State 2003 Results – Adequate Yearly Progress 2003 Goal 35.6%

  12. Special Education Students 2002-03 2003 goal 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Percent meeting standard 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 2003 figures include results from the alternate assessment, include the standard error, and are based on results of continuously enrolled students. State 2003 Results – Adequate Yearly Progress

  13. Students with Limited English Proficiency 2002-03 2003 goal 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Percent meeting standard 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 2003 figures include results from the alternate assessment, include the standard error, and are based on results of continuously enrolled students. State 2003 Results – Adequate Yearly Progress

  14. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 Percent Unexcused Absences 2.5 35 districts (11.8%) with greater than 1% 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 100 111 122 133 144 155 166 177 188 199 210 221 232 243 254 265 276 287 Unexcused Absence Rates Among 296 Districts

  15. AYP Results on the Web http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/

  16. 140 123 120 100 90 83 80 Number of districts 60 40 20 0 Made AYP Did Not Make AYP Too small to evaluate (N<30) District 2003 AYP Results (All Grades) 296 Districts

  17. 100% 80% 60% Districts making AYP 40% 20% 0% < 350 350- 1000 1001- 1651- 2301- 2951- 3601- >4250 1650 2300 2950 3600 4250 Number of students in a district Odds of a District Making AYP Declines as Enrollment Increases Less than 30 in a grade

  18. 150 125 107 110 104 102 93 97 100 89 72 Number of districts 75 3 via 5 via 2 via 45 safe safe safe 50 harbor harbor harbor 25 0 Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 Made AYP Did Not Make AYP Too small to evaluate (N<30) District 2003 AYP Results by Grade

  19. 100% 82.6% 80.8% 80% 74.2% 60% 40% 24.1% 18.3% 16.1% 20% 1.7% 1.4% 0.9% 0% Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 Percent of Students in District by Grade

  20. Grade 4 Reading Students meeting standard * SEP Interval 100 80 Goal = 56.2 60 Percent meeting standard 40 20 NA NA NA (<30) (<30) (<30) 0 All students American Asian/ Pac Black Hispanic White Special Limited Low Indian Is Education English Income * For students continuously enrolled from October 1 Example District AYP ResultsOlympia School District, ~9000 students

  21. Made AYP Did Not Make AYP 200 181 173 150 Number of districts 100 78 56 50 34 33 32 30 29 22 22 18 10 7 7 4 1 0 0 All American Asian Black Hispanic White Special Limited Low Students Indian Education English Income District AYP Results, 2003Grade 4 Reading by Group

  22. 100% 98.0% 97.6% 89.9% 90% 80% 70.7% 70% 66.0% 63.6% 60% 47.3% 50% 40% Percent of cells with 30 or more students making AYP 30% 17.9% 20% 15.1% 10% 0% All American Asian Black Hispanic White Special Limited Low Income Students Indian Education English District 2003 AYP Group ResultsAll Grades in Reading

  23. All Grades 19 20 18 16 14 11 11 12 9 9 10 8 8 Number of districts 7 8 5 5 6 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Number of cells not making AYP District AYP Results, 2003Number of Groups Not Making AYP in the 123 Districts 111 possible

  24. 1200 1177 1000 800 Number of schools 600 432 386 400 200 0 Made AYP Did Not Make AYP Too small to evaluate (N<30) School 2003 Results (All Grades)Adequate Yearly Progress

  25. 100% 80% 60% 53.8% 43.0% 40% 20% 3.1% 0% Made AYP Did Not Make AYP Too small to evaluate (N<30) Percent of Students in Schoolsby AYP Result (All Grades)

  26. 1000 Made AYP 863 Did Not Make AYP 800 Too small to evaluate (N<30) 600 Number of schools 400 220 231 210 215 167 157 200 152 113 0 Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 School 2003 Results (By Grade Level)Adequate Yearly Progress

  27. 100% 84.7% 80% 62.5% 60% 54.1% 43.3% 40% 34.1% 20% 11.8% 3.5% 3.4% 2.6% 0% Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 Percent of Students in Schoolsby AYP Result and Grade

  28. All Grades 190 200 150 Number of schools 100 67 47 50 36 31 26 21 7 5 2 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of cells not making AYP School AYP Results, 2003Number of Categories Not Making AYP

  29. 450 381 400 350 300 164 (43%) of these 250 schools Number of schools receive 200 Title I funds 150 100 50 30 17 4 0 Year 1 (Alert) Year 2/Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Improvement Stage 51 Schools in “School Improvement” Total of 432 Schools Not Making AYP • 44 of the 51 schools receive Title I funds • 5 of the 51 made AYP in 2003 and remained in school improvement status 13 schools made adequate yearly progress for the second year in a row and were removed from “school improvement” status.

  30. Proposed Changes • Revise on-time graduation rate goals • More accountability for small schools (N of 10-29) • Increase N for LEP and special education • Increase confidence level to 99% • Use new flexibility for LEP testing, participation • Add recognition system • Develop criteria to differentiate need/assistance • Clarify appeals process • Use new student information system

More Related