1 / 60

Accountability Gateway Training

Accountability Gateway Training. Who we are. Greg Marcus MDE (651) 582-8454 John Lindner Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan (952) 423-7732. Outline of the Presentation. Timeline Consequences Consequences of delayed publication AYP Participation Proficiency Attendance Graduation

gino
Download Presentation

Accountability Gateway Training

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. Accountability Gateway Training

  2. Who we are • Greg Marcus • MDE • (651) 582-8454 • John Lindner • Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan • (952) 423-7732

  3. Outline of the Presentation • Timeline • Consequences • Consequences of delayed publication • AYP • Participation • Proficiency • Attendance • Graduation • Report Card • Academic Stars • Appeals • Data Validation

  4. Handouts • Agenda • PP Presentation • Timeline Graphic • Definition of Terms • Consequence Tree • Sample Report • Appeal and Waiver Forms • Business Rules • Error Descriptors • Suspicious Conditions Report • USDE Letter • Login Help

  5. Timeline • January: Test Ordering • March: Standard setting begins • April-May: Test Window • June Accountability Gateway sign up begins • June-July: Standard setting continues and other psychometric events take place • July: Commissioner approves scale scores • August: Quality Control Procedures • August: Data validation trainings • August 22nd: Data Suppression Appeal Due • August 15- September 15: Data validation and publication of preliminary results • September 1st: Preliminary Report Card published • September 15th: Appeals and Waivers Due • November 15: Publication of final data

  6. Timeline Delay • Traditionally results are published towards the end of August • Due to the following factors timelines have been pushed back. • New tests (MCA-II) • New Standards • New Processes (TEAE reading substituting for the MCA-II reading)

  7. The Goal of NCLB? “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments”

  8. How NCLB Achieves its Goal Through AYP Standards: • Same for all students • Identifying what students should know and be able to do • Encourage higher order thinking & problem solving Assessments: • For all students

  9. Consequences

  10. Identification • Identification = not making AYP in a given area • Identified in math • Identified in reading • Identified in the Other category (Attendance and/or Graduation)

  11. Bucky’s Elementary math reading attendance

  12. Consequences at the School Level • Stage 0: Warning List • Stage 1.1: School Choice • Notify the parents in the district • Create a school improvement plan • Provide school choice

  13. Consequences at the School Level • Stage 2.1: Supplemental services • Notify the parents in the district • Update school improvement plan • Provide school choice • Provide supplemental services

  14. Consequences at the School Level • Stage 3.1: Corrective Action • Notify the parents in the district • Update school improvement plan • Provide school choice • Provide supplemental services • District takes some corrective action

  15. Consequences at the School Level • Stage 4.1: Planning for Restructuring • Notify the parents in the district • Update school improvement plan • Provide school choice • Provide supplemental services • School and district plan for some restructuring that will improve school performance

  16. Consequences at the School Level • Stage 5.1: Restructuring • Notify the parents in the district • Update school improvement plan • Provide school choice • Provide supplemental services • Executing Restructuring the school

  17. Consequences for Districts

  18. Stage 0: Warning List Stage 1.1: Needs Improvement Write a District Improvement Plan Stage 2.1: Update District Improvement Plan (Set-aside of $2500 from Administrative funds) Corrective Action Consequences at the District Level

  19. Stage 3.1: Update District Improvement Plan (Set-aside of $2500 from Administrative funds) Stage 4.1: Update District Improvement Plan (same as above) Stage 5.1: Update District Improvement Plan (same as above) Consequences at the District Level

  20. Consequences of delayed Publication • June 20th memo from USDE • Consequences continue through: • The entire year for School Choice • The first semester for SES • Schools and districts should act on preliminary data. • It is very important to get data validated as soon as possible. • Parents must be notified of the identification and their options before school starts.

  21. General AYP Info

  22. Academic Performance Reading and Mathematics Participation 95% All students tested 40 minimum group 9 groups reading 9 groups math Proficiency October 1 students 20 minimum group 40 for LEP and special education 9 groups reading 9 groups math Attendance Elementary, Middle Schools, State Approved Alternative Programs, and school districts 90% average rate Growth from previous year All students in the school 40 minimum group All group only AND/OR Graduation High Schools awarding diplomas and school districts 80% average rate Growth from previous year Students grades 9-12 40 minimum group All group only AYP Summary

  23. AYP Groups • All Student • Racial/Ethnic Categories • LEP (This includes the expanded LEP sometimes called LEP +2) • Special Ed (This includes the expanded Special Ed sometimes called Special Ed +2) • Free and Reduced Price Lunch

  24. Grades Included • Elementary and Middle School • Math and Reading • 3-8 • High School • Reading • 10 • Math • 11

  25. AYP Participation

  26. Data Report Participation • # of Students Tested • This column indicates 386 students took an MCA or an Alternate Assessment in math and had a valid score • # of Answer Docs Returned • This column indicates 395 students were enrolled on test day • Includes all documents EXCEPT those marked NE or ME. • Please refer to the sample Current Verification and Correction Summary

  27. Data Report - Participation • % of Students Participating • This column shows a participation rate of 97.72. This rate is calculated by dividing the number of students participating by the number of tests returned and multiplying the result by 100. • AYP Marker • This shows if the group made the required 95% participation rate. • A – Above the target • B – Below the Target • Z- Cell size limitation • X – No data

  28. AYP Proficiency Targets Calculation Safe harbor

  29. 2006 Math Targets (pre-validation)

  30. 2006 Reading Targets (pre-validation)

  31. Proficiency • The goal is for all students (100%) to be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2013-14. • A score of x50 on the MCA-II indicates proficiency. • Proficiency for schools and districts will be determined by an “AYP Index Rate” in each subject.

  32. Proficiency The index rate is used to provide a single rating that combines scores from students at or above x50 and scores from students who “Partially Meets the Standards.” • 1 point is awarded for students who score at or above x50. • 1/2 index point is awarded for students who score between x40 and x49 or in the “Partially Meets the Standards” level. • 0 points are given for students whose score “Does Not Meet the Standards”.

  33. Data Report Proficiency • 2006 Index Rate • The report for the sample school shows the 2006 index rate is 75.41 • The index rate is calculated by dividing the number of total index points (276) by the number of October 1 documents (362). (276/362)*100 = 75.41

  34. Data Report Proficiency • Index Target • This column shows the AYP target of 69.43 for the all group that has been adjusted using a confidence interval. • This target is a blend of the target for each grade level based on the number of students at the grade level. • The confidence interval has the most impact on small groups.

  35. Data Report Proficiency • Compare the 2006 Index Rate and the Index Target: • The 2006 index rate of 75.41 is equal to or greater than the index target of 69.43 the school has met AYP for proficiency. • AYP status is A - for above the target

  36. Data Report Proficiency

  37. Safe Harbor • If a school/district does not make AYP and they made AYP in the “Other” indicator that school/district is eligible for safe harbor • Safe harbor is a 10% decrease in the number of non-proficient scores.

  38. Safe Harbor

  39. Multi-Year Averaging • If a school/district does not make AYP using safe harbor additional calculations are done. • Data is added across years and then compared with updated Index Targets and safe harbor targets. • Up to 3 years of data may be combined.

  40. Appeals • Data Suppression Appeal due August 22nd • Student and status level Appeals and Waivers due September 15th • Appeal and Waiver results will apply to final data.

  41. Data Suppression • Appeal Due August 22 • Appeal forms are included in your handouts • Appeals may be faxed or mailed to Greg Marcus • These appeals will prevent any academic data from being published until November 15th

  42. Appeal vs. Waiver • An appeal overrides the AYP status of a cell (in the white students math proficiency change the B to an A) • A waiver removes the cap on the number of index points that come from the alternate assessment • a waiver can cause a number of different things including more/different schools being identified

  43. Appeal Types • SAAP • District/School AYP • District AMAO • Student level

  44. School Report Cards 2006-07 School Year

More Related