1 / 27

The Super Safety Net of Safe Harbor

The Super Safety Net of Safe Harbor. Peter Cincotta Office of Accountability, Research, and Testing Baltimore County Public Schools. Objectives. Overview of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability process in Maryland

gita
Download Presentation

The Super Safety Net of Safe Harbor

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. The Super Safety Net of Safe Harbor Peter Cincotta Office of Accountability, Research, and Testing Baltimore County Public Schools

  2. Objectives • Overview of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability process in Maryland • Explanation of Safe Harbor process and how it fits into the determination of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). • Share some interesting findings on the proficiency rates needed to make AYP through Safe Harbor.

  3. Adequate Yearly Progress • NCLB provides flexibility to states in many areas of the law. • The Maryland Department of Education (MSDE) has taken advantage of these areas.

  4. Safe Harbor The principle behind Safe Harbor is to recognize subgroups (and/or schools) that demonstrate a significant increase in achievement even if the achievement does not reach the level of the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO).

  5. Safe Harbor AMO – 53.6% 40.3% 15%

  6. Safe Harbor • The rule is: • The percentage of students scoring in the basic category (the “basic rate”) must decrease by 10% from the previous year.

  7. Safe Harbor • Example • In 2004 the Special Education subgroup for Mathematics at Ann M. Wells Elementary had a proficiency rate of 8.0%. • Therefore, this subgroup had a basic rate of 92.0%. (100.0% – 8.0% = 92.0%) • This basic rate must decrease by 10%.

  8. Safe Harbor • 10% of 92.0 is 9.2 • That is: 10% X 92.0 = 9.2 • Therefore, the basic rate must decrease by 9.2 percentage points. • 92.0 - 9.2 = 82.8 . • A basic rate of 82.8% would be a proficiency rate of 17.2%. • 100.0% - 82.8% = 17.2%

  9. Safe Harbor 40.3% AMO – 53.6% 15%

  10. Safe Harbor Ann M. Wells Elementary School 2005 AYP Mathematics AMO – 53.6% 40.3% 17.2% - Safe Harbor Proficiency Rate target 15% 8% - Proficiency rate last year

  11. But wait. There’s more!

  12. Safe Harbor • MSDE asked for and received permission to use a confidence interval around the Safe Harbor Proficiency Rate target

  13. Safe Harbor • The length of a confidence interval is dependent on the size of the subgroup. • Large subgroups produce small confidence intervals • Small subgroups produce large confidence intervals

  14. Confidence Intervals Small groups have larger confidence intervals Large groups have smaller confidence intervals AMO is 43.8%

  15. Safe Harbor • Let’s say there are 100 Special Education students among grades 3, 4, and 5 at the Ann M. Wells Elementary school.

  16. Safe Harbor Ann M. Wells Elementary School 2005 AYP Mathematics AMO – 53.6% 11.0% is the lower end of the Safe Harbor CI with a subgroup size of 100 students and a proficiency rate of 8% last year. 40.3% 17.2% - Safe Harbor Proficiency Rate target 15% 8% - Proficiency rate last year

  17. Safe Harbor • Therefore, this subgroup made AYP through the Safe Harbor provision • To recap, this proficiency rate was: • Lower than the AMO, • Lower than the lower end of the (AMO) CI, • Higher than last year’s proficiency rate, and • Higher than the lower end of the Safe Harbor CI.

  18. Safe Harbor • Two strings attached • “All Students” must make AYP in the same subject of the Safe Harbor subgroup • “Other Academic Area” must improve over last year for the Safe Harbor subgroup.

  19. Safe Harbor Ann M. Wells Elementary School 2005 AYP Mathematics AMO – 53.6% Notice how close the lower end of the Safe Harbor CI is to last year’s proficiency rate. 40.3% 15% 8% - Proficiency rate last year

  20. Safe Harborwith a Proficiency rate of 8% last year

  21. Safe Harbor • Under some circumstances, a very small increase in the proficiency rate would be enough to make AYP through Safe Harbor. • Under some circumstances, even flat achievement or a decrease in the proficiency rate would be “enough” to make AYP through Safe Harbor.

  22. Minimum Proficiency Rates Needed to make AYP with Flat Achievement

  23. Lower End of Safe Harbor CI for a subgroup of 100 students

  24. Even large groups will require a relatively small increase to make AYP

  25. Safe Harbor • Note that Safe Harbor is determined based on two data points: • Proficiency rate last year, and • Subgroup size this year. The AMO is not part of the calculation.

  26. Contact Information Peter Cincotta Office of Accountability, Research, and Testing 1940 Greenspring Drive Timonium , Maryland 21093 (410 ) 887 – 7755 , ext. 209 Fax (410 ) 561 – 5769 E-mail pcincotta@bcps.org

More Related