1 / 20

AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013

AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013. Ben Gauyan Director of Title 1/LAP BGAUYAN@tacoma.k12.wa.us (253) 571-1049. Pat Cummings Director of Research and Evaluation PCUMMIN@tacoma.k12.wa.us (253) 571-1280.

hinto
Download Presentation

AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013

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. AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA UpdateJanuary 20, 2013 Ben Gauyan Director of Title 1/LAP BGAUYAN@tacoma.k12.wa.us (253) 571-1049 Pat Cummings Director of Research and Evaluation PCUMMIN@tacoma.k12.wa.us (253) 571-1280 Thank you to Nancy Katims- Edmonds School District for much of the content of this presentation

  2. Background • The federal government granted Washington State a flexibility waiver from the original ESEA No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements, including the calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). • The changes in the accountability system take effect starting this school year.

  3. Background -- To get waiver, states must address three priorities Priority 1: Ensure college- and career-ready expectations for all students Washington state is addressing this priority by adopting: • Common Core State Standards [CCSS] • Smarter Balanced Assessment [SBA]

  4. …three priorities continued Priority 2: Support effective instruction and leadership Washington state is addressing this priority by implementing the: • Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project [TPEP]

  5. …three priorities continued Priority 3: Implement state-developed system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support Washington state is addressing this priority by adopting a new accountability system.

  6. What has not changed • Goals are still determined for: • Performance on state assessments • Participationin state assessments • Unexcused absence rate for elementary and middle schools • Graduation rates for high schools -- for all sub-groups (ethnicity groups, English language learners, special education, poverty) • Performance is still determined by scores for continuously enrolled students.

  7. What has changed • Add two more ethnic groups to sub-groups: • Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup split into two subgroups • “Two or More Races” subgroup added • Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) replace AYP goals: • By Spring 2017 reduce by half the proficiency gap between each group’s 2011 level and 100% proficiency • Add equal increments (1/6 of overall target) to create annual targets between 2011 and 2017 • Result in unique annual targets for each subgroup, school, district, and state. • Do not include a margin of error

  8. STATE Uniform Bar GOALS Under Old NCLB Requirements

  9. Example:Sample High School - 10th Grade Reading 20% metstandard in 2011 80% did not meet standard The goal is to decrease the percent not meeting standard by half in six year (40%)

  10. Example:Sample High School - 10th Grade Reading 4. Therefore the goal in 2017 is 60% meeting standard (20% baseline + 40% growth = 60%)

  11. What has changed • Elimination of: • Sanctions on Title I schools • Classification of schools in “School Improvement Status” • Public listing of schools that did not make AYP • New classification of Title I schools: • Priority • Focus • Emerging • Reward

  12. PRIORITY, FOCUS, & EMERGING SCHOOLS – Cohort 1

  13. Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools Priority: Based on “All Students” Performance Focus: Based on “Subgroup” Performance Emerging: Next 5% of Priority and 10% of Focus Total N = 138 Next 10% (N=92) Next 5% (N=46) Lowest 10% (N = 92) Lowest 5% (N=46)

  14. REWARD SCHOOLS – Cohort 1 * School cannot have significant gaps among subgroups and cannot be a Focus or Emerging School.

  15. Other Details • Cohort 1 schools are based on 2009-2011 data and will remain in these categories for the 2012-13 school year. • Spring 2012 assessment results will determined Cohort 2 schools in these categories and will be used for 2013-14. • Cohort 1 schools were determined using “N-size” of 30 as minimum number of students for a cell to be counted. Beginning with 2012 data, the “N-size” will change from 30 to 20.

  16. Other Details • AMO calculations will be on State Report Card website for all schools. • State Achievement Index data will be published in late December/early January for all schools similar to the last two years.

  17. AMO calculations on State Report Card website

  18. AMO calculations on State Report Card website

  19. State Achievement Indexhttps://eds.ospi.k12.wa.us/WAI/IndexReport/dropdown

  20. 2012–13 Waiver Tasks for State • The State Board of Education (SBE) and OSPI are required to submit a revised accountability system request, which is likely to include growth data. • Legislature must pass a law to require focused teacher evaluations to use student growth as a significant factor. • State must establish rules regarding use of student growth as a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluation and support systems.

More Related