1 / 60

AYP Videoconference

AYP Videoconference. Thomas Coy, ADE Denise Airola, NORMES. Method for Calculating AYP. The method for calculating AYP has not changed. The three models for AYP still remain: Status, Safe Harbor, and Growth. Status and Safe Harbor designations are still interchangeable.

naoko
Download Presentation

AYP Videoconference

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 Videoconference Thomas Coy, ADE Denise Airola, NORMES

  2. Method for Calculating AYP • The method for calculating AYP has not changed. • The three models for AYP still remain: Status, Safe Harbor, and Growth. • Status and Safe Harbor designations are still interchangeable. • Growth is a stand-alone model--each subpopulation must be designated with a “YES” in order to receive credit under growth.

  3. Assignment of Labels • Smart Accountability labels have been applied for AYP. • There are 25 labels now instead of 3. • Each of the labels is specific for each individual school’s status. • There was a procedure to ensure that the new label aligns to old label designations.

  4. Supplemental Educational Services and School Choice • Parent letters regarding school choice should have been sent based on preliminary status. • Schools should have received their preliminary status notifications this week via certified mail. • School AYP and discrepancy reports are currently available on the NORMES site. • Please refer to Commissioner’s Memo COM-09-203 for more information.

  5. Appeals Process • Schools will have 30 days from the receipt of the preliminary notifications to submit appeals. • Appeals must be received by Dr. Gayle Potter no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 30th day. You are strongly advised to send all appeals via certified mail so you will have a tracking mechanism regarding delivery.

  6. Appeals Process • The Superintendent’s Certification Letter and Official Appeals Form to ADE, as well as an Electronic submission to NORMES, are required as part of an appeal. • Please refer to Commissioner’s Memo COM-10-007 on proper procedures and documentation requirements for submitting appeals. This memo has links to the forms required by ADE. The NORMES electronic submission form can be found at the NORMES Web site.

  7. Amendments and Changes • Delay Provision • School Reconfiguration Forms • 1% Cap will use District Mobility

  8. Contact Information • Dr. Gayle Potter, 501-682-4558, gayle.potter@arkansas.gov • Thomas Coy, 501-682-4250, thomas.coy@arkansas.gov

  9. 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress Reports Understanding status determination for schools and districts

  10. 2009 AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Calculating School Status

  11. Steps in AYP Calculations • Status—Did % proficient/advanced meet the 2008-09 target (AMO) with confidence interval applied to AMO? • Safe Harbor—Did # students below proficient decrease by 10% from 2008 to 2009 with confidence interval applied to the 10%? • Growth model—Did % proficient/advanced, plus students below proficient that met growth, meet the 2008-09 target (AMO)? • Secondary Indicators • Percent Tested • Calculate and Apply Smart Accountability Ratio Note: Schools’ final status is subject to 30 day appeals process. Appeals are reviewed by the ADE pursuant to the Arkansas Adequate Yearly Progress Workbook. 

  12. Clarification: Who is Counted? • Status and Growth: • School level: Non-mobile students (enrolled in your school on or before October 1) • District level: Non-mobile students (enrolled in your district on or before October 1) • Percent Tested • School level: All students enrolled in grade or course at time of testing • District level: All students enrolled in grade or course at time of testing

  13. Clarification: Who is Excluded? • Status and Growth: • Literacy—All LEP less than 1 yr in US • Math—Not proficient students who are LEP and less than 1 yr in US • Percent Tested: • Students not tested with valid reason code for exclusion

  14. For Status and Growth Its About Meeting the Target—the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

  15. Percentage of Students Proficient/Advanced Calculations Status percent proficient = # non-mobile proficient/advanced All non-mobile students tested *Check details on page 2 of school reports & pages 2, 4 and 6 of district report Growth percent proficient = (# non-mobile prof/adv + # non-mobile below proficient who met growth) All non-mobile students tested *Check details on page 4 of school reports & page 8 of district report

  16. Arkansas Pilot Growth Model for NCLB3 Years of Implementation Schools Meeting AYP by Growth Only • No schools were impacted negatively by the growth model in AYP Districts Meeting AYP by Growth Only

  17. Smart Accountability Pilot: Differentiates Schools in Improvement • Differentiates between schools that missed AYP and schools that missed AYP for critical mass of students. • Based on proportion—number of groups that met AYP targets divided by number of groups eligible (met minimum n) • Multiply by 100 to get percentage. • 75% is dividing line • Targeted: met for 75% or more groups • Whole school: met for less than 75% of groups

  18. Caveat If one of the groups that missed AYP was the combined population, then the school is automatically Whole School Improvement

  19. Combined population African American Hispanic Caucasian Economically Disadvantaged Limited English Proficient Special Education Seven groups possible for math Seven groups possible for literacy Total of 14 possible groups Groups count if they meet minimum n Which groups are counted?

  20. What does it look like this year? Schools that meet standards will be labeled Achieving Schools

  21. Alert Targeted Improvement Year 1 Targeted Improvement Year 2 Targeted Improvement Year 3 Corrective Action Targeted Intensive Improvement Year 4 Targeted Intensive Improvement Year 5: Restructuring State Directed Year 6 or more Alert Whole School Improvement Year 1 Whole School Improvement Year 2 Whole School Improvement Year 3 Corrective Action Whole School Intensive Improvement Year 4 Whole School Intensive Improvement Year 5: Restructuring State Directed Year 6 or more Schools that do not meet standards will have labels based on prior year status and Smart Accountability ratio

  22. Transition & Movement in Smart Accountability

  23. How to Access & Read Your 2009 AYP Report School Report

  24. http://normes.uark.edu

  25. Reports and data are organized by year—click the 2009 Reports tab

  26. 2009 AYP Reports and Data AYP Related Reports AYP Related Data Sets

  27. Minor changes were made to the summary page Smart Accountability Summary Included Subgroup Summary reorganized to aid interpretation—status/safe harbor separate from growth

  28. How do you make sense of the your 2009 AYP status? • View your 2009 AYP Status How did you get here? • View your 2008 AYP Status • Check your Smart Accountability Index • Check your overall literacy and math status to determine your school status in each subject • Check subgroup status summaries for status/safe harbor and growth to determine which groups met AYP in math and literacy • Check your secondary indicator (attendance or graduation rate) • Check percent tested for combined population

  29. Overall school and subject summaries Subgroup performance summaries: Status & SH | Growth Percent Tested Summary

  30. Check status/safe harbor for all groups 1. Check math: Did you meet for all groups on status or safe harbor? If yes, then you met AYP in math. 2. If no, check growth. Did you meet for all groups using growth? If yes, then you met AYP in math. 4. If no, check growth. Did you meet for all groups using growth? If yes, then you met AYP in literacy. 3. Check literacy: Did you meet on status or safe harbor for all groups? If yes, then you met AYP in literacy.

  31. Review Page 2 • Review 2008-09 percent proficient from page 2. Identify any subgroups that are not MS or NA for math or literacy. • Review 3 year to see which situation benefits the status for the subject. • Review the “same subject” history. • If a subgroup is not MS or NA go to Page 3 to check safe harbor.

  32. Review Page 3. • Check the subgroups that did not meet the AMO by percent proficient to see if the group reduced the number of students below proficient by 10%. • If MS (SH) or SI_M (SH) then the group met standards by Safe Harbor provisions. • If not, then go to Page 4. • Caveat: you cannot qualify to apply Safe Harbor provisions to a subgroup if the subgroup did not meet the 95% tested requirement.

  33. How to Calculate Safe Harbor in AYP: • Determine the percentage Not Proficient the previous year: • 100 minus previous year percentage of students proficient = Previous year percentage NOT proficient. • For example, 37% proficient = 63% NOT proficient • Calculate the number of students = 10% of previous year’s percentage NOT proficient (63 x 0.10 = 6.3) • Reduce Last Year’s Percent NOT Proficient by that 10% 63-6.3=56.7 • The difference you obtained in Step 3 is the largest percentage of students who are NOT proficient that your school can have this year. • Subtract the difference from 100 to determine the percentage proficient you need to meet growth for Safe Harbor purposes. 100-56.7=43.3% proficient • A 75% confidence interval for growth is then calculated and the lower bound is applied. Schools that meet safe harbor conditions for a subgroup are considered to have met standards for that subgroup.

  34. Check to see if the subgroup met the % proficient AMO after adding students who met their expected growth. • This school needed to hit 55.75 to meet AYP in 2009. • Note: no confidence interval is applied to the % proficient for growth. Therefore, a small number of schools met % proficient AMO for traditional status, but not for growth.

  35. Which schools were not impacted by growth for AYP? • Schools that met standards using the traditional status/safe harbor model • Schools that did not include grade ranges that had growth scores • Grades 8-12, 9-12, etc. high schools • Grades 8-9 junior high schools • Elementary schools that included only grade 3 or below.

  36. Special Considerations in School AYP Transition to Smart Accountability Test Summaries versus AYP Summaries Hold Harmless schools

  37. What about schools in Targeted Improvement that meet standards? • For Targeted Improvement schools that meet standards, the targeted label and associated interventions still apply: for example, TI-2 becomes TI-A-2 • A stands for Achieving—meeting standards one year • If school meets second consecutive year, then school becomes Achieving School • If not, then school moves to next year and is labeled targeted or whole school based on next year’s % of groups meeting AYP

  38. What about schools in Whole School Improvement that meet standards? • For Whole School Improvement schools that meet standards, the Whole School label and associated interventions still apply: for example, WSI-2 becomes WSI-A-2 • A stands for Achieving—meeting standards one year • If school meets second consecutive year, then school becomes Achieving School • If not, then school moves to next year and is labeled targeted or whole school based on next year’s % of groups meeting AYP

  39. AYP school level feeder schools In place with original AYP workbook Primary schools without tested grades feed into intermediates with tested grades (K, K-1, K-2, 1,1-2, 2) Receive same status as intermediate schools they feed Smart Accountability District level feeder concept Elementaries to middle or to junior high or high school Improvement status not applied at school level, but must be addressed at district level Feeder Schools Clarification

  40. Special Situations: • Hold harmless schools will be held to their prior year improvement status • Smart Accountability Ratio will be calculated using groups’ performance in 2009 • This will be used for the first year of Smart Accountability to determine Targeted or Whole School label • Schools in Improvement meeting standards for one year (SI MS) will maintain their prior year status and targeted or whole school designation with additional ‘achieving’ added to label • For example, TI-A-2 or WSI-A-3

  41. Smart Accountability Approved for Schools It is not approved for use for district level AYP

  42. Test Summary Reports & AYP • Combined population for test summary reports from vendor • Include mobile students • Exclude LEP less than 1 year in US students • Exclude Braille form students • Alternately assessed students reported separate from students assessed on regular administration of test • Combined population for AYP • Excludes mobile students and LEP less than 1 year in US students • Results aggregated with alternately assessed students

  43. Legacy Hardcodes • Schools held harmless this year or in previous years (force majeure or reconfiguration) will have overall 2009 AYP status hardcoded • Overall literacy, overall math, and all other details are not hardcoded to match the hold harmless status

  44. District AYP 2009 • Traditional status determination and safe harbor are applied to districts. • Students are grouped into K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 “AYP groups” by grade range. • Each AYP group’s % proficient is compared to the AMO for combined population as well as the six subgroups. • Safe harbor is then applied to each AYP group. • Growth is then applied to each AYP group • Secondary indicator applied • Percent tested applied

  45. District AYP- Status Determination • If an AYP group misses the AMO or Safe Harbor for Comb. Pop or any subgroup then that AYP group does not meet standards. • If the K-5 AYP group’s economic disadvantaged students miss the AMO and do not meet for Safe Harbor for math, then the K-5 AYP group does not meet AYP for math, even though comb. pop. and the other subgroups did meet standards for K-5 math. • It only takes one subgroup or the combined population to miss AMO or Safe Harbor for the AYP group to miss AYP. • Districts must miss AMO or Safe Harbor for all 3 AYP groups in the same subject to not meet AYP as a district.

  46. To reiterate: • For each AYP group (K-5, 6-8, or 9-12): • Within the same subject, math or literacy, if any subgroup or the combined population miss AMO or Safe Harbor, the AYP group is considered to have not met standards (Alert or SI) • For all 3 AYP groups: • Within the same subject, math or literacy, if all 3 AYP groups have not met standards, then the district has not met standards for that subject overall. • For both Attendance and Graduation Rate: • A district must miss both attendance and graduation goal to miss AYP for the secondary indicator • The final overall status for district is equal to the worst case status of math, literacy or the secondary indicator.

  47. Example: Overall Math Status is Meets Standards because only the K-5 AYP Group missed the AMO

  48. Example: Overall Math Status is Meets Standardsbecause only the K-5 & 9-12 AYP groups missed AM

  49. Example: Overall Math Status is School Improvement Year 1Because all three AYP Groups missed AMO for a group

  50. What about secondary indicators? • Final Status Determination:Overall Literacy: MSOverall Math: MS Attendance Rate: MS Grad Rate: Alert Overall district status: MS • Final Status Determination:Overall Literacy: MSOverall Math: MS Attendance Rate: Alert Grad Rate: Alert Overall district status: Alert

More Related