1 / 20

Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State

Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04. Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State. Why Did We Start Over?. Federal legislation signed January 2002 (NCLB) Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965

vivian
Download Presentation

Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State

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. Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04 Delaware’sAccountability Plan for Schools,Districts and the State

  2. Why Did We Start Over? • Federal legislation signed January 2002 (NCLB) • Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 • Delaware merged the existing state accountability processes with federal requirements for 2003-04

  3. What Our System Allows • Ensure more valid and reliable accountability determinations • Monitor various subgroups progress at the school, district and state level • Support our value of continuous improvement

  4. Accountability • Based on the performance of students taught in the school/district/state • DSTP – assessments used at grades 3,5,8, and 10 in reading, writing and math • Grades 4,6,8 and 11 science and social studies included in state progress determination

  5. Calculations • System compares the % of students that meet/exceed DE content standards each year to previous years for ELA and math • Nine possible subgroups reviewed • Subgroup included for accountability decisions if there are 40 or more students

  6. Subgroups • All students (the school as a whole) • American Indian • Asian American • African American • Hispanic • White • Economically Disadvantaged • Special Education • Limited English Proficient

  7. Performance Target • % of students meeting the standards is compared to a State target of 57% in ELA, 33% in math (explained on the next slide) • Beginning in 2004, if performance target for subgroup is not met, a confidence interval is calculated

  8. How do you determine Progress for the Performance Target? • Current year’s test data OR • Average of the current year and the previous year of test scores • **use the higher of the two measures**

  9. Safe Harbor • To see if some change in lowest achieving students • Cell shows a 10% decrease in the % of students not meeting the standards not meeting the standards as compared to the previous year, AND • Cell shows progress on the Other Academic Indicator

  10. Other Academic Indicators • Beginning in 2004, the Other Academic Indicator for elementary and middle schools is determined by improvement of the average scale scores of the students performing at PL1&2 in reading and math combined • OR • A decrease in the % of students performing at PL1 in reading and math • A confidence interval is used in the comparisons is used here also

  11. AYP: a school, district or the state must meet -- • Participation Targets in ELA and math • Performance Targets in ELA and math, or attaining Safe Harbor • Maintain or show progress toward the Other Academic Indicator

  12. AYP Status • Beginning in 2004, AYP status is expressed in terms of— • Above Target • Meets Target • Below Target

  13. State Progress Determination • Calculated by formula • Reading, math, science, social studies included equally • Compares current year to last year

  14. State Progress Determination • Beginning in 2004, State Progress status is expressed in terms of – • Above Target • Meets Target • Below Target

  15. State Progress Determinations • Above -- growth of 6 points OR -- composite score of 75 or higher • Meets -- composite score of : 61-74 1 point growth 45-60 2 points growth • Below -- composite score of less than 45 OR --did not meet growth target

  16. Ratings • Beginning in 2004, the overall rating in determined by a combination of AYP and State Progress determination • Various combinations or Above, Meets, and Below Target (for State and AYP) yield the overall rating

  17. Ratings • Superior • Commendable • Academic Review • Academic Progress --Under Improvement • Academic Watch – Under Improvement

  18. How to be Classified as Under Improvement • Two consecutive years not meeting AYP in same content area --ELA --Math --Other Academic Indicator

  19. How to Move Out of Under Improvement • Must meet two conditions: --All targets must be met for two consecutive years in the content area(s) or other indicator that placed under improvement --Can fall below target in other content area(s) or other indicator for two consecutive years

  20. Questions/Commentswww.doe.state.de.us/aab

More Related