1 / 24

Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations

Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations. Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability, Improvement Planning and Targeted Assistance. Massachusetts Accountability System Basics.

jackson-gonzalez
Download Presentation

Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations

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. Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability, Improvement Planning and Targeted Assistance

  2. Massachusetts Accountability System Basics School Performance Ratings are • Biannual (2002, 2004, 2006…), as required by state law • Descriptive terms • Ratings for Performance and Improvement • Based on aggregate MCAS student results AYP determinations are • Issued every year, as required by federal law • For students in aggregate and for subgroups • Based on four factors: participation, performance, improvement, and attendance(elementary and middle schools) or graduation rate (high schools)

  3. Why Proficiency? Proficiency in core academic subjects is the gateway to: • Opportunities for higher education • Meaningful choices for employment in our 21st-century high tech economy • Full participation in community and civic life

  4. Calculating the Composite Performance Index (“CPI”) • Points awarded based on number of students performing at each level • Different performance measures for students with significant cognitive disabilities participating in MCAS- Alt • Just arithmetic! Multiply, add, then divide.

  5. Massachusetts NCLB Performance Targets for ELA and Mathematics 2002 - 2014 Cycle III

  6. MA Performance and Improvement Ratings 2002 2006 2008 2014 2004 2010 2012 100 Very High 90 High 80 Above Target Moderate Composite Performance Index 70 X On Target Low X Improved, Below Target X 60 B X No Change Very Low 40 X Declined Critically Low Baseline

  7. What is AYP? • AYP stands for Adequate Yearly Progress • Means progress towards 100% of students achieving proficiency by 2014 • Measures progress against specific expectations each year

  8. A: Participation 95% CPI ELA: 75.6 B:Performance Math: 60.8 100 - Baseline CPI Time (# of Cycles) C:Improvement D:Attendance 92% or ^ 1% or Graduation Rate Cycle III AYP Criteria 70% + CD Attainment

  9. (A+B+D) Participation + Performance + Attendance or Graduation Rate or (A+C+D) Participation + Improvement + Attendance or Graduation Rate Two Ways to Make AYP:

  10. New In 2004 • Assessment results for LEP students in US schools for first year not included in calculation of CPI • Minimum sample size for subgroups is greater of a) 40 or b) 5% of students assessed or 200 • Additional indicator (attendance or graduation rate) considered in all AYP determinations

  11. 18 AYP Determinations Per School! Each school and district receives AYP determinations • in ELA/reading and in mathematics • for students in the aggregate and each NCLB subgroup

  12. Preliminary AYP Data Review August 25 - August 31 • Review preliminary 2004 End-of-Cycle III AYP data files for schools and for district as a whole (data files posted to MADOE security portal • Attend explanatory workshops (optional) • Identify and report any AYP data or determination discrepancies evident in preliminary data run. September 1 • Notice to districts and schools on preliminary list of those identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring September 10 • Preliminary list of districts and schools identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring released to public.

  13. AYP Reporting Schedule September 29 - October 6 • Districts preview End-of-Cycle School and District Accountability System (SDAS) reports (Cycle III performance and improvement ratings and 2004 AYP determinations) • Identify and report any data or determination discrepancies for resolution prior to public release of Cycle III accountability reports. October 8 • Public release of Cycle III Accountability reports.

  14. Consequences When A School Does Not Make AYP Schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group must be “identified for improvement” • All schools identified for improvement must develop a plan for improving student performance • Title 1 schools identified for improvement must also • offer school choice (year 1 in improvement status) • offer supplemental services (year 2 if fail to make AYP in year 1)

  15. Notice to Parents: School Choice and Supplemental Services Title 1 Schools identified for Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring must offer school choice if alternative assignment options exist. If school choice is required, parents must be notified, in writing, as soon as possible after districts receive notice of the designation.

  16. Corrective Action and Restructuring • Schools identified for improvement that fail to make AYP for 2 additional years must be identified for corrective action. • Schools that did not make AYP in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 were identified for corrective action last fall. • Schools in corrective action that fail to make AYP in 2004 are subject to restructuring.

  17. Appeal Standards and Processes • Objective is to render fair, reliable decisions • Appeals may be filed to address perceived erroneous or unfair determinations where: • there are student enrollment data discrepancies • data is missing or misplaced • circumstances render the reported data invalid or unreliable • application of the standard rules would render a result inconsistent with statutory intent, public policy, or sound professional judgement • school or district provides evidence that it has taken specific action to improve the performance of an identified subgroup and MCAS results demonstrate significantly improved results for that subgroup in the following year.

  18. School Accountability Steps • Performance Ratings & AYP Determinations • Panel Review • Determination of Under-performance • Fact-Finding • Performance Improvement Mapping • Improvement Plan Reviewed by Board • DOE Monitors Improvement Initiatives • Year 2 Follow-up Review • Determination of Chronic Under-performance

  19. Link Between NCLB and Our State’s On-Site Performance Review Process Schools identified for corrective action or restructuring based on aggregate results undergo state panel review. Panel Review Questions: 1. Is there a sound plan for improving student performance? 2. Are the conditions in place for successful implementation of such a plan?

  20. Where Can I Find Accountability Information When I Need It? Visit the Department of Education website, www.doe.mass.edu. • Click on Assessment and Accountability to find explanatory materials about the MA School and District Accountability System • Go to “School and District Profiles” to find performance data for the state, a district or school. Send questions to: ATA@doe.mass.edu

More Related