1 / 31

Kent School District Report to the Board of Education September 8, 2010

Kent School District Report to the Board of Education September 8, 2010. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Accountability System Update Adequate Yearly Progress 2009-2010. Presentation Outline. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Mr. Randy Dorn’s August 31, 2010 Press Release

syshe
Download Presentation

Kent School District Report to the Board of Education September 8, 2010

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. Kent School DistrictReport to the Board of EducationSeptember 8, 2010 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Accountability System Update Adequate Yearly Progress 2009-2010

  2. Presentation Outline • State Superintendent of Public Instruction Mr. Randy Dorn’s August 31, 2010 Press Release • Measurement of Student Progress (MSP)/High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) Results • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) • Review of Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) Basics and School and District Results • District and School Level Next Steps

  3. Mr. Dorn’s Press Release • OLYMPIA – August 31, 2010 – “State testing scores from spring 2010 were mixed when compared to spring 2009, State Superintendent Randy Dorn said today at a news conference.” • “Results reflect two straight years of cuts to the K-12 education budget cut many crucial services.”

  4. Press Release: State MSP Results • Grades 3-8 Measurements of Student ProgressReading increased in three grades (3, 7 and 8) and decreased in three grades (4, 5 and 6). • MSP writing scores increased in grades 4 and 7; and in Science scores decreased in grade 5 and increased in grade 8. • Math MSP essentially creates a new benchmark, or starting point, for grades 3-8 math because it was a new test that that assessed new learning standards.

  5. Press Release: Adequate Yearly Progress • In 2010, preliminary figures show that 968 schools did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), a decrease of 317 schools from 2009. (40.4% of WA schools made AYP) • Of that total, 1,129 are in one of five steps of improvement. • For districts, 212 did not make AYP, an increase of three from 2009, and 110 are in one of two steps of improvement. (28.7% of WA Districts made AYP)

  6. Comparisons: WA and KSD • Reading: • KSD students did not perform as well as their state peers at all grades except grade 6 • At grade 7, KSD students outperformed their state peers • Math: • New standards were tested for the first time • KSD students outperformed their state peers in grades 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10. • At grades 3 and 5, KSD performance was similar to their state peers

  7. Washington State & KSD MSP Reading: Spring 2010

  8. Washington State and KSD MSP Math: Spring 2010

  9. Reading Cohort Performance in Comparison to WA 100% means KSD performed as well as WA Greater than 100% means KSD outperformed WA

  10. Math Cohort Performance in Comparison to WA 100% means KSD performed as well as WA Greater than 100% means KSD outperformed WA

  11. AYP Elements Still in Effect • ALL students “proficient” by 2014 • Separate annual proficiency goals in reading & math • 1 % can be proficient at district level using alternative performance standard • Same Goal on ‘state uniform bar’ for nine groups • All students • Five Racial/Ethnic Groups • Students with Disabilities (Special Education) • Students with Limited English Proficiency (ELL) • Students from Low-Income Families (Poverty) • 95 % of students in each group to be assessed • One other indicator • Graduation rate (high schools): 67% (or two percentage point increase) • Unexcused absences (Grades 1-8): 1% (or any decrease)

  12. AYP Matrix (37 categories) 13

  13. 100.0 100 88.1 90 76.1 80 64.2 79.0 70 52.2 60 64.9 50 Percent meeting standard 58.0 40 47.3 30 20 29.7 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Grades 3-5 Yearly Targets (Revised) Reading Mathematics NOTE: The state uniform bar has changed for 2010—13 based upon new cut scores on the mathematics assessments.

  14. Grades 6-8 Yearly Targets 100.0 100 82.5 90 80 65.1 70 79.3 60 47.6 Percent meeting standard 50 58.7 30.1 40 30 38.0 20 10 17.3 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 15

  15. High School Yearly Targets 100.0 100 87.2 90 74.3 80 61.5 81.2 70 60 48.6 Percent meeting standard 62.4 50 40 43.6 30 20 24.8 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 16

  16. School Continue: Continue: Continue: Improvement Public School Public School Public School Plan Choice Choice Choice Supplemental Supplemental Services Plan for Supplemental Corrective Public School AlternativeGovernance Services Action Choice AYP TIMELINE FOR SCHOOLS (Consequences apply only to schools receiving Title I funds) Sanctions are a District Responsibility From OSPI Implement Plan For AYP AYP Alternative Governance WASL Results WASL Results 1 2 AYP AYP AYP AYP AYP 1 2 3 4 5 Step Step Step Step Step 40.4% of WA schools made AYP Identified for School Improvement 17

  17. AYP TIMELINE FOR DISTRICTS (Consequences apply only to districts receiving Title I funds) State Responsibility From OSPI District District AYP AYP Improvement Plan Improvement Plan State Offers State Technical Assistance WASL Results WASL Results MUST Take Corrective Action and MAY takeCorrective Action Corrective Action: District Must Develop Corrective Action Plan AYP AYP 1 2 1 2 Step Step 28.7% of WA Districts made AYP Identified for District Improvement 18

  18. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 District AYP • 2009-2010 • Made AYP Overall:    No   • In Improvement:    Step 2 • Number of Yes: 67 • Number of No: 16 • % of Yes/Total:80.7% 2008-2009 • Made AYP Overall:    No   • In Improvement:    Step 2 • Number of Yes: 62 • Number of No: 21 • % of Yes/Total:74.7% From a growth model perspective: Overall, KSD improved from 74.7% of cells met to 80.7% of cells met – an increase of 6 percentage points.

  19. Schools AYP Results Mixed Changes to schools in AYP School Improvement in 2009-2010: • Made AYP in 2010 but not in 2009= 4 schools • Did not make AYP in 2010 but did in 2009 = 5 schools • Made AYP Both Years= 3 schools • Did not make AYP Both Years = 28 schools

  20. Not in AYP Step

  21. Growth Shown in Improved Subgroup Performance in Elementary Schools% of Cells Making AYP

  22. Mixed Results Shown in Subgroup Performance in Secondary Schools% of Cells Making AYP

  23. Press Release: Changes • In spring 2011, students in grades 5 and 8 will be tested on the new science learning standards for the first time. • Incoming 10th graders in the class of 2013 will be required to pass all state exams – reading, writing, math and science – to be eligible for a diploma. • Last November, Superintendent Dorn proposed changes to the math requirement through the class of 2015 and a delay in the science requirement until the class of 2017. However, the Legislature opted not to act upon his proposal.

  24. Inquiry into Current Practice • Are the Washington standards being taught at each grade level? • Is the district adopted curriculum aligned with Washington standards? • Assessments • Materials • Instructional Strategies • Are standards taught at grade level? • Are formative assessment results used to inform instruction? • Is instruction differentiated based upon student needs?

  25. Next Steps • District Improvement Plan Formalized • Identify Power Standards • Implement Standards-Based Classroom Model • Expand Formative Assessment System • Expansion of Tiered Intervention • Organizational Learning and Improvement Team • Identify and Share Effective Classroom Practices • District Office Support Team Reorganization: Direct Assistance to Schools • School Data Analysis Reviews with School Leadership Teams • School Improvement Plans Developed • Present School Improvement Plans to Board for Approval

More Related