Annual Student Performance Report September 2013

1. Annual Student Performance ReportSeptember 2013

2. Overview Review of NCLB requirements 2013 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps

3. No Child Left Behind Act andAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Overall goal is 100% proficiency in Reading and Math by 2014 Targets increase nearly every year Recent target proficiencies: 2010: 77.5% 2011: 85% 2012: 85% (Illinois waiver) 2013: 92.5%

4. No Child Left Behind Act andAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

5. Making AYP: Subgroups Target must be met by all subgroups: Ethnic group Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities Limited English proficiency Applies to all subgroups with at least 45 members

6. Making AYP: Overall Requirements Three overall requirements: At least 95% of students in each subgroup must be tested in reading and math. At least 92.5% (in 2013) of students must meet or exceed standards in the subject. If the percentage is less than 92.5%, the 95% confidence interval is applied. If a subgroup did not make AYP the previous year, but decreased the percentage not meeting standards by at least 10%, the Safe Harbor provision will allow it to meet the conditions. School must have at least a 92% attendance rate.

7. Making AYP: Additional Factors Annual target percentages are lowered in specific circumstances: 95% confidence interval based on group size Safe Harbor provision of 10% decrease in percent not meeting from one year to next

8. Making AYP: Complicating Factors Home school versus serving school May 1 attendance cutoff Some students in multiple subgroups

9. Why Cut Scores Were Raised Focus on college and career readiness Closer alignment to PARCC test Common Core State Standards set higher bar

10. Changes to Cut Scores

11. Student Progress: 2012-2013 Reminders: AYP compares different sets of students from year to year Vast majority of students do improve from one year to next

12. 2013 Reading Compared to 2012

13. 2013 Math Compared to 2012

14. Past Performance Under New Cut Scores

15. Old cut scores Disproportionate Effect on Subgroups New cut scores

16. 2013 AYP Status One school made AYP in both subjects Nine schools did not make AYP in one or both subjects for one or more subgroups One failed for the third consecutive year One failed for the fourth consecutive year The District as a whole did not make AYP for the third consecutive year

17. 2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups Making AYP Spring break

18. 2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups Not Making AYP in Reading

19. 2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups not Making AYP in Math

20. 2012 AYP Status Update District AYP status State: Academic Early Warning Year 2 Federal: District Improvement Year 2

21. Federal and State Requirementsfor Schools not Making AYP First year: No consequences Second consecutive year: Complete a School Improvement Plan and receive change in status: Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (School choice) State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 1 Third consecutive year: Complete a School Improvement Plan and receive change in status: Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (School choice and Supplemental Educational Services) State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 2

22. Student Growth Model Local growth model (ECRA) ISAT, MAP, EXPLORE, and DIBELS Uses past student performance to predict future Compares actual to predicted to identify areas needing attention

23. School Improvement Planning Rising Star plans at district level and all ten schools Continuous improvement model Focused on research-based indicators West 40 again engaged as consultant

24. Questions?