1 / 32

Accountability Systems

Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Title I Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/25/09. Accountability Systems. Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Defines NCLB mandates for Title I schools failing to meet proficiency target

lavanya-bimal
Download Presentation

Accountability Systems

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. Federal and State Student Accountability Data UpdateTitle I Coordinators MeetingLocal District 809/25/09

  2. Accountability Systems • Federal • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 • Defines NCLB mandates for Title I schools failing to meet proficiency target • Requires all students to perform at or above proficiency by 2014 in English Language Arts and Math • State • SB 1X: Public Schools Accountability Act 1999 • Academic Performance Index LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  3. Federal Testing Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) No Child Left Behind LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  4. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)California Standards Test (CST) Proficiency Elementary and Middle Schoolin the ELA and Math CSTs only LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009 4

  5. AYP Criteria Elementary/Middle School: Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) Testing Proficiency (AMO): Minimum percentage of students at Proficient to Advanced levels of the California Standards Test (CST) LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  6. Alternate Way of Meeting Proficiency: Safe Harbor

  7. Alternate Way of Meeting Proficiency: Safe Harbor • Reduce percentage of Below Proficient students by 10 %.[Within 75% Confidence Interval] • [school-wide and significant subgroups] LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  8. Safe Harbor Option • Becomes an option to meet AYP proficiency when the gap between the new AMO and the current level of proficiency is greater than 10% New Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) Gap Greater than 10% Current Proficiency (School wide or Subgroup) LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  9. Elementary and Middle Schools Proficient equals a scale score of 350 or above LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009 9

  10. Calculating Estimated Safe Harbor

  11. Academic Performance Index (API) Senate Bill 1X [SB1X] State Testing Accountability LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  12. Calculating API Key to Understanding API Growth

  13. Academic Performance Index (API)CST Quintile Rankings paired with API Weights LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  14. Calculating Academic Performance Index LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  15. Sample API Calculation: Same number of students in each quintile level. LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  16. 327,500 Total weighted pts.500 Total # of Students Equals 655 API

  17. Academic Performance Index (API)Highest Possible API/State API Goal/Lowest Possible API LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  18. Academic Performance Index (API):Change in API Weights LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  19. Academic Performance Index (API) and CST Performance Levels API API For Academic Performance Index (API), greatest gains will occur when moving students from the lowest CST levels due to weighting factors. LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  20. Sample API Calculation: Moving 20 students from Proficient to Advanced LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  21. 330,000 Total weighted pts.500 Total # of Students Equals 660 API [655+5 gain]

  22. Sample API Calculation: Moving 20 students from Far Below Basic to Below Basic LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  23. 333,500 Total weighted pts.500 Total # of Students Equals 667 API [655 +12 gain]

  24. “LEAKAGE” Hidden Loss of API Points 11/8/2014 LACOE/LAUSD 24

  25. Sample API Calculation: 20 students falling from Advanced to Basic 20 students advancing from Far Below Basic to Below Basic 11/8/2014 25 Keith/Hayashida

  26. 327,500 Total weighted pts.500 Total # of Students equals 655 API [0 growth]

  27. Key to Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Generating Academic Performance Index (API):Positive Annual Gains LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009 27

  28. Goal: Advance One Testing Level Per Year regardless of assessed level. LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  29. ES, MS and HS Academic Performance Index (API) and CST Performance Levels API API For Academic Performance Index (API), greatest gains will occur when moving students from the lowest CST levels due to weighting factors. LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  30. ES and MS Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and CST Performance Levels “Basic” quintile: Closest to Proficiency. LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  31. ES and MS AYP + API and CST Performance Levels AYP API API AYP AYP For Academic Performance Index (API), greatest gains will occur when moving students from the lowest CST levels due to weighting factors. “Basic” quintile closest to AYP “Proficiency” LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009 31

  32. Hayashida, Wade Hayashida, PI Coordinator Local District 8 wade.hayashida@lausd.net 310-354-3459 LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

More Related