Transcript Document

BIE Accountability:
Adequate Yearly Progress
Brian W. Bough
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe
Education Research Analyst
Bureau of Indian Education
Division of Performance and Accountability
Overview of BIE
• The BIE serves 44,000 students in 173 schools
with academic programs and 12 dormitory-only
facilities on or near 64 reservations across 23
states.
• It is responsible for two post-secondary
education schools, Haskell Indian Nations
University (HINU) in Lawrence, Kansas, and
Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
• Approximately seven percent of American
Indian/Alaska Native students attend schools
administered by the Department of Interior’s
(DOI) Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) supported
schools.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA):
No Child Left Behind Act
• Emphasized measurement and transparency to hold
schools accountable for student performance on tests
• Designed to inform parents about school performance
and to offer parents choices about where their students
could be educated
• Requires that all students and sub-groups be held to the
same standards of achievement
• Outlined requirements for standards and assessments for
states
• Mandated that all students perform at 100% proficiency
on Mathematics and Reading tests by 2014
• The BIE judges whether a school is making Adequate
Yearly Progress as measured by the performance
indicators
BIE Implementation
• 25 CFR 30.100-150 is the result of Negotiated
Rulemaking Process for BIE implementation of NCLB
• Negotiated Rulemaking required the BIE to determine
AYP using state standards for the state in which the
school is located
• 25 CFR and NCLB both require the BIE to make schoollevel AYP determinations (as opposed to district-level
determinations)
• NCLB requires schools to meet all AYP indicators in
order to be judged as Making AYP
• US Department of Education requires that the BIE
verify assessment data used in NCLB determinations
and BIE reporting to ED
Indicator
Mathematics
(Achievement)
Mathematics
(Participation)
Reading or Language Arts
(Achievement)
Reading or Language Arts
(Participation)
Science
(Participation)
Attendance (K-8)
Graduation (9-12)
Definitions
Minimum N (FAY)
Full Academic Year
Confidence Interval
Attendance Target
(FAY and Non-FAY)
Graduation Target
(FAY and Non-FAY)
All Students
Limited English
Proficient
Special Education
AMO
AMO
AMO
95%
95%
95%
AMO
AMO
AMO
95%
95%
95%
Administered
Administered
Administered
Target or Improve
Target or Improve
Target or Improve
Target or Improve
Target or Improve
Target or Improve
Arizona
New Mexico
Utah
40 per grade
25 per school
10 per sub-group
Enrolled in First 10 Days of
the School Year
Enrolled In All Four Census
Periods
Enrolled 160 Days Prior to
Testing
95%
95%
95%
90%
92%
93%
71%
52%
85%
Arizona
Annual Measurable Objectives
(Averaged Across Grades)
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Reading
50.0
Mathematics
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
SYS2008-10
SY2010-11
SY2011-12
SY2012-13
SY2013-14
New Mexico
Annual Measurable Objectives
(Kindergarten through High School Configuration)
100
90
80
70
60
Reading
50
Mathematics
40
30
20
10
0
SY2008-09
SY2009-10
SY2010-11
SY2011-12
SY2012-13
SY2013-14
Utah
Annual Measurable Objectives
100
90
80
70
60
50
Language Arts
40
Mathematics
30
20
10
0
High School
SY2007-08 SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-12
Grades 3-8
100
90
80
70
60
50
Language Arts
40
Mathematics
30
20
10
0
SY2007-08
SY2008-09
SY2009-10
SY2010-11
SY2011-12
SY2009-10 AYP Determinations
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah
Disaggregated by Tribally-Controlled and Bureau-Operated Schools
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
AZ Nav Tribal
AZ Nav Bureau
AZ Tribal
AZ Breau
NM Nav Tribal
Percent of schools making AYP within the category
NM Nav Bureau
NM Tribal
NM Bureau
Bureau Trends in AYP
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Tribal
50.0
Bureau
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
SY0708
SY0809
SY0910
Percent of schools making AYP, tribally-controlled versus BIE-operated
Student Performance on Assessments
Percent Proficient or Advanced
100
90
80
70
60
Reading
50
Mathematics
40
30
20
10
0
SY2006-07
SY2007-08
SY2008-09
SY2009-10
Unintended Consequences
• State standards are not designed for BIE schools
(nor should they be)
• AYP determinations, like state assessments, are
not comparable across state lines
• BIE makes decisions on grants and school
improvement plans based on AYP determinations
• Program implementation success is difficult to
assess
• BIE lacks a consistent definition of what
accountability means that is applied to all BIEfunded schools
Discontent with NCLB
“Current law also sets annual targets for proficiency and
mandates that every student meet those goals by 2014.
Today, almost 40 percent of America's schools are not
meeting their goals and as we approach the 2014
deadline, that number will rise steeply.
“In fact, we did an analysis which shows that -- next year - the number of schools not meeting their goals under
NCLB could double to over 80 percent -- even if we
assume that all schools will gain as much as the top
quartile in the state.
“So let me repeat that: four out of five schools in America
may not meet their goals under NCLB by next year.”
--Arne Duncan testimony before Congress, March 9, 2011
Waiting for Reauthorization
• Montana has opted-out of increases in the
AMO
• More assessments, less assessment?
• Common Core Standards
• Local Standards
• Changes in assessments
• Teacher Accountability
• BIE Accountability System: Integrating
Assessments with Curricula
Vision
• Accountability system is meaningful
• Accountability system is consistent across BIE
• Accountability system, course standards
(curricula), and assessments are all aligned
• Intervention in curricula and instruction are
well-defined
• DPA serves as a comprehensive statewide
system of support for schools on matters of
program implementation and school
improvement