Transcript Closing the GAP - Adams County/Ohio Valley School District

Closing the GAP
“No Child Left Behind” (ESEA)
Who’s To Blame
The college professor said, “Such rawness in a student is a shame.
Lack of preparation in the high school is to blame,”
Said the high school teacher:
“Good heavens! That boy’s a fool.
The fault of course, is with the middle school.”
The middle school teacher said,
“From such stupidity may I be spared.
They sent him up so unprepared.’
The primary teacher huffed, “Kindergarten blockheads all.
They call that preparation – Why, it’s worse than none at all.”
The kindergarten teacher said, “Such lack of training never did I see.
What kind of a woman must that mother be?”
The mother said, “Poor helpless child. He’s not to blame.
His father’s people were all the same.”
Said the father at the end of the line,
“I doubt the rascal’s even mine!”
Before we begin……………………
Just a little history lesson
The 1960’s Brought……..
•
•
•
•
•
Man on the moon
Voting Rights Act
Civil Rights Act
Head Start
Medicare
AND….
The First ESEA!!
(in 1965)
If you can remember the
60’s………
You weren’t there!!
2001
ESEA Reauthorization Act
Congress took the engine out of ESEA
and
Attempted to create……
A New Vehicle
Whether this is really a “New Vehicle”
or a “K-Car”
is still to be determined!
Is this student in your class?
“My teacher is real tricky. I study hard -- she
gives me an easy test.
I don’t study -- she gives me a hard test.”
3.16
ESEA 2001 Final Vote
House:
381-41
Senate:
87-10
95.2% of Democrats
and
86.3% of Republicans
Voted for Passage
Closing the Achievement Gap
 Disaggregating the Data
Ethnicity
LEP
SES
Disability
Promoting Accountability
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
 12 years to reach 100% proficiency
 Baseline data
 2001/2002 results
 Subgroups
 AYP accumulative
Adequate Yearly Progress
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
03
20
20
04
30
20
05
40
20
06
50
20
07
60
20
08
70
20
09
80
20
10
90
20
11
01
20
12
11
20
13
21
20
14
31
20
Multiple Measures:
Adequate Yearly Progress
(2002-03)
Reading
Math
Grade 4
40.5%
35.9%
Grade 6
36.0%
36.8%
Grade 9
78.0%
53.1%
NCLB Adequate Yearly
Progress (2004-05 targets)
Grade Span
Elementary
Middle
High
Reading
Math
71.3 (Grade 3
46.5% (Grade 4
achievement)
proficiency)
47.0% (Grade 6
46.3% (Grade 6
proficiency)
proficiency)
71.8% (Grade 10 60.0% (Grade 10
OGT)
OGT)
SAFE HARBOR
• If a school building or district fails to meet the
annual measurable objective, or if one or more
subgroups fail to meet the annual measurable
objective, then the school building or district
makes adequate yearly progress if:
 The percentage of tested students in that building,
district, or subgroup below the proficient achievement
level decreases by at least 10 percent from the
preceding year.
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS
Year One:
 Improvement Plan
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS
(continued)
YEAR TWO:
 Offer School Choice
Notify parents
Option to transfer
Transportation provided
CONSEQUENCES FOR
SCHOOLS
(continued)
Year Three:
 Offer supplemental services and school choice
CONSEQUENCES FOR
SCHOOLS
(continued)
Year Four:

Continue to offer school choice and supplemental services.

District takes corrective action, including one of the following:
 Institute new curriculum
 Decrease school management authority
 Appoint an outside expert
 Extend school year or day
 Replace the principal and/or other key staff
 Secure an external manager
 Close the building and reassign students
 Redesign the building
Consequences: All Districts
after 4 years missing AYP
Less Intrusive
• Withhold Title I
funds
• New curriculum
• Alternate
governance for
particular schools
More Intrusive
• Replace key staff
• Appoint trustee in
place of
superintendent &
school board
District Designations & AYP
(2003-04 results)
Designation
Number
Receiving
Designation
Missing AYP
Number
Percent
Number in
Improvement
Status
Excellent
117
20
17%
1
Effective
229
63
28%
2
224
98
44%
22
34
34
100%
21
4
4
100%
3
608
219
36%
49
Continuous
Improvement
Academic
Watch
Academic
Emergency
TOTAL
AYP Applies to:
Previously
• Title I funded
schools &
districts only
Now
• All public schools &
districts, including
community schools
• Regardless of Title I
funding
Ohio’s New Accountability
System
Ohio’s Response to No Child Left
Behind (NCLB)
a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act
a.k.a. ESEA
Challenges
• Tougher system
• New ground-rules
– All students accounted for
– Group, as well as aggregate, performance
counts
• Creates new starting point for judging
future performance
– 2002-03 results are not directly comparable
to past years
Opportunities
• Multiple ways to tell the achievement
story
• Highlights the achievement of all
students
• Ohio’s educators have been improving
achievement for almost a decade -- we
believe that 2003-04 and beyond will
result in continuing improvement
Tests Administered
Previously
• Grades 4, 6, 9
• 5 subjects
Now
• Grades 3-8, 10
• 5 subjects
 Reading
 Mathematics
 Writing
 Science
 Citizenship
 Reading
 Mathematics
 Writing
 Science
 Social studies
Test Performance Levels
•
•
•
•
Proficiency Tests
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
•
•
•
•
•
Achievement Tests
Advanced
Accelerated
Proficient
Basic
Limited
Same Five Designations for
Ohio
•
•
•
•
•
Excellent
Effective
Continuous Improvement
Academic Watch
Academic Emergency
Multiple Measures: Ohio Performance Index
• More sensitive to gradations of
achievement than indicators
• Credits achievement at all performance
levels
• Weights higher performance more than
lower performance
• Rewards “advanced” performance
Multiple Measures:
Ohio Performance Index
Advanced
Accelerated
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
Untested
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.0
Multiple Measures:
Performance Index
Perf. Level Percent Number Weight
Advanced
5.3%
109
1.2
Accelerated
7.0%
145
1.1
Proficient
33.3%
690
1.0
Basic
18.4%
382
0.6
Limited
35.8%
741
0.3
Untested
0.2%
5
0.0
TOTAL
100.0%
2072
Score
6.3
7.7
33.3
11.1
10.7
0.0
69.1
2002-03 Report Card Content
Previously
• Percent of
performance (local
report card)
indicators met
• Designation
•
•
•
•
•
Now
Percent of performance
indicators
Performance index
score
Improvement
AYP
Designation
New Report Card Criteria:
Multiple Ways of Earning Designations
Existing Ohio
Report Card
Indicators
Performance
Index Score
94% to 100%
(21 or 22 for districts)
or
100 to 120
94% to 100%
(21 or 22 for districts)
or
100 to 120
75% to 93%
(17 to 20 for districts)
or
90 to 99
75% to 100%
(17 to 22 for districts)
or
90 to 120
0% to 74%
(0 to 16 for districts)
and
0 to 89
50% to 74%
(11 to 16 for districts)
or
80 to 89
or
Academic
Watch
31% to 49%
(7 to 10 for districts)
or
70 to 79
or
Academic
Emergency
0% to 31%
(0 to 6 for districts)
and
0 to 69
Excellent
Effective
Continuous
Improvement
Federal AYP
Requirements
Growth Calculation
Value Added --
Once
grades 3 to 8 reading and
math assessments are
implemented and multiple
years of data available, Ohio
will incorporate a measure
of individual student gradeto-grade achievement gains
to help determine school
building and district
designations.
Temporary Growth
Calculation ** --
Districts and schools will
move from Emergency to
Watch or from Watch to
Improvement if: (a)
improved performance index
score each of past two years,
(b) total two-year gain of at
least 10 points,and (c) most
recent year's gain of at least
3 points.
and
Met AYP
and
Missed AYP*
and
Met AYP
and
Missed AYP*
and
Met AYP
and
Missed AYP
and
Missed AYP
and
Missed AYP
Designations
Districts
Designations
2002-2003
Schools
2003-2004
2002-2003
2003-2004
Excellent
85
117
630
920
Effective
177
229
771
906
Continuous
Improvement
278
224
1,242
1,207
Academic Watch
52
34
237
126
Academic
Emergency
16
4
338
225
4
4
500
518
Not Rated
Change in Designation
from Last Year
Districts
Schools
#
%
#
%
Moved
Up
177
29%
1,024
30%
Moved
Down
29
5%
288
9%
Excellent or Effective
DISTRICTS
57%
SCHOOLS
54%
Excellent, Effective, or
Continuous Improvement
DISTRICTS
94%
SCHOOLS
90%
Performance Index Score
(all grades)
95
90
86.6
85
81.9
80
83.1
78.7
75
73.7
70
65
1999- 2000
2000- 01
2001- 02
2002- 03
2003- 04
Improved Performance
Index Score
DISTRICTS
87%
SCHOOLS
79%
At Least 10-point Gain in
Performance Index Score
over Two Years
Districts
Schools
#
%
#
%
36
6%
361
26%
Performance
Level
Percent
Number
Weight
Score
Advanced
11.7%
97
1.2
14.0
Proficient
54.1%
449
1.0
54.1
Basic
16.5%
137
0.6
9.9
Limited
17.7%
147
0.3
5.3
Untested
0.0%
0
0.0
0.0
100.0%
830
TOTAL
Performance
Level
83.3
Percent
Number
Weight
Score
Advanced
15.3%
127
1.2
18.4
Proficient
57.7%
479
1.0
57.7
Basic
20.1%
167
0.6
12.1
Limited
6.9%
57
0.3
2.1
Untested
0.0%
0
0.0
0.0
100.0%
830
TOTAL
90.2
The PI Calculator
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/accountability/p
erformanceindexcal.xls
Improved Reading
Proficiency over Last Year
Grade 10
Districts
Schools
Grade 4
Grade 6
#
%
#
%
#
%
435
72%
300
49%
416
68%
1,280 66%
621
50%
488
73%
(9th Grade
Proficiency)
Improved Mathematics
Proficiency over Last Year
Grade 10
Districts
Schools
Grade 4
Grade 6
#
%
#
%
#
%
493
81%
560
92%
426
70%
1,095 88%
495
70%
1,392 71%
(9th Grade
Proficiency)
2004-05 Performance
Indicators -- 23 Total

21 test indicators
Proficiency Tests
– Grade 4 math, science, & citizenship
– Grade 6 reading, math, writing, science, &
citizenship
Achievement Tests
– Reading grades 3, 4, 5, & 8
– Math grades 3, 7, & 8
– Writing grade 4
– OGT Grade 10 reading, math, writing, science,
social studies


Graduation rate
Attendance rate
Operating Standards for Ohio’s
Schools Serving Children with
Disabilities
Ages 3-21
Effective July 1, 2002
Overview and Implications
Changes
• Flexibility in conducting evaluations
• Interventions
– Prior to an evaluation
– Intervention data used to determine eligibility
• Parent involved in eligibility determination
Student Intervention
• Required for:
– 3rd graders reading below “proficient” -- intense
remediation
– Students scoring below “proficient” on
achievement tests
– Students failing to make satisfactory progress
toward attaining grade level academic standards
on diagnostic tests
– 9th graders scoring below “proficient” on the 10th
grade practice test
Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of
Reading Difficulty 5.2
5
Reading grade level
Alligator
4
3
Low Risk on
Early
Screening
Children get
tested Here
2.5
Gap Starts
Small
2
Screen Early
Why wait to Fail
1
This Slide
from
Reading
First Experts
At Risk on Early Screening
1
2
3
4
Grade level corresponding to age
Early Intervention Changes Reading
Outcomes
5.2
Reading grade level
5
4
3
Low Risk
on Early
Screening
2
1
This Slide
from
Reading
First Experts
4.9
With substantial
instructional
intervention
At Risk on Early Screening
1
2
3
4
Grade level corresponding to age
With research3.2 based core but
without extra
2.5 instructional
intervention
Implication: Interventions
General
Education
Interventions
MFE
IEP
Specialized
Instruction
Changes: Involvement and
Progress in the General
Curriculum
Content
Standards
Child Progress
Performance
Standards
Close the Achievement Gap
• Involvement of General Education Teacher
• Ensure FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment
Change:
District’s Required to
Include Special Education in the
District-wide Planning
Professional
Development
Service
Providers
DISTRICT
STRATEGIC
PLAN
Building
Plans
Housing
Implications:
General
Education
All
Children
Special
Education
SUPPORTS
Administrative Staff Parents Resources
Child Focus
Needs Based
Implication:
Academic Content Standards
Child Progress
IEP
Implications:
ALL
CHILDREN
General
Education
Strategic
Plan
Special
Education
SUPPORTS
Administrative Staff
Special Education
Parents Resources
Specialized Instruction
Percent of Total vs.
Students with Disabilities
• Learning Disabilities:
5% of total;
47% of SWD
• Speech/Language:
2% of total;
17.5% of SWD
• Mental Retardation (C.D.)
1% of total
9.7% of SWD
– Mild to Moderate
– Moderate to Severe
.66% of SWD
.33% of SWD
A Final Thought…….
“Considerable evidence supports this conclusion: The
differences in achievement observed between and among
students of culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds and
students of mainstreamed backgrounds are NOT the results of
differences in ability to learn. Rather, they are the result of
differences in the quality of the instruction these young people
receive in school.”
Marietta Saravia-Shore and Eugene Garcia
Diverse Teaching Strategies for Learners
ASCD, 1995
Therefore it is imperative
That teachers provide instruction
using a variety of formats and strategies
Information You Need to Know
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title I Budget
Percentage that goes to personnel
Total staff employed by Title I
District Accountability Report
AYP Calculations
Performance Index Scores