Transcript How AYP is Calculated: A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP

Littleton Public Schools
Littleton, MA
2011 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and
Accountability Status Determinations
Report to School Committee
Geri Lyn Ajemian, Director of Curriculum
Jane Hall, Principal of Russell Street School
Mark Branco, Principal of Littleton Middle School
October 20th, 2011
1
What is AYP?
AYP stands for Adequate Yearly
Progress
 Means progress towards
100% of students achieving
proficiency by 2014.
 Measures progress against
specific expectations each year.
2
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations are a
tool for assessing the progress of our climb to higher
levels of student achievement.
 Issued every year
 Separate ELA & Math
Students in aggregate
and eight subgroups
- Special Education
- Limited English Proficiency
- Low Income
- African American / black
- Hispanic
- Asian
- Native American
- White
1993
Education Reform Act
State Accountability System
2014
NCLB Goal-All Students Reach Proficiency
Federal Accountability System
3
Adequate Yearly Progress – Facts
•
AYP reports show progress toward having all students reach grade level proficiency by the year
2014 – the principal goal of NCLB.
•
AYP determinations are issued separately for English Language arts/reading and Mathematics.
•
For each subject there are multiple AYP determinations - for all students (the aggregate) and
for student groups. Students are counted in each group to which they belong.
•
District AYP determinations are based on three grade spans: grades 3-5, 6-8 and 9-12. Positive
results for all groups in any grade-span yields a positive AYP determination.
•
Schools and districts that do not make AYP for two or more consecutive years in the same
subject are assigned an Accountability Status designation: identified for improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring.
•
The Accountability Status defines a required course of action schools and districts must follow
to improve student performance.
4
Composite Performance Index (CPI)
The CPI is:
• a metric used to measure school and district performance and improvement;
• a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in standard
MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in the MCAS-Alt.
MCAS Performance
Level
Scaled Score
Range
Proficient or Advanced
240 – 280
Needs Improvement
High
230 – 238
Needs Improvement
Low
MCAS-Alt Performance
Level
Points Per
Student
Progressing
100
Emerging
75
220 – 228
Awareness
50
Warning / Failing High
210 – 218
Portfolio Incomplete
25
Warning / Failing Low
200 – 208
Portfolio not Submitted
0
O
R
5
Sample CPI Calculation
Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performance level,
then divide the total number of points by the total number of students
Points
# Of Students
Total Points
100
10
1000
75
4
300
50
3
150
25
2
50
0
1
0
Totals
20 Students
1500 Points
1500 ÷ 20 = 75.0
6
How AYP is Calculated:
A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP
Determination
7
State Performance Targets, 2002-2014
(Composite Performance Index)
8
A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP
Determination
(B) Performance…
(C ) Improvement…
Is an absolute measure
Is a relative measure
Is measured by comparing a
Is measured by looking at a group’s
group’s 2011 CPI to the 2011 state
change in CPI from 2010 to 2011
performance target
Answers the question, “Did the
group perform at or above the
2011 state performance target?”
(ELA = 95.1, Math = 92.2)
Answers the question, “Did the
group improve from 2010 to 2011
so that it is on track to 100% grade
level proficiency by 2014?”
9
2011 Improvement Target Calculation
100 – 2010 CPI
_________________________________________________________
Number of remaining years until the year 2014 (4)
An improvement target for a given subject is calculated by
subtracting the district, school, or group’s 2010 (baseline) CPI from
100 (the ultimate CPI goal), and dividing the difference by the
number of remaining years until the year 2014, including the
current year. For 2011 that number is 4.
The improvement target is expressed as a range.
An “error band” surrounds the target number.
Error bands range from 2.5 to 4.5, depending on size of group; 2.5 is
typical.
10
Improvement Rating Categories
Met NCLB
Goal
Met
NCLB
Goal
Improved with a margin of error
of 100 percent proficiency
Above
Target
Above
Target
Improved above target range
Target
On On
Target
Improved
Below
Target
Improved
Below Target
Change
NoNo
Change
Declined
Declined
Improved within target range
Improve above 2010 CPI (the
baseline) but below the target range
Gain was equivalent to baseline plus or
minus the target range
Gain was below the baseline and
below the target range
11
Littleton Schools – 2011
Aggregate English Language Arts CPIs
2011 CPI
Change from
2010
On Target Range
Improvement
Rating
Littleton High
School
98.9
1.9
97.0 – 100.0
Met NCLB Goal
Littleton Middle
School
96.4
1.4
95.0 – 98.8
On Target
Russell Street
School
89.4
-1.2
90.6 – 95.5
No Change
Shaker Lane
School
90.5
-2.3
92.8 – 97.1
No Change
State Target = 95.1
12
Littleton Schools – 2011
Aggregate Mathematics CPIs
2011 CPI
Change from
2010
On Target Range
Improvement
Rating
Littleton High
School
97.9
1.9
96.0 – 99.5
Met NCLB Goal
Littleton Middle
School
83.2
0.2
84.8 – 89.8
No Change
Russell Street
School
90.7
4.9
86.9 – 91.9
On Target
Shaker Lane
School
91.7
0.0
91.7 – 96.3
On Target
State Target = 92.2
13
14
Accountability Report Structure
15
from Littleton High School 2011 Accountability Data (Summary view)
16
from Littleton Middle School 2011 Accountability Data (Summary view)
17
18
from Russell Street School 2011 Accountability Data (Summary view)
19
Federal NCLB Accountability Status Schools
No Status
School makes AYP for two consecutive years in the
same subject(s)
Improvement Year 1
School does not make AYP for two consecutive years
in the same subject(s) (Aggregate or Subgroups)
Improvement Year 2
School identified for Improvement Year 1 does not
make AYP for a third year in the same subject(s)
(Aggregate or Subgroups)
Corrective Action
School identified for Improvement Year 2 does not
make AYP for a fourth year in the same subject(s)
(Aggregate or Subgroups)
Restructuring Year 1
School identified for Corrective Action does not make
AYP for a fifth year in the same subject(s) (Aggregate
or Subgroups)
Restructuring Year 2
School in Restructuring Year 1 does not make AYP for
a sixth year in the same subject(s) (Aggregate or
20
Subgroups)
2011 Accountability
The Statewide Context
• According to 2011 AYP determinations,
1,404 schools (82%) and 354 districts
(91%) did not make AYP in 2011.
• 1,089 schools (64%) were identified for
Improvement Status, Corrective Action or
Restructuring in 2011 an increase from
971 schools (56%) in 2010.
21
Framework for District Accountability and Assistance
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/framework/default.html
22
State Accountability and Assistance Levels
Level 1
• Schools with an NCLB Accountability Status of No Status or
Improvement (Year 1 or 2).
• Districts are placed in Level 1 if the highest Level of any school in the
district is Level 1.
Level 2
• Schools with an NCLB Accountability Status of Corrective Action or
Restructuring.
• Districts are placed in Level 2 if the highest Level of any school in the
district is Level 2.
Level 3
• Schools identified as among the lowest performing and leastimproved 20 percent of schools statewide based on common grade
levels, regardless of NCLB Accountability Status.
• Districts are placed in Level 3 if the highest Level of any school in the
district is Level 3.
23
State Accountability and Assistance Levels
Level 4*
• Schools identified as among the lowest performing and leastimproved 20 percent of schools statewide based on common grade
levels, regardless of NCLB Accountability Status, are eligible for
placement in Level 4. Not more than 4 percent of schools may be in
Levels 4 & 5 at one time. Placement is made by Commissioner.
• Districts are placed in Level 4 if the highest Level of any school in the
district is Level 4 or if the district has been declared Underperforming
by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, independent of
its schools.
Level 5
• Level 4 schools declared by the Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education as requiring “Joint ESE-District Governance”.
• Districts are eligible for placement in Level 5 if they are among the
lowest performing and least-improved 10 percent of districts
statewide based on common grade levels, regardless of the Level of
any school in the district.
*
As of September 13, 2011, the Commissioner has not yet made the decision to identify a new cohort of
Level 4 schools. As a consequence, no new Level 4 schools or districts will be identified in the data that
will be released to the public early the week of September 19, 2011.
24
Relationship between State and Federal
Accountability Requirements for Schools
(Level 1)
Level 1: Occurs when a school is identified for Improvement Year 1 or Improvement
Year 2 under NCLB (Aggregate or Subgroups)
Planning Responsibilities

Review ESE’s Conditions for
School Effectiveness

Review ESE’s Promising
Practice Examples

Communication
Responsibilities

Notify parents/guardians of
school’s NCLB Accountability
Status

Notify parents/guardians of
NCLB Choice options (Title I
schools only)
Revise School Improvement
Plan to reflect current results

Notify parents/guardians of
Supplemental Educational
Services (SES) options (Title I
schools in Improvement Year 2
or higher)
Fiscal Responsibilities

Dedicate 10 percent of each
school’s Title I allocation to
professional development
(Title I schools only)

Reserve 20 percent of district’s
Title I allocation for NCLB
Choice and SES
25
Middle School Improvement Efforts
Math Lab
• A comparison of 2010 & 2011 MCAS performance data for the 81
students in the FY11 Math lab program reveals:
o the scores of 41% of math lab participants went up
o 19% maintained equivalent scores as in 2010
o 60% of math lab participants maintained or improved their MCAS scores
• Moving Towards Proficiency
o 5 students went from the Warning to the Needs Improvement
Performance Level
o 11 students progressed from the Warning or Needs Improvement
Performance Levels to Proficient
• This was the first year of implementation with the program starting
December 1st. We anticipate even greater success rates on the
2012 MCAS.
26
Middle School Improvement Efforts
Moving Forward in Mathematics
•
Math Lab
– Full year of math lab classes
– New 6 day rotation schedule that provides two consecutive lab classes
– Practice with the new Buckle Down MCAS preparation materials and explicit /
systematic instruction driven by the GMADE and MCAS data
•
School-wide progress monitoring
– Grade level end-of-unit assessments
– MCAS
– GMADE administered to all students twice a year
•
Implementation of new school-wide program supported by new textbooks
published by Glencoe/McGraw-Hill
– Aligned with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, incorporating the
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics
– Leveled classes in grades 7 and 8
•
Implementation of Co-Teaching Model
– Model is in place
– PD has started
•
27
Staff Changes
Middle School Improvement Efforts
Moving Forward in ELA
• Last Year
– Members of the English/Language Arts and Special Education teams
attended a workshop on teaching and assessing MCAS Open
Response questions and answers. They, in turn, provided LMS staff
with training in a specific instructional methodology and grading rubric to
standardize our practices in all disciplines across all grade levels.
– With input from the staff, these “trainers” designed classroom posters to
be used in all subject areas to develop school-wide consistency.
• This Year
– Posters were distributed the first month of school.
– ELA team will lead staff through the process of embedding quality Open
Response questions in all content area assessments.
– ELA team will lead staff through a review of the information presented
last year.
– Implementation of Co-Teaching Model
• Model is in place
• PD has started
28
Russell Street Improvement Efforts
Professional Development
• Literacy – IDEAL Consulting
o
o
o
•
Response to Intervention (RtI)
Tiered instructional model
Using data to make instructional decisions
Strategies for answering Open Response MCAS questions
Instruction & Intervention
• Development of “MCAS Math Plan for Improvement”
• Tiered Instruction - (RtI) in Literacy
o Grade Level Data Team Meetings – 3 times / year
o Frequent progress monitoring
o Small group, targeted instruction
29
Russell Street Improvement Efforts
Increased Resources
•
Instructional materials for Tiers 2 & 3 reading intervention
•
Math Intervention Specialist (.4) to work with students not achieving
Proficiency on MCAS
•
Updated edition of Everyday Mathematics
o Aligns with Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
o Includes 6-year access to on-line technology suite
•
Increased classroom technology
(LCD Projectors, interactive white boards)
•
Instructional software: Lexia, Symphony Math
•
SMART Notebook software for ELA, Math, & Science
o Utilized with SMART boards
o Consists of curriculum titles & interactive lessons that correlate to CCSS
30
Where to Go for More Information
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2011/default.html
•
The guidance document titled 2011-12 Massachusetts School & District
Accountability and Assistance Levels & Required Actions outlines the
planning, communication, and fiscal requirements associated with a
school or district’s federal NCLB Accountability Status and/or state
Accountability and Assistance Level.
•
For more information about the accountability designations that are
annually assigned to Massachusetts districts and schools and information
in understanding 2011 district and school accountability reports, please
refer to the School Leaders’ Guide to the 2011 Accountability Reports and
the 2011 Glossary of Accountability Reporting Terms.
31