View
213
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Preparing for 2005 Mid-Cycle IV Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Determinations
Massachusetts Department of Education August, 2005
Massachusetts School & District Accountability System (MSDAS) Purpose
• Designed to gauge the progress of schools and districts toward getting all students to proficiency in English Language Arts and mathematics by 2014
• Enables policymakers, parents, and the public to:– assess the effectiveness and monitor the improvement
of all public schools and districts– hold school & district leaders accountable for that
performance and improvement– identify where State intervention is needed
Why Proficiency?
• Proficiency in core academic subjects is the gateway to:
– Opportunities for higher education– Meaningful choices for employment in our
21st-century high tech economy– Full participation in community and civic life
MSDAS Basics• School & District Performance Ratings are:
– Biannual (2002, 2004, 2006…), as required by state law– Descriptive terms – Ratings for Performance and Improvement– Based on aggregate MCAS student results
• Adequate Yearly Progress determinations are: – Issued every year, as required by federal law– For students in aggregate and for eight subgroups– Based on four factors:
• participation, performance, improvement, and attendance (K-8 & districts) or graduation rate (high schools)
What is AYP?
• Stands for Adequate Yearly Progress
• Means progress toward 100% of students achieving proficiency in key subject areas by 2014
• Measures progress against specific expectations each year
Composite Performance Index
• MA measures Proficiency with a 100-point index scale: the CPI
• Points awarded based on number of students performing at each level on MCAS
• Different performance measures for students with significant cognitive disabilities who participate in MCAS- Alt
• Just arithmetic! Multiply, add, then divide.
Table 1: MCAS Proficiency Index Table 2: MCAS-Alt Index
For students taking standard MCAS tests(and MCAS-Alt for students who do not have
significant cognitive disabilities)
For students with significant cognitivedisabilities taking MCAS-Alt
(up to 1% of all assessed students in a district)
MCAS SCALED SCORE(or MCAS-Alt equivalent)
POINTSAWARDED MCAS-ALT SCORE
POINTSAWARDED
200 – 208Failing/Warning – Low(Awareness)
0 Portfolio not submitted 0
210 – 218Failing/Warning – High(Emerging/Progressing)
25 Incomplete 25
220 – 228(Needs Improvement – Low)
50 Awareness 50
230 – 238(Needs Improvement – High)
75 Emerging 75
240 – 280(Proficient/Advanced)
100 Progressing 100
Composite Performance Index
Sample CPI CalculationStudents taking Standard MCAS tests
# of Students
Performance Level Index Points Total Index Points
5 Failing - Low 0 0
5 Failing - High 25 125
20 Needs Improvement - Low 50 1000
40 Needs Improvement - High 75 3000
25 Proficient 100 2500
5 Advanced 100 500
Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities taking MCAS-Alt
2 Emerging 75 150
1 Progressing 100 100
Total Points Awarded 7375
Total # of Students Tested 103
CPI (Total Points divided by Total Students) 71.6
State Performance Targets for ELA and Mathematics 2002-2014
60.8
68.7
53.0
76.5
84.3
92.2
75.6
70.7
80.5
85.4
90.2
95.1
100.0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2001 & 02 2003 & 04 2005 & 06 2007 & 08 2009 & 10 2011 & 12 2013 & 14
Co
mp
osi
te P
erf
orm
an
ce I
nd
ex
Math ELA
(39.7% P&A)
(19.5% P&A)
How is AYP Calculated?
A + (B or C) + D = AYP
A Participation Rate: 95% or greater in MCAS & MCAS-Alt
+
B Performance: 80.5 or greater Composite Performance Index in ELA
68.7 or greater Composite Performance Index in math (B or C)
C Improvement: Meet or exceed Mid-Cycle IV Improvement Target
(Specific to districts, schools, and student groups)
+
D
Performance or Improvement on Additional Indicator:
K-8 & District: 92% or higher attendance rate, or 1% improvement over 2004
High School: 70% or higher Competency Determination (CD)
(100 – Cycle III CPI) /
5 x 2/3
18 AYP Determinations per School/District
Each school and district receives AYP determinations:
• in ELA/reading and in mathematics
• for students in the aggregate and each NCLB subgroup meeting the minimum size requirements
Subgroup Size
1. 40 or more students; AND
2. Constitutes 5% or greater of total; OR
3. 200 students
Same requirements for each year of a 2-year cycle
AYP Report Sample
When Schools Do Not Make AYP for Two Consecutive Years
• Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group are identified for improvement
– All schools identified for improvement must develop a plan for improving student performance
– Title I schools identified for improvement must also:
• offer school choice (year 1 in improvement status)• offer supplemental services (year 2 if fail to make AYP
in year 1)
Corrective Action and Restructuring
• Schools identified for improvement that fail to make AYP for 2 additional years are identified for corrective action
• Schools in corrective action that fail to make AYP in 2005 are identified for restructuring
School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services: Notice to Parents
• Title I schools identified for Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring must offer school choice if alternative assignment options exist
• If school choice is required, parents
must be notified, in writing, as soon as possible after districts receive notice of the designation
School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services: Notice to Parents
• Title I schools identified for Improvement (Year 2+), Corrective Action or Restructuring must offer supplemental educational services (SES) to low-income students
• If SES is required, parents must be notified
of availability as soon as possible
AYP Appeals• Objective is to render fair, reliable decisions• Appeals may be filed to address perceived erroneous
or unfair determinations where:– there are student enrollment data discrepancies– data are missing or misplaced– circumstances render the reported data invalid or unreliable– application of the standard rules would render a result
inconsistent with statutory intent, public policy, or sound professional judgment
– school or district provides evidence that it has taken specific action to improve the performance of an identified subgroup and MCAS results demonstrate significantly improved results for that subgroup in the following year
MA School Accountability Process
1. Performance Ratings & AYP Determinations2. Panel Review3. Determination of Under-performance4. Fact-Finding 5. Performance Improvement Mapping 6. Improvement Plan Reviewed by Board7. DOE Monitors Improvement Initiatives8. Year 2 Follow-up Review9. Determination of Chronic Under-performance
Link Between NCLB and Our State’s On-Site Performance Review Process
• Schools identified for restructuring or corrective action undergo state panel review
• Panel Review Questions:1. Is there a sound plan for improving student performance?2. Are the conditions in place for successful implementation of such a plan?
2005 MCAS & AYP Reporting ScheduleReport/Event Mode of Delivery Date
1. Districts receive electronic files of preliminary 2005 MCAS student item analysis data
MADOE Security Portal
8/19
2. 2005 MCAS Raw Score-Scaled Score Conversion Tables and Updated Version of TestWiz available
MADOE / MCAS Web site TestWiz Web site
8/19
3. Districts receive 2005 preliminary MCAS student item analysis data (paper reports)
Paper reports delivered 8/19
4. Districts and schools review 2005 MCAS item analysis data and report data discrepancies
Report discrepancies online via: http://www.mcasservicecenter.com
8/19-8/26
5. Districts receive and preview preliminary 2005 district and school AYP determination data and report discrepancies to DOE
MADOE Security Portal
E-mail to ata@doe.mass.edu 8/29 –9/7
6. Notice to districts and schools preliminarily identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring (not released publicly)
E-mail & regular mail to superintendents and principals
8/30
7. Public release of 2005 MCAS Statewide Report of Results
Press Release and MADOE / MCAS Web site
8/31
2005 MCAS & AYP Reporting ScheduleReport/Event Mode of Delivery Date
8. Public release of preliminary list of districts and schools identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring
MADOE / School and District Accountability (SDA) Web site
www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/cycleIVmid/ 9/8
9. Districts receive and review 2005 MCAS and AYP School and District reports (updated after discrepancy reporting)
MADOE Security Portal
9/20
10. Districts receive 2005 MCAS School, District, and Parent/Guardian reports (paper reports/ online reporting/data files)
Grade 10: all reports delivered (paper) Grades 3-8: Parent/Guardian Reports and Student Labels delivered (paper)
School and district results online* Data files posted on Security Portal
9/20
11. Public release of 2005 MCAS and AYP School and District reports (excluding K-2 schools and other special cases)
Press release and MADOE Web site - School and District
Profiles http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/ 9/22
12. Districts receive and review pre-publication version of 2005 AYP determination reports for all schools and districts
MADOE Security Portal
9/29
13.
Public release of 2005 AYP reports for all schools and districts and updated list of schools and districts identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring
MADOE Web site – School and District Profiles http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/
10/12
Online MSDAS Information
• MA School & District Accountability System Explanatory Materialshttp://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/
• Mid-Cycle IV Materialshttp://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/cycleIVmid/
• School & District Profiles/Directoryhttp://profiles.doe.mass.edu/
• Send questions to: ATA@doe.mass.edu
Recommended