Determining AYP
•What’s New•Step-by-Step Guide
September 29, 2004
AYP: What’s new?• AYP Determinations for 03-04• Denominator For AYP• Alternate Standards• Definition of Economic Disadvantage• Counting ELL student test scores• Identification• Report Card Revisions
AYP Determinations for 03-04• Same targets (achievement targets in
04-05 will be 50% in ELA and 49% in Math)
• 02-03 grad data for economically disadvantaged and ELL groups reported
• Attendance not lagged• Writing responses in Spanish count as
meeting standard for AYP for qualified students - Numbered Memo 16-2003-04
New Denominator For AYP and Assessment Reports
• No longer answer sheets returned
• Enrollment as of May 1 (Participation)– Participation – ALL students enrolled– Performance - Highest score of students enrolled for
FAY
• Spring Participation Collection on May 3
• Numbered Memo 25-2003-2004
Alternate Standards
• New (Dec.) Guidance From USDoE
• Adopted by State Board in March for Extended Assessments and CLRAS
Alternate Standards• No more than 1% of student tests
used to determine AYP for a district may meet alternate standards.
• No Change in Choice of Test for Any Student (IEP process).
• Numbered Memo 023-2003-04
Economic Disadvantage• U.S. Departments of Education and
Agriculture Allow Use of Free and Reduced Lunch Status with strict confidentiality requirements
• Numbered Memo 143-2002-03
• May 15 Collection
ELL Student Test Scores• USEd announcement February 19th• Scores of students during first year
in U.S. not counted for performance• Reading and writing assessments
not required during first year in U.S. • Transitioning students remain in LEP
group for two years
Identification for School Improvement
• Only Title I schools not meeting AYP for two consecutive years in an area (ELA, Math, Other Indicator) are identified for School Improvement
District AYP USDoE recently indicated that it would approve
using grade span (elementary, middle, high) data to determine 03-04 district AYP.
Districts would be identified for improvement only if they didn’t meet AYP targets in the same content area at each grade span two years in a row.
ODE is investigating the feasibility of adopting this change.
More information to follow.
Report Card Update• November 10 release date• No significant changes to formula• Detail sheets part of data validation
• Display of science assessment results on detail sheets
• Review of report card policy and formulas through February for 04-05 and 05-06 cards
Data Collection 2004-05
• Rolling validation• Consolidated Student File Format
AYP Step by Step
• AYP “Tests” – Participation– Performance
• Status• Safe Harbor
– Other Indicator
AYP Tests for Each Subject and Subgroup
• English/Language Arts– Total– Students w/ Disabilities– Limited English Proficient– Poverty– American Indian– Asian– African American– Hispanic– White– Multi-Ethnic
• Mathematics– Total– Students w/ Disabilities– Limited English Proficient– Poverty– American Indian– Asian– African American– Hispanic– White– Multi-Ethnic
Minimum N for each “test”
• Participation – 40 expected tests in content area over two years
• Performance -- 42 tests in content area over two years (If total school population has fewer than 42 scores, additional data or methods are used to determine AYP.)
• Other indicator – 84 students enrolled over two years combined
Participation
• 95% Criteria
• Participation = Number of valid test scores from all students enrolled in the school on May 3, 2004 divided by (The expected number of tests - the number of students without test scores that were not enrolled during the testing window(s) for the assessment – home schooled – district SpEd)
Academic Performance• Criteria
– ELA: 40% (50% for 04-05)– Math: 39% (49% for 04-05)
• Target met if achievement within margin of error.
• Performance = Number tests met/ number of tests from students enrolled for a full academic year– Scores from first year LEP students excluded– 10th grade MPS results for 03-04 excluded
Achievement Safe Harbor
• Academic Growth– Reduce the percent not meeting by 10%– Example:
• If group’s 2003 achievement (single year of data) = 27%, the percent not meeting is 73%. The growth target is 7.3% increase or an achievement level of 34.3% in 2003.
• AND must meet other indicator
Other Indicator
• Graduation Rate for High Schools– Federal Formula Required in Definition– Grad rate = grad/(grad + dropouts)– Standard Diploma Only– 68.1% Criterion
• Attendance for All Other Schools– 92% Criterion
• 2 Years Data Used, but graduation is lagged
How AYP Tests Are Applied:
N > 40 ?
Yes
Participation> 95%?
Yes
NoDistrictMethod
Yes
StatusTarget? No
SafeHarborTarget?
No AYP
OtherIndicator? No AYP
No
No AYP
N > 42?
Yes
-
Yes
ENGLISH/L.A.
Total Group
N > 40 ?
Yes
Participation> 95%?
Yes
NoDistrictMethod
Yes
StatusTarget?
No
SafeHarborTarget?
No AYP
OtherIndicator? No AYP
Yes
Sub Group
N > 40?
Yes
Participation> 95%? AYP
Yes
N > 42
Yes
StatusTarget?
No SafeHarbor
AYP
Yes
AnotherSub Group?Yes
OtherIndicator?
Yes
No AYPYes
No
AYP Decision Flow Chart
No
MATHEMATICS
No AYP
N > 42?
Yes Yes
No
No
No
Total Group
N > 40?No
Yes
Participation> 95%?
No AYP
Yes
N > 42? No
Yes
StatusTarget?
No AYPSafe
HarborTarget?
No
Yes Yes
OtherIndicator? No AYP
Yes
Sub Group
N > 40?No
Yes
Participation>95%? No AYP
Yes
N > 42
Yes
StatusTarget?
No SafeHarbor
No AYP
Yes Yes
AnotherSub Group?
OtherIndicator?
NoYes
No
YesAYP
No No
MeetsAYP!
9 S
ub G
roup
s
9 S
ub G
roup
s
DistrictMethod
AYP: Key Points
• Conjunctive Model• A school meets AYP only if each and
every subgroup is successful in each subject.
• Fundamentally different from the Oregon School Report Card, which combines all data into a single, overall rating.
AYP: Key Points (continued)
• There will be significant differences in the achievement levels among schools not meeting AYP.
• Schools and districts will have to analyze the data to determine appropriate responses to not making AYP.
What Happens After Preliminary Designations?
• Review period – through October 14– District corrections to collections and test records– Compliance with 1% cap– AYP Substantive appeals by districts
• District Preliminary AYP - October 1 target• Final Designations on School and District
Report Cards – November 10
District: Evergreen NOT MET
School: Pine Elementary School
English\ Language Arts AYP Math AYP Attendance
All Students MET MET METEconomically Disadvantaged MET METLimited English Proficient NOT MET METStudents with Disabilities NOT MET NOT METAsian/Pacific Islander NA NABlack (not of Hispanic origin) NA NAHispanic origin MET METAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native NA NAWhite (not of Hispanic origin) MET MET
2003-04 Preliminary AYP Report
Overall AYP
Summary
Did the school meet the standard for AYP?
AYP Designation:
English\ Language Arts AYP Participation
Academic Status
Academic Growth Attendance
All Students MET MET NOT MET MET METEconomically Disadvantaged MET MET MET NALimited English Proficient NOT MET MET NOT MET NOT METStudents with Disabilities NOT MET MET NOT MET NOT METAsian/Pacific Islander NA NA NA NABlack (not of Hispanic origin) NA NA NA NAHispanic origin MET MET NOT MET METAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native NA NA NA NAWhite (not of Hispanic origin) MET MET MET NAMulti-Racial/Multi-Ethnic NA NA NA NA
Math AYP ParticipationAcademic
StatusAcademic
Growth AttendanceAll Students MET MET MET NA METEconomically Disadvantaged MET MET MET NALimited English Proficient MET MET NOT MET METStudents with Disabilities NOT MET MET NOT MET NOT METAsian/Pacific Islander NA NA NA NABlack (not of Hispanic origin) NA NA NA NAHispanic origin MET MET NOT MET METAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native NA NA NA NAWhite (not of Hispanic origin) MET MET MET NAMulti-Racial/Multi-Ethnic NA NA NA NA
Mathematics (Math and Math Problem-Solving)
English \ Language Arts (Reading and Writing)
District: WoodburnEvergreenSchool: Pine Elementary School
95ParticipationParticipation
02-03 03-04 02-03 03-04 Denominator Rate
All Students MET 288 436 7 0 731 99.0
Economically Disadvantaged MET 99 203 0 0 302 100.0
Limited English Proficient MET 174 177 5 0 356 98.6
Students with Disabilities MET 39 75 0 0 114 100.0
Asian/Pacific Islander NA 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
Black (not of Hispanic origin) NA 2 1 0 0 3 100.0
Hispanic origin MET 188 270 5 0 463 98.9
American Indian/Alaskan Native NA 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
White (not of Hispanic origin) MET 94 173 2 0 269 99.3
Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic NA 3 1 0 0 4 100.0
English\ Language Arts (ELA) Details2003-04 Preliminary AYP Report
ParticipationParticipation
Participation Non Participation
Participation Target:
40
# Tests # Met # Tests # MetAll Students NOT MET 288 66 416 166 32.95 6.08 39.04Economically Disadvantaged MET 99 25 198 73 33.00 9.37 42.36Limited English Proficient NOT MET 174 17 167 31 14.08 8.74 22.82Students with Disabilities NOT MET 39 3 71 5 7.27 15.39 22.66Asian/Pacific Islander NA 2 2 100.00 * *Black (not of Hispanic origin) NA 2 2 1 1 100.00 * *Hispanic origin NOT MET 188 27 261 87 25.39 7.62 33.01American Indian/Alaskan Native NA 1 0 0.00 * *White (not of Hispanic origin) MET 94 36 163 78 44.36 10.07 54.43Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic NA 3 1 33.33 * *
02-03 03-04All Students MET 22.92 39.90 16.99 7.71Economically Disadvantaged NA 25.25 36.87 11.62 7.47Limited English Proficient NOT MET 9.77 18.56 8.79 9.02Students with Disabilities NOT MET 7.69 7.04 -0.65 9.23Asian/Pacific Islander NA #DIV/0! 100.00 #DIV/0! *Black (not of Hispanic origin) NA 100.00 100.00 0.00 *Hispanic origin MET 14.36 33.33 18.97 8.56American Indian/Alaskan Native NA #DIV/0! 0.00 #DIV/0! *White (not of Hispanic origin) NA 38.30 47.85 9.55 6.17Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic NA 33.33 ##### #DIV/0! *
Adjusted Status
Margin of Error
% Met Status
Academic Status
2003-2004
Academic Growth
Academic Status2002-2003
ELA Target:
Academic Growth
Growth Target
Change in % Met
% Met
03-04 Preliminary AYP Results
• 66% of schools met AYP• 76% of elementary and 24% of high schools
met• 82% of Title I elementary and 48% of Title
I high schools met• 38 Title I schools are identified for school
improvement• 110 schools did not meet participation
NCLB Accountability
• Single accountability system required
• Required actions for Title I schools and districts that do not make AYP in the same content area for two consecutive years
• Accountability for non-Title I districts – restricted use of SRSA funding and REAP-Flex
Failure to make
Adequate Yearly
Progress
1st Year
Failure to make
Adequate Yearly
Progress
2nd Year
School Improvement Status Year 1
※ Notify Parents
※ Offer School Choice
※ Provide transportation assistance
※ Revise SIP
※ Provide professional development
School Improvement Status Year 2
※ Notify Parents
※ Offer School Choice
※ Transportation assistance
※ Offer Supplemental Service
※ Revise SIP
※ Professional Development
Corrective Action Status
Year 3
In addition to the school improvement steps, the district must take at least one of the following corrective actions:
※ Replace some school staff
※ Institute new curriculum
※ Decrease management authority of school
※ Appoint outside expert
※ Extend school day/year
※ Restructure school
Restructuring Status
Year 4
In addition to the school improvement and corrective action steps, the district must also take at least one of the following restructuring actions:
※ Reopen school as a public charter school
※ Replace all, or most of, the relevant school staff
※ Contract with another agency to run the school
※ Have the State take over the school
※ Make other major restructuring reforms
A school will exit from School Improvement or Corrective Action Status if it demonstrates AYP over two consecutive years.
FLOW CHART FROM ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS & SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT(Section 1116 of H.B. 1 No Child Left behind act of 2001)
Accountability for Districts Under NCLB, sanctions begin at the end of the second year for Title I districts that are designated as not meeting AYP for the second consecutive year. The severity of the sanctions increases with each year’s designation of not meeting AYP as outlined in the chart below.
Flowchart for Adequate Yearly Progress and District Improvement (Section 1116 of No Child Left Behind)
Failure to make AYP 1st Year
Failure to make AYP 2nd Year
District Improvement Status Year 1 Notify parents Revise CDIP and
implement before next school year
District Improvement Status Year 2 Notify parents Implement CDIP
Corrective Action The State must take one of the following actions: Defer or reduce
funding Institute new
curriculum Replace relevant
district personnel Arrange for
alternative governance of schools
Appoint a trustee for the district
Abolish or restructure the district
Require district choice
Accountability
• Revise SIP and submit to ODE – schools with “low” and “unacceptable” overall ratings on school report card
• Revise SIP and submit to district – schools not making AYP in the same content area for two consecutive years
Resources
• Documents, tools, guidance– www.ode.state.or.us/nclb– www.ed.gov (click on policy link)
• Contacts– AYP: [email protected]– Title I requirements: [email protected]