1 / 40

Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09

Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09. Accountability Systems. Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Defines NCLB mandates for Title I schools failing to meet proficiency target

Gabriel
Télécharger la présentation

Federal and State Student Accountability Data Update Testing Coordinators Meeting Local District 8 09/29/09

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Federal and State Student Accountability Data UpdateTesting Coordinators MeetingLocal District 809/29/09

  2. Accountability Systems • Federal • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 • Defines NCLB mandates for Title I schools failing to meet proficiency target • Requires all students to perform at or above proficiency by 2014 in English Language Arts and Math • State • SB 1X: Public Schools Accountability Act 1999 • Academic Performance Index LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  3. Federal Testing Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) No Child Left Behind

  4. Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • Participation Rate • Minimum Proficiency Rates or Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) • Minimum Academic Performance Index (API) [680] • Minimum Graduation Rate [83.1% or +.1%] • Curricular Areas: Language Arts and Math LACOE/LAUSD 4

  5. CAHSEE Proficiency • English Language Arts: 380 Scaled Score • 97% Ninth and Tenth Grade Standards • Mathematics: 380 Scaled Score • 85% 6th, 7th and Grade Standards

  6. AYP Criteria High School Level: Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) 2.Testing Proficiency (AMO):

  7. Alternate Way of Meeting Proficiency Safe Harbor

  8. Safe Harbor • An LEA, school, or subgroup must show a decrease in the percentage of students below proficient by 10% over the prior year to qualify for Safe Harbor http://www.cde.ca.gov/

  9. Safe Harbor Option • Becomes an option to meet AYP proficiency when the gap between the new AMO and the current level of proficiency is greater than 10% New Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) [55.6 ELA/54.8 Math] Gap Greater than 10% Current Proficiency (School wide or Subgroup)

  10. Senior High School Proficient equals a scale score of 380 or above

  11. Calculating Estimated Safe Harbor

  12. Academic Performance Index (API) Senate Bill 1X [SB1X] State Testing Accountability

  13. High School API Participation Rate: 85% participation rate must be met in California Standards Tests (CST) Grade Level Exams: • ELA Grades 9,10, and 11 • US History Grade 11 • Life Science Grade 10

  14. Failure to Meetthe 85% Participation Rate: No Academic Performance Index (API) for the next school year

  15. High School: The Big SixAPI Component Breakdown

  16. ELA grade level CST(9-11): 27.1% • Math EOC CST: 18.1% • Science CSTs • Life Science 10 grade level CST • EOC Grade 9-11: 22.9% • History CSTs • US History 11 grade level CST • EOC Grades 10-11: 13.9% • CAHSEE ELA : 9% • CAHSEE Math: 9%

  17. Calculating API Key to Understanding API Growth

  18. Calculating Grade Point Average

  19. Calculating Grade Point Average

  20. Calculating Grade Point Average

  21. 30 grade points15 credits Equals 2.0 GPA

  22. Academic Performance Index (API)CST Quintile Rankings paired with API Weights LACOE/LAUSD

  23. Calculating Academic Performance Index LACOE/LAUSD

  24. Sample API Calculation: Same number of students in each quintile level. LACOE/LAUSD

  25. 327,500 Total weighted pts.500 Total # of Students Equals 655 API

  26. Academic Performance Index (API)Highest Possible API/State API Goal/Lowest Possible API LACOE/LAUSD

  27. Academic Performance Index (API):Change in API Weights LACOE/LAUSD

  28. Academic Performance Index (API) and CST Performance Levels API API For Academic Performance Index (API), greatest gains will occur when moving students from the lowest CST levels due to weighting factors. LACOE/LAUSD

  29. Sample API Calculation: Moving 20 students from Proficient to Advanced LACOE/LAUSD

  30. 330,000 Total weighted pts.500 Total # of Students Equals 660 API [655+5 gain]

  31. Sample API Calculation: Moving 20 students from Far Below Basic to Below Basic LACOE/LAUSD

  32. 333,500 Total weighted pts.500 Total # of Students Equals 667 API [655 +12 gain]

  33. “LEAKAGE” Hidden Loss of API Points 3/10/2014 LACOE/LAUSD 33

  34. Sample API Calculation: 20 students falling from Advanced to Basic 20 students advancing from Far Below Basic to Below Basic 3/10/2014 34 Hayashida/Keith

  35. 327,500 Total weighted pts.500 Total # of Students equals 655 API [0 growth]

  36. Academic Performance Index (API) Criteria: CAHSEE Weighting

  37. Key to Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Generating Academic Performance Index (API):Positive Annual Gains LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009 37

  38. Goal: Advance One Testing Level Per Year regardless of assessed level. LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  39. Local District 8 Title I Website http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/District_8/title1.htm LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

  40. Wade Hayashida, PI Coordinator Local District 8 wade.hayashida@lausd.net 310-354-3459 LACOE/LAUSD Fall 2009

More Related