1 / 41

Approaches to Implementing the 2% Cap for Adequate Yearly Progress

Approaches to Implementing the 2% Cap for Adequate Yearly Progress. NCES Summer Data Conference Washington, DC July 2008. Nancy Stevens Nancy.Stevens@tea.state.tx.us Office of Assessment, Accountability, and Data Quality Texas Education Agency Li-Chin Wu Li-Chin.Wu@tea.state.tx.us

natala
Télécharger la présentation

Approaches to Implementing the 2% Cap for Adequate Yearly Progress

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. Approaches to Implementing the 2% Cap for Adequate Yearly Progress NCES Summer Data Conference Washington, DC July 2008

  2. Nancy Stevens Nancy.Stevens@tea.state.tx.us Office of Assessment, Accountability, and Data Quality Texas Education Agency Li-Chin Wu Li-Chin.Wu@tea.state.tx.us Division of Performance Reporting Texas Education Agency http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2008

  3. Texas Before NCLB State Developed Alternative Assessment • instructional level rather than enrolled grade level • ARD committee set level and student performance standard • about 7-8% of students Locally Determined Alternate Assessments • locally developed or selected tests • fewer than 1% of students

  4. Texas After NCLB • All students included in state assessment program Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) • Performance of all students evaluated against grade-level achievement standards • Federal cap limit on use of proficient results based on alternate or modified achievement standards in AYP performance measures: • 1% alternate achievement standards (TAKS-Alt) • 2% modified achievement standards (TAKS-M)

  5. Texas After NCLB (cont.) • Student performance will be a greater factor than the caps • The caps will apply to a very small number of all students tested • 1% and 2% caps represent very high standards

  6. Goals for 2% Cap • Students: promote appropriate assessment decisions for students with disabilities • Statute: meet statutory requirements and intent • Validity: minimize unintended consequences • Equity: distribute “exceeders” and “keepers” across campuses fairly • Simplicity: understandable easy to replicate by school districts • Resources: staff and time

  7. Incorporating School District Input • During Policy Development Process • State solicits feedback on options • State selects approach that more closely reflects local decisions • Before AYP Determinations • Districts set campus caps or prioritize campuses • During AYP Determinations • Districts identify individual students whose proficient test scores are retained if cap 2% cap exceeded

  8. Overall Design • 1% cap • Did not have to be same approach as 2% cap • Fewer options considered • By random assignment • By disability category

  9. Overall Design for 2% Cap • One district-wide pool • Rules for selecting students from district pool • Separate pools for each campus • Rules for assigning campus caps or ranking campuses • Rules for selecting students from campus pools

  10. Campus Pools Option 1: Campus Cap • Determine cap for each campus based on current and/or historical proportion of district students: • receiving special education services • tested on alternate assessments • proficient on alternate assessments • Rules for selecting “keepers/exceeders” if campus exceeds cap • Rules for allocating extra “spaces” if campus does not use all allowed under campus cap

  11. Campus Pools Option 1:Campus Cap (cont.) Pros • Reflects local policy decisions • Potentially rewards campuses that historically and appropriately serve high number of students with disabilities

  12. Campus Pools Option 1:Campus Cap (cont.) Cons • Potentially rewards campuses that over- identify students for alternate assessment • May encourage concentrating programs on specific campuses or discourage mainstreaming in order to maintain campus cap

  13. Campus Pools Option 1:Campus Cap (cont.) Cons • Slight variations in testing from year to year may result in changes to campus cap • May be difficult to implement • Could result in the district missing AYP

  14. Campus Pools Option 2: Campus Ranking • Rank campuses • Select proficient scores from highest ranked campus first, going down the list until district cap limit is reached • Rules for selecting students from campus pool

  15. Campus Pools Option 2:Campus Ranking (cont.) Example: Strategic Campus Ranking • Rank campuses strategically: • Highest stage identification for SIP • Title I missed AYP in prior year • Title I campus

  16. Campus Pools Option 2:Campus Ranking (cont.) Example: Strategic Campus Ranking (cont.) Pros • Balance perceived inequities in AYP interventions (Title I vs. non-Title I campuses) • Simple to understand

  17. Campus Pools Option 2:Campus Ranking (cont.) Example: Strategic Campus Ranking (cont.) Cons • Reward campuses with performance problems • Not consistent with intent of NCLB • May not help top-ranked campuses • Could result in the district missing AYP

  18. Selection of Students for 2% Cap • By Random Assignment • By Test Score • By Grade Level • By Maximum Benefit

  19. Selection of Students (cont.) • District pool or separate campus pools • Significantly different outcomes • Single or combined selection criteria • First or primary sort is greater factor in determining outcomes • Final unique sort as a tie-breaker

  20. Selection of StudentsBy Random Assignment • Students randomly selected up to the cap limit • District or campus pools • Does not need tie-breaker • Can be used as final tie-breaker with other methods

  21. Selection of StudentsBy Random Assignment (cont.) Pros • Simple to understand • Simple to implement for most districts • Impartial over time • No unintended policy consequences (cannot be manipulated)

  22. Selection of StudentsBy Random Assignment (cont.) Cons • Cannot be replicated by districts • May not appear to be fair in any one year • Does not provide any incentive – disconnect between campus behavior and outcomes

  23. Selection of Students By Test Performance • Students sorted from lowest to highest test score and “keepers” selected up to the cap limit • District or campus pools • Can be used in conjunction with other criteria • Needs a final tie-breaker

  24. Selection of Students By Test Performance (cont.) Pros • Encourages testing higher performing students on the regular test • Simple to understand • Can be replicated by districts • Simple to implement • Most similar to method used in Texas with SDAA/LDAA

  25. Selection of Students By Test Performance (cont.) Cons • If implemented at the district level: • may be perceived as punitive toward campuses with strong instructional programs • may not result in fair distribution of “keepers” and “exceeders” across campuses

  26. Selection of StudentsBy Grade Level • Students sorted from highest to lowest grade and “keepers” selected up to the cap limit • District-level approach • Needs to be used with at least one more criteria

  27. Selection of StudentsBy Grade Level (cont.) Pros • Provides strong incentive for elementary schools to focus instruction on maintaining grade-level proficiency and testing on regular grade-level assessment • Rewards high schools that have successfully accelerated instruction so that students previously instructed and tested below grade level are meeting grade-level modified academic achievement standards

  28. Selection of StudentsBy Grade Level (cont.) Pros • High schools, which are overrepresented among campuses not meeting AYP, are least adversely affected by the cap • Simple to understand • Can be replicated by districts • Simple to implement

  29. Selection of StudentsBy Grade Level (cont.) Cons • Has appearance of being unfair to elementary schools • AYP results for elementary schools may be adversely affected disproportionately • Positive instructional incentives may be short-term • May have unintended consequences long-term

  30. Selection of StudentsBy Maximum Benefit • Select proficient results from each campus that will result in the maximum benefit for the campus • Select number and type of students (student groups) needed for the campus to meet AYP • Campus-level approach • Criteria for each campus based on need

  31. Selection of StudentsBy Maximum Benefit (cont.) Pros • Potentially minimizes the number of campuses that miss AYP solely due to selection criteria for the 2% cap • Uses state data processing capacity to select students that districts and campuses would likely select if 2% cap implemented locally

  32. Selection of StudentsBy Maximum Benefit (cont.) Cons • Students included in the 2% cap will be selected from student groups that do not meet the AYP standards • Selection based on campus need could result in the district missing AYP

  33. Texas AYPCombination Method • Campus Ranking • By campus type • High School • Combined Elementary/Secondary School • Middle/Junior High School • Elementary School • By grade (high to low) • By percent special education (high to low)

  34. Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) • Campus Ranking • Based on fall enrollment data • District opportunity to modify campus ranking

  35. Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) • Student Selection in 3 Stages • First by maximum benefit for campus (campus pool) • From highest to lowest ranked campus • Select students needed for campus to meet AYP • Skip campuses that already meet AYP or will not meet AYP for subject

  36. Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) • Student Selection in 3 Stages (cont.) • Second by maximum benefit for district(district pool) • Third by random selection (district pool)

  37. Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) • Pros • Campus ranking by grade level has many of the advantages of selecting students by grade level • Provides incentive for elementary schools to focus instruction on maintaining grade-level proficiency • Rewards high schools that have successfully accelerated instruction

  38. Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) • Pros • District input before AYP determinations does not interfere with processing timelines • Supports local policy decisions on selection of appropriate tests for students with disabilities

  39. Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) • Pros • Student selection uses state data processing capacity to provide maximum benefit to campuses in implementing 2% cap • Second selection for maximum benefit to district removes potential disadvantages of processes that focus on campuses

  40. Texas AYPCombination Method (cont.) • Cons • Benefits of ranking campuses by grade level may be short-term • District input into campus ranking resource intensive for little gain and potentially negates benefits of ranking by grade level • Disadvantages of selection by maximum benefit – students disproportionately selected from student groups that do not meet AYP

  41. Example District - 2% Cap • Scenario F: Campus 1 meets AYP • *** Campus 2 missed AYP *** • *** Campus 3 missed AYP *** • Campus 4 meets AYP • *** District missed AYP *** • Seven Student Groups: A - All • B - African American • H - Hispanic • W - White • E - Economically Disadvantaged • S - Special Education • L - LEP

More Related