information about the accountability provisions of no child left behind n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind

Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind

143 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Information About the Accountability Provisions of No Child Left Behind California Department of Education Policy and Evaluation Division July 2003

  2. Timeline of Events • Accountability Workbook submitted by January 31, 2003 deadline • Peer Review occurred February 26 • Submitted State Plan and additional material for the Accountability Workbook on May 1 • Discussions and negotiations continued with US Department of Education through June 6, 2003

  3. Final Workbook Approval • Final approval of workbook by US Department of Education (USED) on June 10 • State Board of Education (SBE) approval of revisions required by USED on June 11 • For information on California’s state plans:

  4. Approved Without Additional Revision • API as additional indicator • CAHSEE as 10th grade academic measure • Subgroup size (100 or 50 if 15%) • Intermediate goals for meeting annual measurable objectives • Definitions of “mobility”

  5. Significant Revisions • Participation Rate – for grades 2 – 8, parent exemptions must be counted in “number of students enrolled” • Graduation Rate – CAHSEE proxy replaced with NCES formula • EL Subgroup – EL for 3 years of proficiency in ELA CST • ASAM indicators replaced with AYP • Small school AYP determination done by state

  6. Timeline for Release of Reports • July 2003: • 2002 Base APIs for districts and ASAM schools • 2002 Baseline AYP report (2002 testing data) • Advisory to LEAs • Videotape • Information Guide • Staggered Release

  7. Timeline for Release of Reports • August 2003: • Phase 1 2003 AYP report (AMO’s and participation rate) • October 2003: • Phase 2 2003 AYP report (API and graduation rate) • 2003 Growth API release • December 2003: • Phase 3 2003 AYP report (updated data and application of “safe harbor”) • Certified 2003 Growth API report

  8. 2002 AYP Baseline Report • The CDE had hoped to release the 2002 AYP baseline information in late May 2003 • With the approval of our Accountability Workbook, CDE will release this information in July • This report provides a starting point for each school using the new AYP definition and metric (e.g., percent proficient) • Districts can see which schools may be at risk for not meeting AYP when the August 2003 is posted

  9. Adequate Yearly Progress

  10. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):The Basics • Based on English language arts and mathematics separately • All students held to same high academic standards • Goal is 100% proficiency by 2013-14 • Inclusion of all students • 95% participation on assessments • Accountability for all students

  11. Components of AYP • Achievement of the statewide Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO’s) in both English language arts (ELA) and math • “Percent proficient” • Achievement of a 95% participation rate on all applicable assessments • Achievement on the “additional” indicators • API for all schools, and • Graduation rate for high schools

  12. A Y P AMOs in ELA and Math 95% Participation Rate API Graduation rate

  13. For Elementary and Middle Schools are based on: The California Standards Tests (CSTs) in English language arts and math The California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) for students with severe cognitive disabilities For High Schools are based on: Results from the Grade 10 California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) administration The California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) for students with severe cognitive disabilities Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO’s)

  14. High School Data • ETS completed the technical procedure to set three performance levels on the CAHSEE for NCLB purposes (see slides15 and 16) • Starting points for high schools were set using the new CAHSEE performance levels and the methodology set by NCLB • Annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals were set for high schools and approved by the State Board of Education (see slides 22 and 23)

  15. Using CAHSEE to Generate “Percent Proficient” – High schools only • NCLB requires that three performance levels (i.e. advanced, proficient, basic) be set on all assessments used for AYP • Linked CAHSEE ELA to grade 10 CST-ELA • Linked CAHSEE Math to grade 7 CST-Math • Technical process done by ETS

  16. English Language Arts Advanced = 413 or above Proficient = 387-412 Not Proficient = Below 387 Math Advanced = 417 or above Proficient = 373-416 Not Proficient = Below 373 Cut Scores on the CAHSEE for NCLBHigh schools only These Cut Scores are Independent of the CAHSEE Pass Score. The CAHSEE Pass Score will Remain Unchanged.

  17. More On The AMO’s… • Statewide goals are applicable to ALL • Schools, including alternative and charters • Subgroups • Districts • State • NCLB requires • Annual goals • Intermediate goals (no more than 3 years apart)

  18. 2003 AMOs for Schools

  19. School and District AMOs Elementary/Middle Elementary District School AMOs AMOs Unified District, High District (7-12) AMOs High School High School AMOs District (9-12) AMOs

  20. 2003 AMOs for Districts

  21. Defining the Starting Point for the AMO’s USE THE HIGHER VALUE • Option 2: • Statewide % of students proficient in lowest achieving group: • Economically disadvantaged • Major racial/ethnic groups • Disabled students • ELL Students • Option 1: • Rank all schools by % proficient • Count from bottom up to to reach 20% of total enrollment • Percent of students at proficient at that school is the starting point

  22. AMO’s: English language artsElementary and Middle Schools and Elementary Districts

  23. AMO’s: MathElementary and Middle Schools and Elementary Districts

  24. AMO’s: English language artsHigh Schools and High School Districts

  25. AMO’s: MathHigh Schools and High School Districts

  26. AMO’s: English language artsUnified Districts and High School Districts with Grades 7/8

  27. AMO’s: MathUnified Districts and High School Districts with Grades 7/8

  28. Participation Rates • 95% required on any assessment used for AYP under NCLB • The remaining 5% is the maximum allowable percentage of non-participants, including students who are exempted from testing at parental request.

  29. Additional Indicators • The API will serve as the “other” indicator for all grades • How would a school meet the “other” indicator? • API above the “status bar”, OR • Show growth of at least one point • Graduation rate will be an additional indicator for high schools • Demonstrate a one-tenth of a percent increase up to 100%

  30. The API “Status Bar’

  31. Graduation Rate • National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) four year completion rate • Progress = increase of one tenth of one per cent per year until the school reaches 100%

  32. Graduation Rate • Four year graduation rate as required by NCLB: High School Graduates, year 4 [ High School Graduates, year 4 + (Grade 9 Dropouts, year 1 + Grade 10 Dropouts, year 2 + Grade 11 Dropouts, year 3 + Grade 12 Dropouts, year 4) ]

  33. Graduation Rate Example 2002 2003 100 / (100+2+1+3+4) = 90.9% Grad Rate 120 / (120+5+2+1+3) = 91.6% Grad Rate Change in rate: 91.6% - 90.9% = .7% Must increase Grad Rate by at least .1% to meet requirement Met requirement

  34. Safe Harbor Definition • Alternate method of meeting AYP if a subgroup is showing progress in moving students from “basic” to “proficient” • “All students” is considered a subgroup • If a subgroup or the school fails to make the AMO, they may make AYP if: • The percentage of students below proficient decreases by 10% over the prior year • The group has at least 95% participation • The group meets the “other” indicator

  35. Safe Harbor Example Year 1 Year 2 60% of the students are performing below proficient 54% of students are performing below proficient + Met participation rate and other indicator 10% of 60% is 6 percentage points Met AYP

  36. Where Are Results Counted?

  37. NCLB Student Mobility Rules Student was enrolled since CBEDS date Yes Count in school accountability report No Student was enrolled in more than one school in the same district since CBEDS date Count in district accountability report Yes No Count in state accountability report

  38. Mobility Definitions • Full academic year = Enrollment from CBEDS date to first day of testing • “Continuously enrolled” • The student did not withdraw or was not dropped from the school’s (or LEA’s) enrollment any time between the CBEDS census date and the first day of testing” • 2002 baseline AYP report will use the current API rule (enrolled in district since CBEDS date) • New mobility rules begin go into effect with the August 2003 AYP report (2003 testing cycle)

  39. Other Issues

  40. Subgroup Size • Reporting will occur for groups with at least 11 students • Schools will be held accountable for groups that have: • 100 students, OR • 50 students that comprise 15% of the student population • This rule will apply to schools and districts • CDE is pursuing legislation to align API with AYP rules for sub group size

  41. Subgroup Definitions • All racial/ethnic definitions will remain the same as with the API (collected via STAR) • Socio-economically disadvantaged will be used per API definition • Students with disabilities included if they have a disability coded on the STAR answer document

  42. Subgroups • African American (not of Hispanic origin) • American Indian or Alaska Native • Asian • Filipino • Hispanic or Latino • Pacific Islander • White (not of Hispanic origin) • Socioeconomically disadvantaged NEW: • Students with disabilities • English Learners

  43. English Learners • All students designated on the student answer document as EL (English Learners) or as RFEP (Redesignated Fluent English Proficient). • RFEP students will continue to be included until they have attained the proficient level on the CST in ELA for three years consistent with the federal definition of limited English proficient students in paragraph (25) of Section 9101 of Title IX of NCLB.

  44. District Accountability • Held to same AYP criteria as schools; will be held accountable for all students enrolled in the district for a full year (not just those who aren’t counted at the school level) • Districts will receive a 2002 Base report; first AYP report in August 2003 • Will be identified for Program Improvement (PI) in the same manner as schools The first year a district could be identified is proposed to be 2004-05. • The CDE will provide additional guidance

  45. Schools With Fewer than 100 Valid Scores • CDE will assume responsibility for establishing AYP for schools with fewer than 100 valid test scores: • Step 1: Apply pairing and sharing for schools with grade spans outside the testing program • Step 2: Aggregate test results across years • Step 3: Apply statistical test to achieve a 95% confidence interval

  46. Schools With Fewer than 100 Valid Scores • School results with a small number of scores tend to fluctuate • For these schools, California’s NCLB accountability plan requires that determination of AYP be based on statistical procedures to adjust for fluctuations • These procedures are posted on CDE’s AYP web site at

  47. Identification of Program Improvement Schools and Districts

  48. AYP for Title I Schoolsand Districts • Applies to all schools and districts that receive Title I funds • Title I schools and districts must meet all four components of AYP • Percent of students proficient or above on statewide assessments • Student participation rate in the statewide assessments • API • Graduation rate (high schools)

  49. 2003-04Title I Schools Identified for PI • Did not meet the annual measurable objectives (AMOs) in the same content area (English-language arts or math) in both 2001-02 and 2002-03 or • Did not meet any one of the other components of the AYP.

  50. Identification of Schools for Program Improvement • 2002 data was used ONLY to exit schools from Program Improvement (PI) • See letter from the CDE dated February 6, 2003 • 2003 data will be used to determine AYP for all schools and districts • New schools may enter PI • Schools may advance to later years under NCLB • Schools may exit • (Districts will not enter PI until after 2003-04)