1 / 31

Illinois Association of Title I Directors September 2006

Illinois Association of Title I Directors September 2006. 2006 AYP Accountability Workbook Changes. “ We’re open to new ideas, just so long as we all stick to what I call the bright lines of the law—annually assessing students, disaggregating data, and closing the achievement gap by 2014 .”

rad
Télécharger la présentation

Illinois Association of Title I Directors September 2006

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. Illinois Association of Title I DirectorsSeptember 2006 2006 AYP Accountability Workbook Changes

  2. “We’re open to new ideas, just so long as we all stick to what I call the bright lines of the law—annually assessing students, disaggregating data, and closing the achievement gap by 2014.” Education Secretary Margaret Spellings

  3. Review of 2005 Workbook Changes District status. Districts will be identified for district improvement when they do not make AYP in all grade spans in the same content area for two consecutive years. Beginning with 2004-05 test data, district accountability data will be analyzed by grade spans -- elementary (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12). Districts will be identified for improvement when they miss AYP in all three grade spans in the same content area for two consecutive years. If the district makes AYP in at least one of the grade spans, they will be considered to be ineligible for district improvement or advancement in their district improvement status.

  4. 2005 Subgroup and CI. Illinois modified the subgroup size to 45 from 40. Illinois is also using a confidence interval (CI) of 95% with the new subgroup size, instead of a 3% adjustment.

  5. 2005—Impact from Subgroup and CI Changes Impact from this change: • Subgroup size of 45: • Schools making AYP: 50 • LEAs making AYP: 5 • Confidence interval of 95%: • Schools making AYP: 242 • LEAs making AYP: 135 • Schools making AYP now rather than 3%: 152 • LEAs making AYP now rather than 3%: 96

  6. 2005 The 2% Proxy. For Illinois, with its 14% identification of students with disabilities, this calculates to 14%. Using a 14% proxy will mean that in order for a school or district to meet the current, 2005, 47.5% performance threshold, the students with disabilities subgroup must have at least 33.5% meeting and exceeding state standards in 2005.

  7. 2005—Impact from 2% Proxy Impact from 2% proxy change: • Schools making AYP in reading: 7 • Schools making AYP in math: 3 • LEAs making AYP in reading: 27 • LEAs making AYP in math: 38

  8. 2005 Defining a Full Academic Year. For the 2005-06 school year and thereafter, a full academic year for a school or district is defined as the student having been enrolled continuously in the district on or before May 1st of the previous academic year through state testing the following spring. For the state tests administered in 2006, the student has to have been enrolled on or before May 1, 2005. If a student withdraws from the district, and then re-enrolls at a later date, the most recent time of enrollment is used. In terms of impact, we will not know this until the calculations for 2005-06 have been made later in the year.

  9. 2005 • Students New to the U.S. LEP students, during their first year of enrollment in U.S. schools, have the option of taking the reading content assessment, in addition to taking the English language proficiency assessment. They would take the mathematics assessment, with accommodations, as appropriate. Illinois will not include performance results from the mathematics and, if given, the reading content assessments in AYP calculations under NCLB. • Scores to the home school. The test scores of students with disabilities go to the home school. Students who are wards of the state will have their test scores counted by the district and school in which the facility they are residing or attending is located. For students who are not wards of the state that reside at or attend a facility outside of their district within Illinois, their scores will also count at their home school and district. The information is then used for local AYP calculations. • Students in locked facilities. While all students are to be assessed, there are occasional difficulties with students placed in unique yet appropriate settings. Students who are in jail (e.g., county detention facility) or attend a school housed in a locked correctional facility in Illinois at the time of state assessment will not be tested…These students will not be included in enrollment counts for their home schools and districts.

  10. Accountability Workbook Originally adopted in June 2003 Illinois State Board of Education June 17, 2003 onhttp://www.isbe.net/nclb/pdfs/accountability_workbook06.pdf as revised May 2004 (red print reflects changes approved in 2004 in Sections A1, A2, A3, A7, A8, B1, C1, C2, C3, C4, D1 and E2) as revised August 2005 (green print reflects changes approved in 2005 in Sections A3, A6, A7, A8, C1, C2, C3, C4, E1 and E2) as revised June 2006 (blue print reflects changes approved in 2006 in Sections A2, A3, A6, A7, C1, C2, C3 and C4)

  11. 2006 Approved Changes Overall • Backmapping • Continue the use of the 2% proxy • Confidence Interval with Safe Harbor • CI applied to the ALL Group • Clarification on Full Academic Year • Clarification on Homebound • Clarification on Medical Exemption

  12. 2006--Backmapping Illinois has used ISAT at grades 3-8; PSAE at grade 11; the IAA at grades 3-8 and 11; IMAGE at grades 3-8 and 11; and the grade 2 assessment (Terra Nova) in reading and mathematics. The grade 2 assessment is for Title I schools that have grade 2 as the highest grade. For Title I schools only, where the highest grade is grade 2, Illinois administers the Terra Nova assessment as a means of including these schools in the accountability system. In order to be consistent with federal Title I requirements, ISBE has had to move to have all schools in this situation be part of the accountability system. There are approximately 100 schools with grade 2 as the highest grade, and approximately 80 of those schools are considered Title I schools.

  13. Backmapping (page 2) As of 2006-07, the Terra Nova assessment will no longer be administered. The AYP decision for a K-2 school will be based on the third grade assessments results of the receiving school in which the students eventually enroll, so that all K-2 schools will receive an annual AYP determination. School AYP would be mapped from the next higher grade to the lower grade in a school not otherwise held accountable. To develop the long-term plan to hold those schools accountable that have grade 2 as the highest grade in the school, Illinois did a round of conference calls with local district-level staff from K-2 schools and others to explore a process of mapping the students to the school they will attend for grade 3. As used here, the term mapping means that grade 2 students in a K-2 building will be mapped to an elementary school containing grade 3. With the SIS going into place, it will be the grade 3 mapped back to a grade 2 school rather than all grades 3-8 in a school with grades 3-8.

  14. Backmapping (page 3) This process will apply to all K-2 schools and other school configurations as needed.

  15. 2006—Use of Proxy Again Continue on with 2% proxy for scores of students with disabilities. It is likely to be calculated again around 14%; calculation is in process. USDE has said that “…All states interested must apply for this flexibility, even if the state received the flexibility for the 2004-05 AYP determinations. However, states need to submit updated information only if they applied for this flexibility last year.”

  16. 2006—CI with Safe Harbor Several states were approved in 2005 to use a 75% CI for safe harbor consideration. A few states had this in place prior to 2005-06. As the tested population changed significantly from 2005 to 2006, applying the CI to the safe harbor determination is needed for the reliability since the safe harbor target is determined by the previous year results.

  17. Additional Schools with this CI

  18. Additional LEAs with this CI

  19. 2006—CI applied to ALL Group California and North Carolina have used this method. Rather than only apply in to subgroups (e.g., Native American), it will now be used with the ALL group. This is more of a clarification than an addition, but it will still be a truer picture of the school’s progress.

  20. Additional Schools with this CI

  21. Additional LEAs with this CI

  22. Overall Impact of all CIs--School

  23. Overall CI at School Level

  24. Overall CI at LEA Level

  25. 2006 Denied Suggestion Change in Order of Public School Choice/Supplemental Education Services (similar to the Chicago pilot effort in 2005-06) • USDE actions • Chicago experience

  26. 2006 Clarification on FAY For 2005-06 and thereafter, students who are enrolled in the district on or before May 1, 2005, and who stay continuously enrolled through state testing in Spring 2006, are considered to be enrolled for a full academic year. [Subsequent years would be similar in terms of a May 1 date for the calculation of AYP for the following school year.] This ensures that the full academic year definition is less than 365 calendar days while taking into account the varying dates of state testing in Illinois.

  27. 2006 Clarification on Homebound Homebound Exempt. Students on homebound status at the time of testing who are too ill (based upon a specific written statement from a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches) to be tested may be excluded from the enrollment count in a school and from taking a state assessment.

  28. 2006 Clarification on Medically Exempt Medically Exempt. Students may be excluded from the enrollment count in a school and from taking a state assessment if, at the time of testing, they: (a) have been admitted on an emergency basis to a hospital or residential facility (e.g., because of a motor vehicle or other type of accident, emergency surgery, psychiatric emergency) or on an emergency basis to a drug/alcohol/psychological treatment program; and (b) are unable to be schooled.

  29. Task Force on Growth Models • November 21, 2005 USDE letter to all states announcing another element of “flexibility” … in response to educators across the country, USDE has been exploring how accountability models that measure improvements in student achievement (i.e., "growth models") could be one such tool. • Federal flexibility allowed on a pilot basis—two states, NC and TN, approved • Illinois considering, as own choice and SJR 87

  30. Growth Models (page 2) • Task Force appointed and working… • Illinois will not be able to do a federal application this year (2006) until… • Illinois is looking at ways to use the idea for assistance at the state and local level but not for federal AYP applicability at this time.

  31. THE END • Questions? • Comments? • Stay tuned to web sites: http://www.isbe.net/ http://www.isbe.net/nclb/default.htm http://www.isbe.net/ayp/default.htm

More Related