determining ayp

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).


Economic Disadvantage• U.S. Departments of Education and

Agriculture Allow Use of Free and Reduced Lunch Status with strict confidentiality requirements


• 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


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


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]

http://www.ode.state.or.us/nclb

http://www.ed.gov/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]