Annual Student Performance Report September 2013
description
Transcript of Annual Student Performance Report September 2013
1
Annual Student Performance Report
September 2013
2
Overview
• Review of NCLB requirements
• 2013 ISAT performance and AYP status
• Next steps
3
No Child Left Behind Act andAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
•Overall goal is 100% proficiency inReading and Math by 2014•Targets increase nearly every year•Recent target proficiencies:
•2010: 77.5%•2011: 85%•2012: 85% (Illinois waiver)•2013: 92.5%
4
No Child Left Behind Act andAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
20032004
20052006
20072008
20092010
20112012
20132014
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
40 4047.5 47.5
5562.5
7077.5
85 8592.5
100
Target Percentage
5
Making AYP: Subgroups
•Target must be met by all subgroups:•Ethnic group•Economically disadvantaged•Students with disabilities•Limited English proficiency
•Applies to all subgroups with at least 45members
6
Making AYP: Overall Requirements
•Three overall requirements:1. At least 95% of students in each subgroup must be tested in reading and math.2. At least 92.5% (in 2013) of students must meet or exceedstandards in the subject. If the percentage is less than 92.5%,
the95% confidence interval is applied. If a subgroup did not make AYP the previous year, but decreased the percentage notmeeting standards by at least 10%, the Safe Harbor provision willallow it to meet the conditions.3.School must have at least a 92% attendance rate.
7
Making AYP: Additional Factors
•Annual target percentages are lowered inspecific circumstances:
•95% confidence interval based on group size
•Safe Harbor provision of 10% decrease in
percent not meeting from one year to next
8
Making AYP: Complicating Factors
•Home school versus serving school
•May 1 attendance cutoff
•Some students in multiple subgroups
9
Why Cut Scores Were Raised
• Focus on college and career readiness
• Closer alignment to PARCC test
• Common Core State Standards set higher bar
10
Changes to Cut Scores
Reading Math
Grade 2012 2013 2012 2013
3 191 207 184 214
4 203 217 200 224
5 215 228 214 235
6 220 237 225 247
7 226 239 235 257
8 231 248 246 267
11
Student Progress: 2012-2013
•Reminders:•AYP compares different sets of
students fromyear to year•Vast majority of students do improve
fromone year to next
12
2013 Reading Compared to 2012
DISTRICT
BeyeHatc
h
Holmes
Irving
Linco
ln
Longfe
llow
Man
n
Whitti
er
Brooks
Julia
n0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0 90.884.9
92.9 92.0 88.9 87.896.6 93.9 93.7 90.5 91.4
79.786.4
78.485.4
75.6 77.4 81.989.1
79.9 78.4 77.2
Spring 2012Spring 2013
13
2013 Math Compared to 2012
0
20
40
60
80
100 92.7 91.5 94.9 93.8 93.7 95.1 98.3 96.5 96.990.4 91.4
76.6 79.8 78.483.3
74.5 70.3
84 82.8 8472.2 76
Spring 2012Spring 2013
14
Past Performance Under New Cut Scores
2010 Rdg
2011 Rdg
2012 Rdg
2013 Rdg
. 2010 Math
2011 Math
2012 Math
2013 Math
0
20
40
60
80
10089 88 90 91 91 92
75 7377 80
73 73 76 77
Old cut scoresNew cut scores
15
Disproportionate Effect on SubgroupsOld cut scores
New cut scores
16
2013 AYP Status
•One school made AYP in both subjects•Nine schools did not make AYP in one orboth subjects for one or more subgroups
•One failed for the third consecutive year
•One failed for the fourth consecutive year
•The District as a whole did not make AYPfor the third consecutive year
17
2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups Making AYP
Spring break
READINGSubgroup % Meets or Exceeds Safe Harbor Target
White students 90.0% 89.4%
Economically disadvantaged students 52.4% 53.7%
MATHSubgroup % Meets or Exceeds Safe Harbor Target
Asian students 87.2% 89.3%
Students of two or more races 79.5% 80.6%
18
2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups Not Making AYP in Reading
READINGSubgroup % Meets or Exceeds Safe Harbor TargetALL students 79.7% 80.5%Black students 55.9% 57.7%Hispanic students 65.7% 69.4%Asian student 83.7% 90.6%Students of two or more races 80.8% 86.5%Students with disabilities 40.3% 48.1%
19
2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups not Making AYP in Math
MATHSubgroup % Meets or Exceeds Safe Harbor TargetALL students 76.6% 79.5%White students 88.0% 89.8%Black students 48.0% 54.7%Hispanic students 62.8% 71.9%Students with disabilities 38.2% 50.3%Economically disadvantaged students 47.1% 52.8%
20
2012 AYP Status Update
SCHOOL Not Making AYP: Subjects and Subgroups
2013StateStatus
2013 Federal Status
Beye Math: White students Academic Early Warning: Year 2
Choice and SES
Brooks Reading: Students with disabilitiesMath: All students, Black students, Students with disabilities, Economically disadvantaged students
Academic Watch:Year 1
Does not apply
Julian Reading: Students of two or more races, Students with disabilitiesMath: Students with disabilities, Economically disadvantaged students
Academic Early Warning: Year 2
Does not apply
District AYP statusState: Academic Early Warning Year
2Federal: District Improvement Year
2
21
Federal and State Requirementsfor Schools not Making AYP
•First year: No consequences•Second consecutive year: Complete a School ImprovementPlan and receive change in status:
•Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (School choice)•State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 1
•Third consecutive year: Complete a School ImprovementPlan and receive change in status:
•Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (School choice and
Supplemental Educational Services)•State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 2
22
Student Growth Model
Local growth model (ECRA)• ISAT, MAP, EXPLORE, and DIBELS• Uses past student performance to
predict future• Compares actual to predicted to
identify areas needing attention
23
School Improvement Planning
•Rising Star plans at district level and all ten schools
•Continuous improvement model•Focused on research-based indicators
•West 40 again engaged as consultant
24
Questions?