Closing the GAP “No Child Left Behind” (ESEA) Who’s To Blame The college professor said,...
-
Upload
adam-parks -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Closing the GAP “No Child Left Behind” (ESEA) Who’s To Blame The college professor said,...
Closing the GAP
“No Child Left Behind” (ESEA)
Who’s To Blame
The college professor said, “Such rawness in a student is a shame.
Lack of preparation in the high school is to blame,”
Said the high school teacher:
“Good heavens! That boy’s a fool.
The fault of course, is with the middle school.”
The middle school teacher said,
“From such stupidity may I be spared.
They sent him up so unprepared.’
The primary teacher huffed, “Kindergarten blockheads all.
They call that preparation – Why, it’s worse than none at all.”
The kindergarten teacher said, “Such lack of training never did I see.
What kind of a woman must that mother be?”
The mother said, “Poor helpless child. He’s not to blame.
His father’s people were all the same.”
Said the father at the end of the line,
“I doubt the rascal’s even mine!”
Before we begin……………………
Just a little history lesson
The 1960’s Brought……..
• Man on the moon• Voting Rights Act• Civil Rights Act• Head Start• Medicare
AND….
The First ESEA!!
(in 1965)
If you can remember the 60’s………
You weren’t there!!
2001ESEA Reauthorization Act
Congress took the engine out of ESEA and
Attempted to create……
A New Vehicle
Whether this is really a “New Vehicle”
or a “K-Car”
is still to be determined!
“My teacher is real tricky. I study hard -- she gives me an easy test.
I don’t study -- she gives me a hard test.”
Is this student in your class?Is this student in your class?
3.16
ESEA 2001 Final Vote
House: 381-41
Senate: 87-10
95.2% of Democrats and
86.3% of Republicans
Voted for Passage
Closing the Achievement Gap
Disaggregating the Data
Disability
SES
LEP
Ethnicity
Promoting AccountabilityAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP accumulative
2001/2002 results
Baseline data
12 years to reach 100% proficiency
Subgroups
Adequate Yearly Progress
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Multiple Measures: Adequate Yearly Progress
(2002-03)
Reading Math
Grade 4 40.5% 35.9%
Grade 6 36.0% 36.8%
Grade 9 78.0% 53.1%
NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (2004-05 targets)
Grade Span Reading Math
Elementary 71.3 (Grade 3 achievement)
46.5% (Grade 4 proficiency)
Middle 47.0% (Grade 6 proficiency)
46.3% (Grade 6 proficiency)
High 71.8% (Grade 10 OGT)
60.0% (Grade 10 OGT)
SAFE HARBOR
• If a school building or district fails to meet the annual measurable objective, or if one or more subgroups fail to meet the annual measurable objective, then the school building or district makes adequate yearly progress if:
The percentage of tested students in that building, district, or subgroup below the proficient achievement level decreases by at least 10 percent from the preceding year.
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS
Year One: Improvement Plan
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS(continued)
YEAR TWO:YEAR TWO:
Offer School Choice
Notify parents
Option to transfer
Transportation provided
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS
(continued)
Year Three: Offer supplemental services and school choice
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS
(continued)
Year Four: Continue to offer school choice and supplemental services.
District takes corrective action, including one of the following: Institute new curriculum
Decrease school management authority
Appoint an outside expert
Extend school year or day
Replace the principal and/or other key staff
Secure an external manager
Close the building and reassign students
Redesign the building
Consequences: All Districts
Less Intrusive• Withhold Title I
funds• New curriculum• Alternate
governance for particular schools
More Intrusive• Replace key staff• Appoint trustee in
place of superintendent & school board
after 4 years missing AYP
District Designations & AYP (2003-04 results)
Number Percent
Excellent 117 20 17% 1
Effective 229 63 28% 2
Continuous Improvement
224 98 44% 22
Academic Watch
34 34 100% 21
Academic Emergency
4 4 100% 3
TOTAL 608 219 36% 49
Missing AYP
Designation
Number Receiving
Designation
Number in Improvement
Status
AYP Applies to:
Previously• Title I funded
schools & districts only
Now• All public schools &
districts, including community schools
• Regardless of Title I funding
Ohio’s New Accountability System
Ohio’s Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act
a.k.a. ESEA
Challenges
• Tougher system• New ground-rules
– All students accounted for– Group, as well as aggregate, performance
counts
• Creates new starting point for judging future performance– 2002-03 results are not directly comparable
to past years
Opportunities
• Multiple ways to tell the achievement story
• Highlights the achievement of all students
• Ohio’s educators have been improving achievement for almost a decade -- we believe that 2003-04 and beyond will result in continuing improvement
Tests Administered
Previously• Grades 4, 6, 9• 5 subjects
ReadingMathematicsWritingScienceCitizenship
Now• Grades 3-8, 10• 5 subjects
ReadingMathematicsWritingScienceSocial studies
Test Performance Levels
Proficiency Tests• Advanced• Proficient• Basic• Below Basic
Achievement Tests• Advanced• Accelerated• Proficient• Basic• Limited
Same Five Designations for Ohio
• Excellent
• Effective
• Continuous Improvement
• Academic Watch
• Academic Emergency
Multiple Measures: Ohio Performance Index
• More sensitive to gradations of achievement than indicators
• Credits achievement at all performance levels
• Weights higher performance more than lower performance
• Rewards “advanced” performance
Multiple Measures: Ohio Performance Index
Advanced 1.2Accelerated 1.1Proficient 1.0Basic 0.6Below Basic 0.3Untested 0.0
Multiple Measures: Performance Index
Perf. Level Percent Number Weight ScoreAdvanced 5.3% 109 1.2 6.3Accelerated 7.0% 145 1.1 7.7Proficient 33.3% 690 1.0 33.3Basic 18.4% 382 0.6 11.1Limited 35.8% 741 0.3 10.7Untested 0.2% 5 0.0 0.0TOTAL 100.0% 2072 69.1
2002-03 Report Card Content
Previously• Percent of
performance (local report card) indicators met
• Designation
Now• Percent of performance
indicators• Performance index
score• Improvement• AYP• Designation
New Report Card Criteria:Multiple Ways of Earning Designations
94% to 100%(21 or 22 for districts)
94% to 100%(21 or 22 for districts)
75% to 93%(17 to 20 for districts)
75% to 100%(17 to 22 for districts)
0% to 74%(0 to 16 for districts)
50% to 74%(11 to 16 for districts)
31% to 49%(7 to 10 for districts)
0% to 31%(0 to 6 for districts)
Temporary Growth Calculation ** --
Districts and schools will move from Emergency to Watch or from Watch to
Improvement if: (a) improved performance index score each of past two years, (b) total two-year gain of at least 10 points, and (c) most recent year's gain of at least
3 points.
and
Academic Watch
Academic Emergency and
Effective
or
or
or
or
or
or
Federal AYP Requirements
Value Added -- Once grades 3 to 8 reading and
math assessments are implemented and multiple
years of data available, Ohio will incorporate a measure of individual student grade-to-grade achievement gains
to help determine school building and district
designations.
Performance Index Score Growth Calculation
100 to 120
0 to 69
100 to 120
90 to 99
90 to 120
and
and
and
and
Missed AYP*
Met AYP
Missed AYP*
Met AYP
80 to 89
70 to 79
0 to 89Continuous
Improvement
or
Missed AYP
Missed AYP
Missed AYP
and
and
and
Met AYPandor
Excellent
Existing Ohio Report Card
Indicators
DesignationsDesignations
Designations
Districts Schools
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004
Excellent 85 117 630 920Effective 177 229 771 906Continuous Improvement 278 224 1,242 1,207
Academic Watch 52 34 237 126
Academic Emergency 16 4 338 225
Not Rated 4 4 500 518
Change in Designation Change in Designation from Last Yearfrom Last Year
Districts Schools
# % # %
Moved Up 177 29% 1,024 30%
Moved Down 29 5% 288 9%
Excellent or EffectiveExcellent or Effective
DISTRICTSDISTRICTS
57%57%
SCHOOLSSCHOOLS
54%54%
Excellent, Effective, or Excellent, Effective, or Continuous Continuous ImprovementImprovement
DISTRICTSDISTRICTS
94%94%
SCHOOLSSCHOOLS
90%90%
Performance Index Performance Index Score Score (all grades)(all grades)
73.7
78.7
81.983.1
86.6
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Improved Performance Improved Performance Index ScoreIndex Score
DISTRICTSDISTRICTS
87%87%
SCHOOLSSCHOOLS
79%79%
At Least 10-point Gain At Least 10-point Gain in Performance Index in Performance Index Score over Two YearsScore over Two Years
Districts Schools
# % # %
36 6% 361 26%
Performance Level
Percent Number Weight Score
Advanced 11.7% 97 1.2 14.0
Proficient 54.1% 449 1.0 54.1
Basic 16.5% 137 0.6 9.9
Limited 17.7% 147 0.3 5.3
Untested 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 100.0% 830 83.3
Performance Level
Percent Number Weight Score
Advanced 15.3% 127 1.2 18.4
Proficient 57.7% 479 1.0 57.7
Basic 20.1% 167 0.6 12.1
Limited 6.9% 57 0.3 2.1
Untested 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 100.0% 830 90.2
The PI Calculator
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/accountability/performanceindexcal.xls
Improved Reading Improved Reading Proficiency over Last Proficiency over Last YearYear
Grade 4 Grade 6Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency)
# % # % # %
Districts 435 72% 300 49% 416 68%
Schools 1,280 66% 621 50% 488 73%
Improved Mathematics Improved Mathematics Proficiency over Last Proficiency over Last YearYear
Grade 4 Grade 6Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency)
# % # % # %
Districts 493 81% 560 92% 426 70%
Schools 1,392 71% 1,095 88% 495 70%
2004-05 Performance 2004-05 Performance Indicators -- 23 TotalIndicators -- 23 Total
21 test indicators21 test indicatorsProficiency TestsProficiency Tests– Grade 4Grade 4 math, science, & citizenship math, science, & citizenship– Grade 6Grade 6 reading, math, writing, science, & reading, math, writing, science, &
citizenshipcitizenshipAchievement TestsAchievement Tests– ReadingReading grades 3, 4, 5, & 8 grades 3, 4, 5, & 8– MathMath grades 3, 7, & 8 grades 3, 7, & 8– WritingWriting grade 4 grade 4– OGTOGT Grade 10 reading, math, writing, Grade 10 reading, math, writing,
science, social studiesscience, social studies Graduation rateGraduation rate Attendance rateAttendance rate
Operating Standards for Ohio’s Schools Serving Children with
DisabilitiesAges 3-21
Effective July 1, 2002
Overview and Implications
Changes
• Flexibility in conducting evaluations
• Interventions– Prior to an evaluation– Intervention data used to determine eligibility
• Parent involved in eligibility determination
Student Intervention
• Required for:– 3rd graders reading below “proficient” -- intense
remediation– Students scoring below “proficient” on
achievement tests– Students failing to make satisfactory progress
toward attaining grade level academic standards on diagnostic tests
– 9th graders scoring below “proficient” on the 10th grade practice test
Grade level corresponding to age
1 2 3 4
Re
ad
ing
gra
de
lev
el 4
3
2
1
5
2.5
5.2
At Risk on Early Screening
Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of Reading Difficulty
Low Risk on Early Screening
This Slide from Reading First Experts
Alligator
Children get tested Here
Screen Early
Why wait to Fail
Gap Starts Small
Grade level corresponding to age
1 2 3 4
Re
ad
ing
gra
de
lev
el 4
3
2
1
5
2.5
5.2
Early Intervention Changes Reading Outcomes
At Risk on Early Screening
Low Risk on Early Screening
3.2
Control
With research-based core but without extra instructional intervention
4.9
Interventio
n
With substantial instructional intervention
This Slide from Reading First Experts
Implication: Interventions
General Education
Interventions
IEPSpecialized Instruction
MFE
Changes: Involvement and Progress in the General
Curriculum
Close the Achievement Gap• Involvement of General Education Teacher• Ensure FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment
Performance
Standards
Content
StandardsChild Progress
DISTRICTSTRATEGIC
PLAN
ProfessionalDevelopment
Service Providers
Building Plans
Change: District’s Required to Include Special Education in the
District-wide Planning
Housing
Implications:
GeneralEducation
SpecialEducation
Child Focus
Needs Based
All Children
SUPPORTSAdministrative Staff Parents Resources
Implication:
IEPChild Progress
Academic Content Standards
Implications:
GeneralEducation
SpecialEducation
Special Education Specialized Instruction
Strategic Strategic PlanPlan
ALL
CHILDREN
SUPPORTS
Administrative Staff Parents Resources
Percent of Total vs. Students with Disabilities
• Learning Disabilities: 5% of total; 47% of SWD
• Speech/Language: 2% of total;17.5% of SWD
• Mental Retardation (C.D.) 1% of total9.7% of SWD
– Mild to Moderate .66% of SWD– Moderate to Severe .33% of SWD
A Final Thought…….
“Considerable evidence supports this conclusion: The differences in achievement observed between and among students of culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds and students of mainstreamed backgrounds are NOT the results of differences in ability to learn. Rather, they are the result of differences in the quality of the instruction these young people receive in school.”
Marietta Saravia-Shore and Eugene Garcia
Diverse Teaching Strategies for Learners
ASCD, 1995
Therefore it is imperative
That teachers provide instruction
using a variety of formats and strategies
Information You Need to Know
• Title I Budget
• Percentage that goes to personnel
• Total staff employed by Title I
• District Accountability Report
• AYP Calculations
• Performance Index Scores