ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status

School Committee Presentation

September 24, 2013

Vision

The vision of the Webster Public Schools 

is to provide a quality education and a safe learning environment for all students,

and to empower all students to succeed as responsible, productive citizens in an ever-changing global society.

Theory of Action

If Webster Public Schools has a prekindergarten through grade 12 system, which effectively transitions every student between classrooms, grade levels, and schools by connecting high quality instruction with learning,

then the students will have continued success beyond graduation.

Core ValuesAll students can learn, and we welcome the responsibility to

teach all students.

All students have the right to a safe and academically rich learning environment characterized by rigorous expectations, effective instruction, and respect for diversity.

The work of educators is complex and best accomplished through collaboration for the purpose of improving instructional practice and student learning.

Ownership of educational progress and sustainability of improvement are achieved through shared leadership.

Assessment

Curriculum

Instruction

Student Learning

The Instructional Core

No Child Left Behind and ESEA Waiver

NCLB (2001)100% of students scoring

Proficient/Advanced by 2014

NCLB Accountability Labels of “Corrective Action” and “Restructuring”

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determined by student, school, and district Composite Performance Index (CPI) for aggregate and subgroups

Accountability status determined by two consecutive years of student achievement data

ESEA Waiver (2012)Closing of achievement gaps between the

total student population (aggregate) and subgroups (low income, special education, etc.) student populations by half based on improvement targets

Levels of status determined by narrowing gaps, student growth, dropout rate, and cohort graduation rate

Annual Performance Progress Index (PPI) determined by CPI for indicators

Accountability status based on four years data with the most recent year weighted the most in determining the Cumulative PPI

State Performance Targets Under NCLB

Reduce proficiency gap by half by 2016–17

What are some key PPI concepts?

• PPI is a measure of progress toward a gap-narrowing goals – PPI points scale runs from 0 to 100. Target = 75, 50 =

improvement below target, 25 = no change, 0 = decline

– Annual PPI indicates progress from one year to the next

– Cumulative PPI represents a trend over time

• PPI determinations for all groups provide valuable information to help direct supports and interventions

What are some key Level concepts?

• Schools and districts are classified into a Level based on a four-year trend

• Districts are classified based on the Level of lowest-performing school

• School percentiles (1-99) represent performance relative to other schools in the grade span, and are used to determine Level 3 schools (lowest-performing 20 percent)

Accountability Status

Level Description DESE Involvement

1 Meeting proficiency gap narrowing goals

(for aggregate & high needs students) Very Low

2 Not meeting proficiency gap narrowing goals

(for aggregate &/or high needs students)

Low

3 Lowest performing 20% of schools*

(including lowest performing subgroups) High

4 Lowest performing schools

(subset of Level 3) Very High

5 Chronically underperforming schools

(subset of Level 3 & 4) Extremely High

Webster Public Schools

2013ELA

CPI no change (25 PPI points)SGP below target (50 PPI points)Extra Credit (0 points)

MathCPI declined (0 PPI points)SGP had declined (0 PPI points)Extra Credit (0 points)

Webster Public Schools

2012 – Science

CPI- declined (0 PPI points)

Extra Credit (0 PPI points)

Annual Dropout Rate – (25 PPI points)

Cohort Graduation Rate – (25 PPI points)

Webster Public Schools

• Total points awarded = 125

• Divided by 7 Indicators – CPI for ELA, Math, and Science– SGP for ELA and Math– Dropout Rate and Cohort Graduation Rate

Annual PPI = 18

Webster Public Schools

PPI Data 2010 2011 2012 2013

Points Awarded 275 350 200 125

Extra Credit Points

75 50 50 0

Subtotal 350 400 250 125

Indicators 7 7 7 7

Annual PPI 50 57 36 18

Cumulative PPI

(2010*1) + (2011 *2) + (2012 *3) + (2013 *4)

34

Achievement Percent Proficient and Advanced

Grade/Content Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 State 2013

Grade 10 ELA 74 77 78 82 91 91

Grade 10 MATH 67 67 70 65 80 78

Grade 8 ELA 51 58 60 67 59 78

Grade 8 Math 23 18 21 21 14 55

Grade 7 ELA 37 45 55 45 48 72

Grade 7 Math 17 22 25 21 19 52

Grade 6 ELA 60 55 61 41 56 67

Grade 6 Math 33 38 48 29 29 61

Grade 5 ELA 49 43 44 40 52 66

Grade 5 Math 33 29 23 31 39 61

Grade 4 ELA 41 35 45 43 32 53

Grade 4 Math 29 25 33 36 11 52

Grade 3 ELA 40 52 59 52 36 57

Grade 3 Math 33 45 61 37 46 66

Composite Performance Index Comparisons

2010-2013

Composite Performance Index (CPI)

• A student raw score is converted into a scaled score

• A scaled score correlates to a performance level (Advanced; Proficient; Needs Improvement; Warning/Failing)

• Points are awarded for each student’s performance level

• CPI is equal to the total number of performance level points divided by the number of students in the aggregate

Sample CPI CalculationPerformance level Scaled Score MCAS ALT Points # of

StudentsTotal Points

Proficient or Advanced 240-280 Progressing 100 18 1800

High Needs Improvement

230-238 Progressing or Emerging

75 15 1125

Low Needs Improvement

220-228 Awareness 50 10 500

High Warning/Failing 210-218 Portfolio Incomplete

25 5 125

Low Warning/Failing 200-208 Portfolio not submitted

0 2 0

Total 50 3550

CPI = 3550/50 = 71

Grade 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Math

ELA

Math 73.4 81 63.6 70.4

ELA 81.6 80.9 77.9 72.7

2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 4

0

20

40

60

80

Math

ELA

Math 64.8 72.3 69.1 53.2

ELA 71.9 77.9 68.9 67.4

2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

Math

ELA

Math 60 56.1 65.1 65.4

ELA 74.1 76.8 72.4 75.6

201 2011 2012 2013

Grade 6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Math

ELA

Math 65.7 73.4 61.9 63.1

ELA 82.4 82.7 69.7 79.1

2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Math

ELA

Math 53.7 56.4 54 47.2

ELA 75.3 82.8 76.8 76.9

2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Math

ELA

Math 54.6 51.4 56.4 50

ELA 80.8 79.6 87.6 80.1

2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10

75

80

85

90

95

100

Math

ELA

Math 86.2 86.5 85.2 88.8

ELA 91.8 93.3 94.1 96.7

2010 2011 2012 2013

Student Growth Percentile Comparisons

Student Growth Percentile

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mathematics median SGP, 2008

Ma

th %

pro

fic

ien

t o

r a

dv

an

ce

d, 2

00

8

Higher achievingLower growing

Lower achievingLower growing

Higher achievingHigher growing

Lower achievingHigher growing

Low Median High

WMS Student Growth

• Growth Report Grades 3-6 for ELA

• Growth Report Grades 3-6 for Math

BHS Student Growth

• Growth Report Grades 7, 8, 10 ELA

• Growth Report Grades 7, 8, 10 for Math