WELCOME!!! Triple I Conference November 19, 2005 Dr. Ginger Reynolds, Moderator Dr. Connie Wise,...

WELCOME!!!

Triple I ConferenceNovember 19, 2005

Dr. Ginger Reynolds, ModeratorDr. Connie Wise, PresenterGail Lieberman, Presenter

Triple I 2005 Conference 2

Purposes of Session

Talk briefly about state report card

Report on Workbook changes

Answer questions

Report on status of AYP and related activities

Seek suggestions for additional changes in the future


No Child Left Behind aka…

No Principal Left Standing

No Attorney Left Unemployed

No School Left Open

No Chocolate Left Unopened

No Child Left Untested

What are your favorites…?


Start out with Alphabet Soup from NCLB and IDEA

IEP IAA NAEPSES 47.5% What is Title III?

AYP 100% Safe HarborISAT 45 HQT Paras

IFSP Spellings AMAOsPSAE

IMAGE Target in 2013-2014

95% graduation rate


Other NCLB Issues Not Addressed TodayParental Choice• If child is in a school formally designated as needing improvement, can transfer

to another public or charter school.• Up to about $1000 available per child for private tutoring (until $ runs out).

Faculty Quality• Highly qualified teacher in every classroom….• Qualified paraprofessionals…• Title II $ focused use for professional development as of 2004• May use federal funds for faculty professional development opportunities.

Safe Schools AKA persistently dangerous• Victim of crime or attends unsafe school may transfer to a safe public school.• School officials can take reasonable action to maintain order.


Other Issues (continued)

English Fluency• LEP students tested for reading and language arts in English after

attending school in US for three consecutive years.• Annual testing in language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading and

writing.

AMAOs This is the second year that AMAO calculations will be made and

published. These targets are based on the performance of cohorts of LEP students on locally-administered, state-approved English language proficiency assessments, and on state-administered achievement assessments (IMAGE or ISAT) AMAOs include three target criteria:

(1) Progress Towards English Language Proficiency(2) Attainment of English Language Proficiency(3) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)


2005 Process for Changes Comments at last

Triple I meeting

Comments from legislators

Dialogue with USDE

Comments to Dr. Dunn over time

Discussion with an ad hoc group in spring 2005

Work on wording with USDE


2005 Workbook Changes Subgroup Size, including the use of confidence

intervals District grade span review for improvement Special education subgroup “proxy” Changed definition of full academic year

Look for the green print in the document at http://www.isbe.net/nclb/htmls/accountability_workbook.htm


Remember AYP Criteria1. Achieve at least a 95% participation rate in state

assessments for all students and for each subgroup Participation rates can be averaged back one or two years to get to 95%.

2. Reach targets (47.5% in 2005 and 2006) for the overall group for percent meeting and exceeding standards in reading and mathematics and reach targets for subgroups (47.5% in 2005 and 2006 through a one way hypothesis test) or meet Safe Harbor requirements.

3. Meet attendance (89% in 2006 to 92% in 2014)and graduation targets (69% in 2006 to 85% in 2014).


#1--Subgroup Size

Proposed several options... Change subgroup size for all eligible

subgroups in a school and in a district. from 40 to 45 for each subgroup; and from a 3% standard error of

measurement to a 95% Confidence Interval.


Confidence Intervals Look on web site at

www.isbe.net/pdf/2005_ayp_95_CI.pdf

The formula for the minimum performance target in 2005 and 2006 is

subgroupfor size Group

)5.52)(5.47( x 1.645-47.5


Confidence Intervals (continued)

For example, the minimum performance target for a school with a subgroup that has 45 reading scores is

3.35 45

)5.52)(5.47( x 1.645-47.5


Confidence Intervals (continued)

Subgroup CI Subgroup (Minimum Performance Target)

45 12.2 35.3 60 10.6 36.9 85 8.9 38.6 120 7.5 40.0 175 6.2 41.3 250 5.2 42.3 400 4.1 43.4 500 3.7 43.8


#2--District Status Grade Span Review Although the same AYP calculations occur as has been

in the past, eligibility for district improvement status has changed. A district is eligible for district improvement status when all of its underlying grade spans (i.e., grades 3 through 5, 6 through 8 and 9 through 12) have not met AYP in the same subject area for two consecutive years.

The 3 criteria for achieving AYP are 95% participation rate, meeting the target on performance, and meeting the target on graduation rate (high school) or attendance rate (elementary and middle schools). For unit districts, both attendance and graduation rates must be met as well as the other factors.


District Status (continued) Eligibility for district improvement status depends on the grade spans in the schools as well as the number of schools in the district.

For districts with more than one school and more than one grade span, beginning with the 2004-05 test data, district student data will be aggregated up to three grade spans -- elementary (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12). When a district does not make AYP in all of the grade spans that the district has, in the same content area, for two consecutive years, it will be identified for district improvement status. If the district makes AYP in at least one of the grade spans, it will be ineligible for district improvement status.

For districts with only one school or only one grade span, determination for district improvement status will be based on the same criteria for school improvement status.


#3--Subgroup of Students with Disabilities / aka Proxy This new “2%” flexibility was announced by Secretary Spellings

in May 2005 as part of a short-term solution to fair assessment. Schools and districts that did not make AYP only because of this

subgroup will have 14% added to the percent meeting and exceeding standards (actual score is reported).

14% for IEP subgroup is short-term approach; its use in 2006 is a question at this time…

Illinois and other states that received permission for the proxy had to commit to a long-term approach of developing another assessment for the students with IEPs not assessed well through the current system…Guidance is needed in this area.


#4--New Definition of Full Academic Year (2006) There is one additional change which was approved,

effective beginning with the 2006 tests. May 1, 2005 enrollment data will be critical to use in calculating the 2006-07 AYP status based on the 2006 assessments.

Beginning in 2006, only students who were enrolled on May 1st of the previous year count for AYP

Students enrolled in a school by this date will be included in AYP calculations.

Students not enrolled in the district as of May 1 will be assessed but not included in the AYP status of the district.


New Definition (continued)

Students enrolled in the district by May 1 and matriculating from one school to another (e.g., K-2 building into a 3-5 building) over the summer will be seen as continuously enrolled in the district and part of the grades 3-5 building and included in AYP status. Students, enrolled in the district by May 1, and who move from one school in the district to another in the same district for any other reason will be considered as not enrolled for a full academic year and thus not included in the AYP calculation for the school.

Should the district need to move a grade or grades to another building at the beginning of the school year (e.g., due to overcrowding), those students who were enrolled in the district by May 1 and moving to the new building because of district needs would be seen as a student continuously enrolled in the district and part of the new building AYP status.


No change in same subgroup although requested of USDE

“Same subject area” criteria for AYP calculations was added in 2004.

ISBE sought to add an additional criteria of “same subgroup” in 2005. This was not accepted, as it did not meet the USDE “core criteria.”

HB 3678 of 2005 sought same change, and it was enacted as Public Act 94-0666. Letter sent to USDE seeking approval to use this mechanism as part of AYP determination—no response to date.


Public Act 94-0666 Seeks…Only with the specific approval of USDE can Illinois do these: AYP for students with disabilities shall be based on their IEPs,

not a State assessment; placing a school or LEA on AEW status for not meeting AYP

criteria for two consecutive annual calculations shall not begin until the 2005-2006 SY;

criteria must not be met in the same subgroup and in the same subject or in the school's or LEA's participation rate, attendance rate, or graduation rate for the school or LEA to be on AEW or AW status;

a school or LEA on AEW or AW status that meets AYP criteria for one annual calculation (instead of two consecutive annual calculations) shall be considered as having met expectations and removed from any federal status designation.


AYP DesignationsSchool Status (total #) 100 schools on 7/6 988 on 7/9 1,115 on 7/11 1,548 on 7/21 1,738 on 8/1 2,008 on 8/9 2,181 on 8/16 2,942 on 8/23 ALL 3,767 on 8/31

State legislation site at http://www.legis.state.il.us

State NCLB site at www.isbe.net/nclb

District Status (total #) 200 LEAs on 7/28 282 on 7/29 338 on 8/3 407 on 8/9 443 on 8/11 482 on 8/16 764 on 8/23 ALL on 8/31

State AYP site at www.isbe.net/ayp

Sample letters on web site at www.isbe.net/nclb


Suggestions for Changes?

2006 Workbook In line with the law Make sense for Illinois Possibly 1% or more, per Texas route (9%)? Possibly change the targets/trajectory between now

and 2014, up to the 100%? 2007 Changes in NCLB itself

Should the 100% target be a goal? Timeframe for School Improvement Plans? Please let [email protected] know!


Questions Questions Questions

WELCOME!!! Triple I Conference November 19, 2005 Dr. Ginger Reynolds, Moderator Dr. Connie Wise,...

Documents

Transcript of WELCOME!!! Triple I Conference November 19, 2005 Dr. Ginger Reynolds, Moderator Dr. Connie Wise,...