Idahos Accountability Plan: New Strategies to Meet AYP

1
Idahos Accountability PlanNew Strategies to
Meet AYP
2
AYP

• Overview
• Review of the new Indexing System of AYP
  Calculation
• Review of AYP Calculation for Participation and
  Proficiency
• Summary of and Debriefing on Appeals Process How
  can it be improved?

3
AYP

• Important Questions from Districts
• Why was Indexing put in place after the ISAT
  appeals window opened?
• Why werent schools and districts allowed to
  choose the method from which their data would be
  reported?
• Who will be handling AYP Accountability in the
  future, the SDE or OSBE?
• When will the website transition of ISAT from the
  OSBE and SDE be complete?

4

• Indexing How does it Work?
• Includes Basic students in Proficiency
  Calculations as .5 Proficient
• Basic, Proficient and Advanced performance levels
  are combined to calculate the total level of
  proficiency
• Indexing Required Calculation of New Targets
• Why Idaho Moved to this System Benefits
• Indexing will be the calculation model for the
  foreseeable future

5
Indexing Targets
6
Final 2009 AYP Results for Schools and Districts

• School level comparisons
• 432 of 652 schools 66.3 made AYP in
  08-09 vs.
• 363 of 648 schools 56 in 07-08
• 30 schools made AYP in Indexing upon automatic
  appeal
• District level comparisons
• 60 of 132 districts 45.5 made AYP in 08-09
  vs.
• 56 of 131 districts 42.8 in 07-08
• 4 more districts made AYP in Indexing upon
  automatic appeal

7
How were New Indexing targets calculated?

• Data used from the 2007-08 school year
• Proficiency level of All Students in the state
  were considered
• Schools ranked from lowest Proficient to
  highest
• Lowest 20 of students marked the new Proficiency
  targets ie., 20,042 for LU75.1
• See pages 25-26 in Accountability Workbook

8
ISAT Testing Matrix

• ISAT is federally mandated under the No Child
  Left Behind law
• Grades 5, 7 and 10 are tested in Science, but
  currently Science is not part of AYP Calculations
• Grades 3-8 and 10 are tested in Reading, Math,
  and Language Usage
• These content areas form the basis of the Annual
  Yearly Progress AYP Proficiency and
  Participation Requirements
• There are a total of 41 targets for Proficiency
  and Participation for the subgroups and All
  groups see next slide for breakdown

9
AYP Targets for Proficiency and Participation

• Participation and Proficiency targets for each of
  the following in Math and Reading
• Race/Ethnicity African American, Asian, American
  Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Native
  Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White
• Limited English Proficient, Economically
  Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities
• All group also has target for 3rd Indicator in
  Proficiency, not Participation

10
Review of AYP calculations

• NCLB seeks to test all students to gather
  data-Participation target is 95
• NCLB seeks to ensure that subgroups and All
  group are moving toward Proficiency-these targets
  vary by content area

11
Participation

• Taking Reading as an example, 95 Participation
  is required all groups but All-school and
  district
• First, was the target made outright? If so, the
  requirement is satisfied
• If not, then we look at a rolling 3 year average
• 09, 08,07, looking to hit 95
• If a group has 40 or fewer students, a 2 students
  not tested grace is given see next slide for
  example

12
Important Participation Facts

• If a group has 40 or fewer students, a 2 students
  not tested grace is given. For example
• If SWD group is 20 and 2 are not tested90
  participation, but still satisfies requirement.
• Less than 10 students in group, no participation
  results are reported.

13
Proficiency

• Taking Reading, as an example, 85.6 Proficient
  was required this year under Indexing
• First step, did the group make target outright
  hitting the bulls eye with one arrow? If yes,
  then requirement is satisfied.
• If not, Safe Harbor SH, a second chance to hit
  the target, comes into play.

14
Safe Harbor in Proficiency Calculations

• SH has 2 separate requirements-- each must be
  satisfied to meet AYP
• First step a 10 decrease in not proficient
  students over last year. Example
• SWD Reading 2007-0860 Not Proficient
• SWD Reading 2008-0950 Not Proficient
• 10 raw decrease divided by 60 the previous
  year basis of comparison 16.67 decrease of Not
  Proficient Students
• If first requirement is not made, group does not
  make AYP and 2nd calc. is not required

15
Safe Harbor-2nd Requirement

• Second Requirement
• Did group make third Indicator target outright?
  Language Usage LU is 3rd Indicator for all but
  High Schools which use Graduation Rate GR.
• LU target this year in Indexing 75.1
• If target is made, group makes AYP For Reading

16
Third Indicator in SH cont.

• If target is not made outright, look to see if
  Proficient is equal to or higher than previous
  year. Example
• SWD LU 2008-09 63 Proficient
• SWD LU 2007-08 57 Proficient
• 63-576 increase 3rd Ind. Portion of SH
  satisfied-group makes AYP in Reading

17
Third Indicator Important Notes

• Some schools have chosen decrease in below Basic
  percent in Math and Reading as Third Indicator.
  This choice can be revised annually by
  Superintendents contacting the ISAT Coordinator
  by Sept.15.
• Beyond SH, a Proficiency target but not in
  Participation in LU must be met in the All group
  School and District, but not in subgroups.

18
Important Note

• Proficiency calculations are not done for groups
  of fewer than 34 students
• Refer to Accountability Workbook for exception
  involving averaging in All group

19
Graduation Rate GR as 3rd Indicator for High
Schools

• 3 methods to make AYP
• Did the school make the 90 target?
• If not, did the school meet or exceed the
  previous years GR?
• If not, did the 2 or 3 year rolling average meet
  or exceed the prior year GR?
• GR data is a year behind- 2007-08 rates are
  used this year GR finalized each Feb. from year
  before

20
Graduation Rate Important Notes

• For groups smaller than 34, an additional option
  to make AYP, losing no more than one student per
  year as drop outs, is employed
• The window for Cleaning up GR data closes in Jan.
  of each year by Federal mandate! Rosters must be
  edited at this time, not during summer ISAT
  appeals

21
Graduation Rate Important Notes cont.

• Student transfers become part of the 4 year
  cohort that is tracked for GR, unless they
  transfer to another school.
• A student graduated with a GED does not count For
  or Against a school's GR.

22
More Information on AYP

• This PP contains basic information on how AYP
  calculations are determined.
• The Accountability Workbook contains
  comprehensive detail on Idahos accountability
  methods and procedures
• http//www.boardofed.idaho.gov/accoun
  tability.asp
• The Idaho Code governing education is another
  resource for some of these issues
• http//adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/idapa08/0203.pdf
  

23
Summary of ISAT Appeals Process

• Over 400 appeals were filed and processed
• Continuous enrollment and withdrawn students are
  the largest categories of appeal
• We ask your cooperation in periodically cleaning
  and updating your data before and after the
  upload of the SEF file to help make the summer
  appeals process more efficient-you have until the
  last day of the test window to edit your data.

24
Important Appeals Facts

• Students entering school after the first 56 days
  of school are not continuously enrolled
  NCE---their ISAT scores do not count for
  Proficiency, but they must be tested and do count
  for Participation
• Poor attendance is not a valid reason to consider
  a student NCE
• Students withdrawn from school before the
  beginning of the last week of testing do not
  count toward Proficiency or Participation
• Students withdrawn and readmitted will be
  considered enrolled as of the date readmitted
• Reading the ISAT Reading test to any student,
  regardless of an IEP, will result in a test
  invalidation

25
Important Appeals Facts cont.

• A student or parent refusal to test invalidates
  the test, but the school is still responsible for
  that students lack of participation.
• For a Medical exemption to be valid, the student
  must miss the entire testing window. This
  exemption has the same effect as a student
  withdrawal.

26
Improving the Appeals Process

• Add a text box next to the other category so
  user can specify the nature of the appeal, for
  example, Withdrawn 11/07/08
• Provide more explanation of user capability and
  the appeals process for example, explain that
  data fields controlling Proficiency and
  Participation will not save user changes.
• Please let me know if you have other suggestions
  about the appeals process or any other areas of
  concern!

27
Contact Information Scott Cook ISAT
Coordinator 208-332-6976 scook_at_SDE.idaho.gov Dr.
Carissa Moffat Miller, Ph.D. Deputy
Superintendent, Assessment 208-332-6901 cmiller_at_sd
e.idaho.gov