Preparing for 2005 MidCycle IV Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Determinations

1
Preparing for 2005 Mid-Cycle IV Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) Determinations

• Massachusetts Department of Education
• August, 2005

2
Massachusetts School District Accountability
System (MSDAS) Purpose

• Designed to gauge the progress of schools and
  districts toward getting all students to
  proficiency in English Language Arts and
  mathematics by 2014
• Enables policymakers, parents, and the public to
• assess the effectiveness and monitor the
  improvement of all public schools and districts
• hold school district leaders accountable for
  that performance and improvement
• identify where State intervention is needed

3
Why Proficiency?

• Proficiency in core academic subjects is the
  gateway to
• Opportunities for higher education
• Meaningful choices for employment in our
  21st-century high tech economy
• Full participation in community and civic life

4
MSDAS Basics

• School District Performance Ratings are
• Biannual (2002, 2004, 2006), as required by
  state law
• Descriptive terms
• Ratings for Performance and Improvement
• Based on aggregate MCAS student results
• Adequate Yearly Progress determinations are
• Issued every year, as required by federal law
• For students in aggregate and for eight subgroups
• Based on four factors
• participation, performance, improvement, and
  attendance (K-8 districts) or graduation rate
  (high schools)

5
What is AYP?

• Stands for Adequate Yearly Progress
• Means progress toward 100 of students achieving
  proficiency in key subject areas by 2014
• Measures progress against specific expectations
  each year

6
Composite Performance Index

• MA measures Proficiency with a 100-point index
  scale the CPI
• Points awarded based on number of students
  performing at each level on MCAS
• Different performance measures for students with
  significant cognitive disabilities who
  participate in MCAS- Alt
• Just arithmetic! Multiply, add, then divide.

7
Composite Performance Index
8
Sample CPI Calculation
9
State Performance Targets for ELA and
Mathematics 2002-2014
10
How is AYP Calculated?
(100 Cycle III CPI) / 5 x 2/3
11
18 AYP Determinations per School/District

• Each school and district receives AYP
  determinations
• in ELA/reading and in mathematics
• for students in the aggregate and each NCLB
  subgroup meeting the minimum size requirements

12
Subgroup Size

• 40 or more students AND
• Constitutes 5 or greater of total OR
• 200 students

13
AYP Report Sample
14
(No Transcript)
15
When Schools Do Not Make AYP for Two Consecutive
Years

• Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive
  years in either subject for any group are
  identified for improvement
• All schools identified for improvement must
  develop a plan for improving student performance
  
• Title I schools identified for improvement must
  also
• offer school choice (year 1 in improvement
  status)
• offer supplemental services (year 2 if fail to
  make AYP in year 1)

16
Corrective Action and Restructuring

• Schools identified for improvement that fail to
  make AYP for 2 additional years are identified
  for corrective action
• Schools in corrective action that fail to make
  AYP in 2005 are identified for restructuring

17
School Choice and Supplemental Educational
Services Notice to Parents

• Title I schools identified for Improvement,
  Corrective Action or Restructuring must offer
  school choice if alternative assignment options
  exist
• If school choice is required, parents must be
  notified, in writing, as soon as possible after
  districts receive notice of the designation

18
School Choice and Supplemental Educational
Services Notice to Parents

• Title I schools identified for Improvement (Year
  2), Corrective Action or Restructuring must
  offer supplemental educational services (SES) to
  low-income students
• If SES is required, parents must be notified of
  availability as soon as possible

19
AYP Appeals

• Objective is to render fair, reliable decisions
• Appeals may be filed to address perceived
  erroneous or unfair determinations where
• there are student enrollment data discrepancies
• data are missing or misplaced
• circumstances render the reported data invalid or
  unreliable
• application of the standard rules would render a
  result inconsistent with statutory intent, public
  policy, or sound professional judgment
• school or district provides evidence that it has
  taken specific action to improve the performance
  of an identified subgroup and MCAS results
  demonstrate significantly improved results for
  that subgroup in the following year

20
MA School Accountability Process

• Performance Ratings AYP Determinations
• Panel Review
• Determination of Under-performance
• Fact-Finding
• Performance Improvement Mapping
• Improvement Plan Reviewed by Board
• DOE Monitors Improvement Initiatives
• Year 2 Follow-up Review
• Determination of Chronic Under-performance

21
Link Between NCLB and Our States On-Site
Performance Review Process

• Schools identified for restructuring or
  corrective action undergo state panel review
• Panel Review Questions
• 1. Is there a sound plan for improving student
  performance?
• 2. Are the conditions in place for successful
  implementation of such a plan?

22
2005 MCAS AYP Reporting Schedule
23
2005 MCAS AYP Reporting Schedule
24
Online MSDAS Information

• MA School District Accountability System
  Explanatory Materialshttp//www.doe.mass.edu/sda/
  
• Mid-Cycle IV Materialshttp//www.doe.mass.edu/sda
  /ayp/cycleIVmid/
• School District Profiles/Directoryhttp//profil
  es.doe.mass.edu/
• Send questions to ATA_at_doe.mass.edu