Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations

1
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and
Accountability Status Determinations

• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
  Secondary Education
• September 17 18, 2009

2
Topics

• Review and Reporting Schedule
• AYP Basics
• Composite Performance Index (CPI)
• Four Factors that Determine AYP
• AYP Report Overview
• Accountability Status and Required Actions
• Contact Information

3
Review and Reporting Schedule

• Monday, 8/17 Preliminary 2009 district and
  school AYP data provided electronically to
  superintendents and principals via the Preview
  of 2009 AYP Data application on the Security
  Portal www4.doemass.org/auth/Login/
• Wednesday, 8/19 Notice sent to superintendents
  and principals whose district and schools are
  expected to be identified for improvement,
  corrective action, or restructuring based on
  preliminary 2009 AYP data
• Friday, 8/21 Deadline to report AYP
  discrepancies via the Security Portal
• Tuesday, 9/15 Official embargoed district and
  school AYP reports provided electronically for
  district review on the Security Portal
• Wednesday, 9/16 Official AYP reports and lists
  of schools and districts in improvement status
  released to the public
• Friday, 9/18 Drive-In AYP Information Session
  at Marlborough H.S.

4
Adequate Yearly Progress Facts

• AYP reports show progress toward having all
  students reach grade level proficiency by the
  year 2014 the principal goal of NCLB
• AYP determinations are issued separately for ELA
  and Math
• For each subject there are multiple AYP
  determinations - for all students (the aggregate)
  and for student groups. Students are counted in
  each group to which they belong.
• District AYP determinations are based on
  grade-span results (3-5 6-8 9-12). Positive
  results for all groups in any grade-span yields a
  positive AYP determination.
• Schools and districts that do not make AYP for
  two or more consecutive years in the same subject
  are identified for improvement, corrective
  action, or restructuring to focus efforts on
  improving student performance.
• Schools and districts with an accountability
  status that make AYP for a single year remain at
  the previous years status.

5
Composite Performance Index (CPI)

• The CPI is
• a metric we use to measure school and district
  performance and improvement
• a 100-point index that combines the scores of
  students who participate in standard MCAS ELA and
  mathematics tests, and those who participate in
  the MCAS-Alt.

MCAS Performance Level Scaled Score Range OR MCAS-Alt Performance Level Points Per Student
Proficient or Advanced 240 280 OR Progressing 100
Needs Improvement High 230 238 OR Emerging 75
Needs Improvement Low 220 228 OR Awareness 50
Warning / Failing High 210 218 OR Portfolio Incomplete 25
Warning / Failing Low 200 208 OR Portfolio not Submitted 0
6
Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Multiply the number of points by the number of
students at each performance level, then divide
the total number of points by the total number of
students (example below)
MCAS Performance Level MCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics Points Per Student Students Points
Proficient or Advanced / Progressing 100 32 3200
Needs Improvement High / Emerging 75 45 3375
Needs Improvement Low / Awareness 50 7 350
Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete 25 4 100
Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not Submitted 0 2 0
Totals Totals 90 students 7025 Points
7025 90 78.1 7025 90 78.1 7025 90 78.1 7025 90 78.1
7
Four Factors Determine AYP
A Participation Did at least 95 of students participate in MCAS in 2009?
B Performance Did the student group perform at or above the 2009 state performance target? (ELA 90.2, Math 84.3)
C Improvement Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target?
D Additional Indicator Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)?
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
8
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination

• Students are counted in each group to which they
  belong.
• Calculated by taking all students enrolled in the
  school or district during the testing window
  divided by the number of students taking MCAS
  tests.
• The testing window is defined as any student
  reported in SIMS as enrolled in the school in
  both the March and June SIMS submissions.
• District participation calculations include
  students enrolled in outplacements at district
  expense.

9
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination

• Performance targets established between 2001 and
  2014, as required by NCLB
• Targets set separately for ELA and for
  mathematics
• Performance expectations increase every 2 years
• Performance is measured using CPI
• AYP determinations based on one year of data each
  year

10
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
11
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
(B) Performance (B) Performance (B) Performance
N 2009 CPI Met Target (90.2)
Aggregate 1000 92.0 Yes
Lim. English Prof. 39 87.2 -
Special Ed. 40 88.1 -
Low Income 50 85.0 No

• 20 in the aggregate
• 40 for student groups (and at least 5 of total
  groups of 200 always included)

Minimum N Size Rules
12
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
Performance Improvement
Is an absolute measure Is a relative measure
Is measured by comparing a groups 2009 CPI to the 2009 state performance target Is measured by looking at a groups change in CPI from 2008 to 2009
Answers the question, Did the group perform at or above the 2009 state performance target? (ELA 90.2, Math 84.3) Answers the question, Did the group improve from 2008 to 2009 so that it is on track to 100 grade level proficiency by 2014?
13
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
100
14
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
15
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
(B) Performance (B) Performance (B) Performance (C) Improvement (C) Improvement (C) Improvement (C) Improvement
N 2009CPI Met Target (90.2) 2008 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target
Aggregate 164 88.9 No 85.6 2.4 85.6-90.5 Yes
Lim. English Prof. 94 87.8 No 83.4 2.8 83.4-90.2 Yes

• The improvement target is expressed as a range
• An error band surrounds the target number
• Error bands range from 2.5 to 4.5, depending on
  size of group 2.5 is typical

16
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
(D) Attendance (D) Attendance (D) Attendance
Change Met Target
Aggregate 93.6 0.0 Yes
Low Income 91.1 -2.0 No
Student groups in schools and districts serving
grades 1-8 must

• Have an attendance rate of 92 or higher, or
• Improve by at least 1 percentage point from the
  previous year

17
A (B or C) D Affirmative AYP Determination
(D) Attendance (D) Attendance (D) Attendance (D) Attendance
2008 (4yr) Change (4yr) 2007 (5yr) Met Target
Aggregate 83.5 2.4 82.0 Yes
Low Income 64.0 -5.1 91.5 Yes
Student groups in schools and districts serving
grades 9-12 must have

• a four-year graduation rate of 65 percent applied
  to the 2008 graduation cohort, or
• a two percentage point increase in the four-year
  graduation rate from the 2007 cohort to 2008
  cohort, or
• a five-year graduation rate of 70 percent applied
  to the 2007 graduation cohort.

18
2009 AYP Data School Summary
Title I Status, Choice / SES
Summary / Detailed Data Links
AYP History
19
2009 AYP Data School Detail
20
2009 AYP Data District Summary
Summary / Detailed Data Links
Grade span AYP Determinations
AYP History
21
2009 AYP Data District Detail
22
NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions
(School Level)
Years Not Making AYP NCLB Accountability Status Required Actions
0 1 No Status None
2 Improvement (Year 1) Parent/Guardian notification, Planning, School Choice
3 Improvement (Year 2) Above requirements plus SES
4 Corrective Action Above requirements plus district takes 1 corrective actions
5 Restructuring (Year 1) Above requirements plus district plans for fundamental reform
6 Restructuring (Year 2) Above requirements plus district restructures school
School Choice SES apply to Title I schools
only.
23
NCLB Accountability Status and Required Actions
(District Level)
Years Not Making AYP NCLB Accountability Status Required Actions
0 1 No Status None
2 Improvement (Year 1) Parent/Guardian Notification Planning 10 set aside of Title I funds for P.D. Limitations on transferability of federal funds
3 Improvement (Year 2) Same as above
4 Corrective Action Above requirements plus Prohibition on transfer of federal funds State takes 1 corrective actions
24
2009 NCLB Accountability Highlights

• 937 schools (54) in improvement status in 2009
• Up from 840 (50) in 2008
• 109 districts (28) in improvement status
• Including 29 charters, 8 voc/techs, and 17 other
  single-school districts
• Up from 89 in 2008 (including 26 charters, 6
  voc/techs, and 11 other single-school districts)
• 21 schools recognized for exiting accountability
  status

25
Resources

• Contact Us ayp_at_doe.mass.edu / 781-338-3550
• School and District Accountability and Assistance
  News www.doe.mass.edu/sda/
• 2009 AYP Materials www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2009/
  default.html
• 2009 MCAS and AYP Data Review and Release
  Schedule
• School Leaders Guide to the 2009 Adequate Yearly
  Progress Reports
• 2009-10 School and District NCLB Accountability
  Status and Required Actions
• 2009 Glossary of AYP Reporting Terms
• Sample Parent/Guardian Notifications (NCLB
  Accountability Status/NCLB School Choice,
  Supplemental Educational Services (SES) , and
  Right-To-Know)
• Federal Non-Regulatory Guidance on District and
  School Improvement
• Giving Parents Options Strategies for Informing
  Parents and Implementing Public School Choice and
  Supplemental Educational Services Under No Child
  Left Behind
• Student Performance Goal Spreadsheet