Evaluators Meeting December 3, 2008 Rachel Perry, Director Policy and Evaluation Division - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Evaluators Meeting December 3, 2008 Rachel Perry, Director Policy and Evaluation Division PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 1e4b1-NDRhZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Evaluators Meeting December 3, 2008 Rachel Perry, Director Policy and Evaluation Division

Description:

... year adjusted rate and included on the report card. ... Plans for a new system in place for the 2009-10 school year. JACK O'CONNELL. State Superintendent ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:71
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 75
Provided by: jenny1
Learn more at: http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Evaluators Meeting December 3, 2008 Rachel Perry, Director Policy and Evaluation Division


1
Evaluators Meeting December 3, 2008 Rachel
Perry, Director Policy and Evaluation Division
Accountability Update
2
Title I, Part A Regulations
  • Jenny Singh, Consultant Policy and Evaluation
    Division

3
Background
  • On April 23, 2008, the U.S. Department of
    Education (ED) released a Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking.
  • The proposed regulations addressed key areas
    related to assessment, accountability,
    Supplemental Educational Services (SES), and
    public school choice.
  • More than 400 comments were received during the
    60 day comment period.

4
Background (cont.)
  • The Regulations were published in the Federal
    Register on October 29, 2008.
  • The regulations became effective on November 28,
    2008.

5
Overview of Final Regulations for Assessment and
Accountability
6
National Technical Advisory Council
  • Establish a National Technical Advisory Council
    (National TAC) to advise the Secretary of
    Education on key technical issues related to the
    design and implementation of standards,
    assessments, and accountability systems.

7
Minimum Subgroup Size
  • Submit Accountability Workbook for Peer Review
  • Explain how the states minimum subgroup size and
    other Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) definitions
    balance statistical reliability with maximum
    inclusion of all student groups.
  • Include the number and percentage of students and
    student subgroups currently excluded from
    school-level accountability.

8
Minimum Subgroup Size (cont.)
  • Submit revised Accountability Workbook for Peer
    Review in time to implement the new requirements
    for the AYP determination based on 2009-10
    assessment results (i.e., 2010 AYP reports).

9
Graduation Rate Goals and Improvement
  • Submit revised Accountability Workbook to obtain
    approval and implement, by 2009-10 (i.e., 2010
    AYP reports)
  • A graduation rate goal that all high schools are
    expected to meet
  • A definition of continuous and substantial
    improvement if the goal is not met

10
Uniform Graduation Rate
  • All states must use the four-year adjusted cohort
    graduation rate.
  • Report the adjusted cohort graduation rate on
    report cards that provide assessment results for
    2010-2011 (aggregated and disaggregated by
    subgroup).

11
Uniform Graduation Rate (cont.)
  • Use adjusted cohort graduation rate for AYP
    determinations based on 2011-12 assessment data
    (aggregated and disaggregated by subgroup).

12
Graduation Rate Definition
  • The number of students who graduate in four years
    or less with a regular high school diploma
    divided by the number of students who form the
    Adjusted Cohort for that graduation class.

13
Adjusted Cohort
  • The Adjusted Cohort is
  • The number of students who enter grade 9
  • Plus
  • The number of students who transfer into that
    cohort in grades 9-12
  • Minus
  • The number of students who are removed from the
    cohort

14
Criteria for Removing Students from Adjusted
Cohort
  • The student transfers out and there is written
    documentation that the student is enrolled in
    another educational program that results in a
    regular high school diploma
  • Students enrolled in General Educational
    Development (GED) programs are not removed and
    are not counted as graduates
  • Retained students are not removed and are not
    counted as four-year graduates

15
Criteria for Removing Students from Adjusted
Cohort (cont.)
  • The student emigrated to another county
  • The student is deceased

16
Extended-Year Adjusted Cohort Rate
Approved additional graduation rate option
  • A state may request approval for an extended-year
    adjusted cohort graduation rate to take into
    account students who take longer than four years
    to graduate.
  • The extended rate must be reported separately
    from the four-year adjusted rate and included on
    the report card.
  • States must indicate how the extended rate will
    be used for AYP determinations.

17
State and LEA Report Cards
  • Requires states and local educational agencies
    (LEAs) to report the most recent available
    results from the state National Assessment of
    Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and
    mathematics assessments on the same public report
    cards that states use to report the results of
    the state assessments (i.e., School
    Accountability Report Card or SARC).

18
Contact Information
  • Jenny Singh, Consultant
  • Evaluation, Research and Analysis Unit
  • 916-319-0437 jsingh_at_cde.ca.gov

19
Title III Accountability Update
  • Cathy George, Consultant Policy and Evaluation
    Division

20
New in 2008-09
  • Responsibility for Title III Accountability moved
    to the Evaluation, Research and Analysis Unit.
  • Title III results were released on September 4,
    2008 at the same time as AYP results.
  • Title III program and fiscal issues remain in the
    Language Policy and Leadership Office.

21
Title III Accountability
  • Title III subgrantees
  • LEAs
  • districts
  • county offices of education
  • direct funded charter schools
  • Consortia
  • Accountability reports prepared only for Title
    III funded subgrantees (N 628)

22
Title III Accountability (cont.)
  • Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO) 1
    - Annual Progress in learning English
  • AMAO 2 - Attaining English proficiency on the
    California English Language Development Test
    (CELDT)
  • AMAO 3 - Meeting AYP for the English Learner (EL)
    subgroup at the LEA level

23
CELDT Performance Levels
  • Beginning (B)
  • Early Intermediate (EI)
  • Intermediate (I)
  • Early Advanced (EA)
  • Advanced (A)

English proficient on CELDT An overall score of
EA or A with all domain scores at the I
level or above
24
AMAO 1 Annual Progress in Learning English
  • Each EL has an annual growth target based on
    their previous CELDT score
  • Annual Growth Target
  • ELs at B, EI, and I must gain one
    performance level
  • ELs at EA and A must reach the English
    proficient level (bring all domain scores up to
    the I level)
  • ELs at the English proficient level are expected
    to maintain that level

25
AMAO 2 Attaining English Proficiency on the
CELDT
  • Describes the percent of students who have
    attained the English proficient level on the
    Annual CELDT.
  • The cohort for AMAO 2 includes those ELs who
    could reasonably be expected to achieve the
    English proficient level.

26
AMAO 3 Academic Achievement
  • EL subgroup for the LEA or consortia must meet
    AYP targets in all four areas
  • English-language arts (ELA)
  • Participation rate
  • Percent Proficient or above
  • Mathematics
  • Participation rate
  • Percent Proficient or above

27
AMAO 3 Academic Achievement (cont.)
  • EL subgroup for AYP includes Reclassified
    Fluent-English- Proficient (RFEP) students until
    they score Proficient or above 3 times on the
    California Standards Test (CST) in ELA.

28
2007-08 Title III Accountability Reports
  • Preliminary data for AMAOs 1 and 2 were released
    August 8, 2008. This includes school level data
    when the number in the cohort for AMAOs 1 and 2
    is greater than 25.
  • 2007-08 Accountability reports and the Title III
    research file were released on September 4, 2008.

29
AYP Updates
  • As AYP data are updated, AMAO 3 is updated as
    well to reflect any changes in AMAO 3 for the EL
    subgroup.
  • An AYP update is expected in February 2009.

30
2007-08 Percent of Subgrantees Meeting AMAOs
  • AMAO 1 - 82 of LEAs/consortia
  • AMAO 2 - 77 of LEAs/consortia
  • AMAO 3 - 38 of LEAs/consortia
  • Met all three AMAOs 36 of LEAs/consortia

Source November 18, 2008 data release
31
AMAO Year Status
  • 189 Year 1 LEAs/Consortia
  • 84 Year 2 LEAs/Consortia
  • 11 Year 3 LEAs
  • 58 Year 4 LEAs (newly identified)
  • 92 Year 4 LEAs (continuing)
  • 194 LEAs/Consortia met all 3 AMAOs

Source November 18, 2008 data release
32
Title III Accountability
  • Link to Accountability Reports
  • Information Guides
  • Lists of Title III LEAs and Consortia not meeting
    AMAOs
  • Research files
  • Web page http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/

33
Notice of Final Interpretations of Title III AMAOs
  • Proposed interpretations released by ED in May
    2008.
  • Final interpretations published in the Federal
    Register on October 17, 2008.
  • States are expected to implement the
    interpretations for the 2009-10 school year.

34
Notice of Final Interpretations
  • Many of the concerns California had with the
    interpretations released in May are addressed in
    the final interpretations.
  • There are some adjustments that will need to be
    made in the accountability system.

35
Interpretation 8
AMAOs and the use of cohorts
  • Requires California to redefine AMAO 2.
  • Does not allow the use of prior proficiency level
    in the selection of the cohort for AMAO 2.
  • If cohorts are established for AMAO 2 they must
    be based on time in language instruction
    education programs.

36
Interpretation 8 (cont.)
AMAOs and the Use of Cohorts
  • If cohorts are established for AMAO 1 or AMAO 2
    then the subgrantees must meet the targets for
    all cohorts in order to be considered to have met
    the AMAO.

37
Interpretations 6 and 9
Minimum Group Size and Accountability at the
Consortia Level
  • Requires that states aggregate data to a group
    level if the numbers for an LEA or group of LEAs
    are not sufficient to determine if the LEA has
    met each of the AMAOs.

38
Interpretations 6 and 9 (cont.)
Minimum Group Size and Accountability at the
Consortia Level
  • In order for an LEA to have results for AMAO 3
    they must meet minimum subgroup size for AYP.
  • In nearly all cases, this requires that small
    LEAs be aggregated to the consortia level in
    order to have a value for AMAO 3.

39
Interpretation 4
Exclusion of Students Without Two Data Points
from AMAO 1
  • It is not necessary for the two English language
    proficiency (ELP) assessments to be in
    consecutive years to measure growth in learning
    English.

40
Interpretation 4 (cont.)
Exclusion of Students Without Two Data Points
from AMAO 1
  • If a student has participated in two
    administrations of a States ELP assessment,
    progress can be measured and should be included
    in AMAO 1.

41
For More Information
  • The Notice of Final Interpretations is posted on
    the National Clearinghouse for English Language
    Acquisition Web page at http//www.ncela.gwu.edu/
  • Search site for Title III Notice of Final
    Interpretations.
  • Site also contains PowerPoint presentations and
    other information on the Notice of Final
    Interpretations.

42
Contact Information
  • Cathy George, Consultant
  • Evaluation, Research and Analysis Unit
  • 916-319-0875 amao_at_cde.ca.gov

43
School Accountability Report Card
  • Paula Bellacera, Administrator Policy and
    Evaluation Division

44
SARC Template and Data Definitions
  • The State Board of Education annually approves a
    model template containing all the SARC reporting
    elements required by state and federal laws.
  • LEAs may use the model template or design their
    own report cards, as long as all the required
    elements are included.

45
SARC Structure
  • The SARC is a data reporting tool.
  • Contains 36 reporting elements
  • Most data are provided by the California
    Department of Education (CDE), and other data
    provided must be provided by the LEA
  • Typically reports on data from the prior school
    year, exceptions include Williams and contact
    information.
  • Dynamically linked to most sources.

46
SARC Content Requirements
  • Demographic data and facility information
  • Academic data
  • Teacher and staff information
  • Curriculum and instruction information
  • School finances information

47
SARC Content Requirements (cont.)
  • Adequate Yearly Progress determinations and Title
    1 Program Improvement status
  • Other information

48
New SARC Requirements
  • Annual February 1 publication deadline beginning
    with the 2008-09 school year.
  • Visual and Performing Arts (VPA) added to the
    content areas that are subject to the sufficiency
    of instructional materials requirement.
  • VPA textbook sufficiency analysis is not required
    to be part of Education Code Section 60119
    analysis.

49
New SARC Requirements (cont.)
  • Description concerning the DataQuest Web page,
    including the Uniform Resource Locator for the
    Web page
  • Description of the admission requirements for
    Californias public universities, including the
    Uniform Resource Locator for the Web page
  • Statement concerning the availability of Internet
    access at public libraries and other publicly
    accessible locations

50
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Reporting Requirements
  • Teacher credential status
  • Core academic classes taught by NCLB compliant
    teachers
  • CST (Assessment results used for AYP
    determination)
  • California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE)
    test results by federal performance level

51
NCLB Reporting Requirements (cont.)
  • Academic Performance Index (API) (additional AYP
    indicator)
  • AYP status determination
  • Federal Program Improvement (PI) status
    determination (Year in PI)
  • Graduation rates (required AYP indicator)

52
NCLB Required Information and the SARC
  • LEAs are not required to prepare an
    accountability report card at the LEA level to
    meet the requirements of NCLB as long as all LEA
    NCLB reporting requirements are incorporated into
    the school level SARC.
  • The SARC template provided by the CDE contains
    all NCLB requirements at the school and LEA level.

53
NCLB Required Information and the SARC (cont.)
  • A thoroughly completed SARC serves as an NCLB LEA
    accountability report card as well as a school
    level SARC.
  • Note If an LEA has included NCLB required
    information in the SARC, LEA personnel must be
    able to explain that the SARC meets both federal
    NCLB and State reporting requirements.

54
CDE Support for SARC
  • SARC template in English translated into other
    languages
  • Arabic, Armenian, Chinese (simplified and
    traditional), Farsi (Persian), Hmong, Japanese,
    Korean, Lao, Pilipino (Tagalog), Portuguese
    (Brazilian), Portuguese (Continental), Punjabi,
    Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese

55
CDE Support for SARC (cont.)
  • The SARC template with data for English and
    Spanish has been available since November 5,
    2008.
  • The SARC template with data for Chinese
    (simplified and traditional), Vietnamese, and
    Korean were also available in November 2008.
  • The SARC data files have been available since
    November 2008.

56
Online Access to SARC Reports
  • SARC reports are available on the Find a School
    Report Card Web page at http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/a
    c/sa/.

57
Contact Information
  • Carlos Rivera, Consultant
  • - or - Hussam Zarea, Consultant
  • Evaluation, Research and Analysis Unit
  • 916-319-0875 sarc_at_cde.ca.gov

58
Alternative Schools Accountability Model
  • Paula Bellacera, Administrator Policy and
    Evaluation Division

59
ASAM Basics
  • Accountability system for schools that serve
    highly mobile, at-risk student populations.
  • Established by the Public Schools Accountability
    Act (PSAA) of 1999.
  • Schools apply to participate in the program and
    select three indicators from an approved list.

59
60
ASAM Basics (cont.)
  • Before NCLB, ASAM was the only accountability
    system for these schools.
  • ASAM schools did not receive an API
  • Now, schools that participate in the ASAM system
    also receive an AYP Report and are subject to PI.

60
61
ASAM Challenges
  • Not consistent across sites
  • Only moderately based in academic indicators

61
62
ASAM Revision
  • In 2006, the Alternative Accountability
    Subcommittee of the PSAA recommended
    strengthening the ASAM system.
  • Greater emphasis on academic performance.
  • More valid and reliable.
  • Fair, credible, feasible.

62
63
ASAM Revision (cont.)
  • The State Board if Education (SBE) approved a
    conceptual framework for a strengthened ASAM
    system to the SBE in November 2008.
  • Will seek final SBE approval in July 2009.
  • Currently working with technical advisors.

63
64
ASAM Revision (cont.)
  • Plans for a new system in place for the 2009-10
    school year

64
65
Conceptual Framework
Three types of indicators are included in the
revised ASAM
  • Academic Achievement Indicators
  • Learning Readiness Indicators
  • Transition Indicators

66
Conceptual Framework Academic Achievement
Indicators
  • Proposed indicators include
  • ELA and mathematics components of the CAHSEE at
    the high school level
  • Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
    Program grade-specific tests at the elementary
    and middle school levels
  • Pre-post test

67
Conceptual Framework Learning Readiness Indicators
  • A primary purpose of alternative schools is to
    promote learning readiness, improve behavior, and
    ensure student safety and attendance

68
Conceptual Framework Transition Indicators
Measures of whether a student graduated or
remained in school such as
  • Graduation
  • Re-enrollment at a traditional or other
    alternative school
  • Continued enrollment at the students current
    school

69
Conceptual Framework Example of Revised ASAM
Indicator Structure
70
Fiscal Impact
  • The revised ASAM would not require additional
    state or local funding.
  • Participation by schools in the ASAM program is
    voluntary.
  • Therefore, there are no state mandated costs that
    would impact local educational agencies.

71
Implementation Timeline
  • November 2008 to July 2009 Review and research
    indicators develop recommendations
  • July 2009 Present the SBE with an action item
    with recommendations for a revised ASAM
  • September 2009 to June 2010 Collect indicators
    under both the current ASAM and the revised ASAM

72
Implementation Timeline (cont).
  • November 2008 to July 2009 Review and research
    indicators develop recommendations
  • July 2009 Present the SBE with an action item
    with recommendations for a revised ASAM
  • September 2009 to June 2010 Collect indicators
    under both the current ASAM and the revised ASAM

73
Additional ASAM Information
  • ASAM Web page
  • http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/am/

74
Contact Information
  • Jan Volkoff, Consultant
  • Evaluation, Research and Analysis Unit
  • 916-319-0875 asam_at_cde.ca.gov
About PowerShow.com