Closing the GAP - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Closing the GAP PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 68e654-OTNmZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Closing the GAP

Description:

Closing the GAP No Child Left Behind (ESEA) – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:5
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 63
Provided by: PennyN
Learn more at: http://www.ovsd.us
Category:

less

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

Title: Closing the GAP


1
Closing the GAP
  • No Child Left Behind (ESEA)

2
Whos To Blame
The college professor said, Such rawness in a
student is a shame. Lack of preparation in the
high school is to blame, Said the high school
teacher Good heavens! That boys a fool. The
fault of course, is with the middle school. The
middle school teacher said, From such stupidity
may I be spared. They sent him up so
unprepared. The primary teacher huffed,
Kindergarten blockheads all. They call that
preparation Why, its worse than none at
all. The kindergarten teacher said, Such lack
of training never did I see. What kind of a
woman must that mother be? The mother said,
Poor helpless child. Hes not to blame. His
fathers people were all the same. Said the
father at the end of the line, I doubt the
rascals even mine!
3
Before we begin Just a little history
lesson
4
The 1960s Brought..
  • Man on the moon
  • Voting Rights Act
  • Civil Rights Act
  • Head Start
  • Medicare
  • AND.

5
The First ESEA!! (in 1965)
6
If you can remember the 60s
You werent there!!
7
2001 ESEA Reauthorization Act
Congress took the engine out of ESEA and
Attempted to create
8
A New Vehicle
Whether this is really a New Vehicle or a
K-Car is still to be determined!
9
Is this student in your class?
  • My teacher is real tricky. I study hard --
    she gives me an easy test.
  • I dont study -- she gives me a hard
    test.

3.16
10
ESEA 2001 Final Vote
House 381-41 Senate 87-10 95.2 of
Democrats and
86.3 of Republicans
Voted for Passage
11
Closing the Achievement Gap
  • Disaggregating the Data
  • Ethnicity
  • LEP
  • SES
  • Disability

12
Promoting Accountability
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
  • 12 years to reach 100 proficiency
  • Baseline data
  • 2001/2002 results
  • Subgroups
  • AYP accumulative

13
Adequate Yearly Progress
14
Multiple Measures Adequate Yearly Progress
(2002-03)
Reading Math
Grade 4 40.5 35.9
Grade 6 36.0 36.8
Grade 9 78.0 53.1
15
NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (2004-05 targets)
Grade Span Reading Math
Elementary 71.3 (Grade 3 achievement) 46.5 (Grade 4 proficiency)
Middle 47.0 (Grade 6 proficiency) 46.3 (Grade 6 proficiency)
High 71.8 (Grade 10 OGT) 60.0 (Grade 10 OGT)
16
SAFE HARBOR
  • If a school building or district fails to meet
    the annual measurable objective, or if one or
    more subgroups fail to meet the annual measurable
    objective, then the school building or district
    makes adequate yearly progress if
  • The percentage of tested students in that
    building, district, or subgroup below the
    proficient achievement level decreases by at
    least 10 percent from the preceding year.

17
(No Transcript)
18
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS
  • Year One
  • Improvement Plan

19
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS (continued)
  • YEAR TWO
  • Offer School Choice
  • Notify parents
  • Option to transfer
  • Transportation provided

20
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS (continued)
  • Year Three
  • Offer supplemental services and school choice

21
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS (continued)
  • Year Four
  • Continue to offer school choice and supplemental
    services.
  • District takes corrective action, including one
    of the following
  • Institute new curriculum
  • Decrease school management authority
  • Appoint an outside expert
  • Extend school year or day
  • Replace the principal and/or other key staff
  • Secure an external manager
  • Close the building and reassign students
  • Redesign the building


22
Consequences All Districts
after 4 years missing AYP
  • Less Intrusive
  • Withhold Title I funds
  • New curriculum
  • Alternate governance for particular schools
  • More Intrusive
  • Replace key staff
  • Appoint trustee in place of superintendent
    school board

23
District Designations AYP (2003-04 results)
24
AYP Applies to
  • Now
  • All public schools districts, including
    community schools
  • Regardless of Title I funding
  • Previously
  • Title I funded schools districts only

25
Ohios New Accountability System
  • Ohios Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

a.k.a. Elementary Secondary Education
Act a.k.a. ESEA
26
Challenges
  • Tougher system
  • New ground-rules
  • All students accounted for
  • Group, as well as aggregate, performance counts
  • Creates new starting point for judging future
    performance
  • 2002-03 results are not directly comparable to
    past years

27
Opportunities
  • Multiple ways to tell the achievement story
  • Highlights the achievement of all students
  • Ohios educators have been improving achievement
    for almost a decade -- we believe that 2003-04
    and beyond will result in continuing improvement

28
Tests Administered
  • Now
  • Grades 3-8, 10
  • 5 subjects
  • Reading
  • Mathematics
  • Writing
  • Science
  • Social studies
  • Previously
  • Grades 4, 6, 9
  • 5 subjects
  • Reading
  • Mathematics
  • Writing
  • Science
  • Citizenship

29
Test Performance Levels
  • Achievement Tests
  • Advanced
  • Accelerated
  • Proficient
  • Basic
  • Limited
  • Proficiency Tests
  • Advanced
  • Proficient
  • Basic
  • Below Basic

30
Same Five Designations for Ohio
  • Excellent
  • Effective
  • Continuous Improvement
  • Academic Watch
  • Academic Emergency

31
Multiple Measures Ohio Performance Index
  • More sensitive to gradations of achievement than
    indicators
  • Credits achievement at all performance levels
  • Weights higher performance more than lower
    performance
  • Rewards advanced performance

32
Multiple Measures Ohio Performance Index
  • Advanced 1.2
  • Accelerated 1.1
  • Proficient 1.0
  • Basic 0.6
  • Below Basic 0.3
  • Untested 0.0

33
Multiple Measures Performance Index
34
2002-03 Report Card Content
  • Now
  • Percent of performance indicators
  • Performance index score
  • Improvement
  • AYP
  • Designation
  • Previously
  • Percent of performance (local report card)
    indicators met
  • Designation

35
New Report Card Criteria Multiple Ways of
Earning Designations
36
Designations
Designations Districts Districts Schools Schools
Designations 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004
Excellent 85 117 630 920
Effective 177 229 771 906
Continuous Improvement 278 224 1,242 1,207
Academic Watch 52 34 237 126
Academic Emergency 16 4 338 225
Not Rated 4 4 500 518
37
Change in Designation from Last Year
Districts Districts Schools Schools

Moved Up 177 29 1,024 30
Moved Down 29 5 288 9
38
Excellent or Effective
DISTRICTS 57
SCHOOLS 54
39
Excellent, Effective, or Continuous Improvement
DISTRICTS 94
SCHOOLS 90
40
Performance Index Score (all grades)
41
Improved Performance Index Score
DISTRICTS 87
SCHOOLS 79
42
At Least 10-point Gain in Performance Index Score
over Two Years
Districts Districts Schools Schools

36 6 361 26
43
Performance Level Percent Number Weight Score
Advanced 11.7 97 1.2 14.0
Proficient 54.1 449 1.0 54.1
Basic 16.5 137 0.6 9.9
Limited 17.7 147 0.3 5.3
Untested 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 100.0 830 83.3
Performance Level Percent Number Weight Score
Advanced 15.3 127 1.2 18.4
Proficient 57.7 479 1.0 57.7
Basic 20.1 167 0.6 12.1
Limited 6.9 57 0.3 2.1
Untested 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 100.0 830 90.2
44
The PI Calculator
  • http//www.ode.state.oh.us/accountability/performa
    nceindexcal.xls

45
Improved Reading Proficiency over Last Year
Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 6 Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency) Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency)

Districts 435 72 300 49 416 68
Schools 1,280 66 621 50 488 73
46
Improved Mathematics Proficiency over Last Year
Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 6 Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency) Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency)

Districts 493 81 560 92 426 70
Schools 1,392 71 1,095 88 495 70
47
2004-05 Performance Indicators -- 23 Total
  • 21 test indicators
  • Proficiency Tests
  • Grade 4 math, science, citizenship
  • Grade 6 reading, math, writing, science,
    citizenship
  • Achievement Tests
  • Reading grades 3, 4, 5, 8
  • Math grades 3, 7, 8
  • Writing grade 4
  • OGT Grade 10 reading, math, writing, science,
    social studies
  • Graduation rate
  • Attendance rate

48
Operating Standards for Ohios Schools Serving
Children with Disabilities Ages 3-21 Effective
July 1, 2002
  • Overview and Implications

49
Changes
  • Flexibility in conducting evaluations
  • Interventions
  • Prior to an evaluation
  • Intervention data used to determine eligibility
  • Parent involved in eligibility determination

50
Student Intervention
  • Required for
  • 3rd graders reading below proficient -- intense
    remediation
  • Students scoring below proficient on
    achievement tests
  • Students failing to make satisfactory progress
    toward attaining grade level academic standards
    on diagnostic tests
  • 9th graders scoring below proficient on the
    10th grade practice test

51
Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of
Reading Difficulty
5
Alligator
4
Low Risk on Early Screening
Children get tested Here
Reading grade level
3
Gap Starts Small
2
Screen Early Why wait to Fail
At Risk on Early Screening
1
1 2 3 4
This Slide from Reading First Experts
Grade level corresponding to age
52
Early Intervention Changes Reading Outcomes
5.2
5
4
Low Risk on Early Screening
Reading grade level
3
2.5
2
At Risk on Early Screening
1
1 2 3 4
This Slide from Reading First Experts
Grade level corresponding to age
53
Implication Interventions
General Education
Interventions
IEP Specialized Instruction
MFE
54
Changes Involvement and Progress in the General
Curriculum
Performance Standards
Content Standards
Child Progress
  • Close the Achievement Gap
  • Involvement of General Education Teacher
  • Ensure FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment

55
Change Districts Required to Include Special
Education in the District-wide Planning
Professional Development
Service Providers
DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN
Building Plans
Housing
56
Implications
Education
General Education
Special Education
Child Focus Needs Based
57
Implication
Academic Content Standards
IEP
Child Progress
58
Implications
Education
General Education
Strategic Plan
Special Education
Special Education
Specialized Instruction
59
Percent of Total vs. Students with Disabilities
  • Learning Disabilities 5 of total
  • 47 of SWD
  • Speech/Language 2 of total
  • 17.5 of SWD
  • Mental Retardation (C.D.) 1 of total
  • 9.7 of SWD
  • Mild to Moderate .66 of SWD
  • Moderate to Severe .33 of SWD

60
A Final Thought. Considerable evidence
supports this conclusion The differences in
achievement observed between and among students
of culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds
and students of mainstreamed backgrounds are NOT
the results of differences in ability to learn.
Rather, they are the result of differences in the
quality of the instruction these young people
receive in school. Marietta Saravia-Shore and
Eugene Garcia Diverse Teaching Strategies for
Learners ASCD, 1995 Therefore it is
imperative That teachers provide
instruction using a variety of formats and
strategies
61
(No Transcript)
62
Information You Need to Know
  • Title I Budget
  • Percentage that goes to personnel
  • Total staff employed by Title I
  • District Accountability Report
  • AYP Calculations
  • Performance Index Scores
About PowerShow.com