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 year’s status.

5

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 Progressing 100

Needs Improvement High 230 – 238 Emerging 75

Needs Improvement Low 220 – 228 Awareness 50

Warning / Failing High 210 – 218 Portfolio Incomplete 25

Warning / Failing Low 200 – 208 Portfolio not Submitted 0

Composite Performance Index (CPI)

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 90 students 7025 Points

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

PARTICIPATION: Did at least 95% of students participate in MCAS in 2009?A

• 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

PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2009 performance target? (ELA = 90.2, Math = 84.3)B

10

A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2009 performance target? (ELA = 90.2, Math = 84.3)B

ELA

Math

2001 & 02 2003 & 04 2005 & 06 2007 & 08 2009 & 10 2011 & 12 2013 & 14

53.0

60.8

68.7

76.5

84.3

92.2

100

70.775.6

80.585.4

90.295.1

100

90

80

70

60

50

Com

posi

te P

erfo

rman

ce In

dex

(CPI

)

11

A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2009 performance target? (ELA = 90.2, Math = 84.3)B

(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

Minimum “N” Size Rules:

• 20 in the aggregate• 40 for student groups (and at least 5% of total;

groups of 200+ always included)

12

A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target?C

Performance… Improvement…

Is an absolute measure Is a relative measure

Is measured by comparing a group’s 2009 CPI to the 2009 state

performance target

Is measured by looking at a group’s 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

IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target?C

100

2001 & 02 2003 & 04 2005 & 06 2007 & 08 2009 & 10 2011 & 12 2013 & 14

70.775.6

80.585.4

90.295.1

100

90

80

70

60

50

70.0 (2008)

77.2 (2009)

Did this group meet its 2009 performance target?

2009 ELA state perf. target = 90.22009 CPI for group = 77.2No, because 77.2 < 90.2

Com

posi

te P

erfo

rman

ce In

dex

(CPI

)

ELA Example

14

A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target?C

ELA Example

2001 & 02 2003 & 04 2005 & 06 2007 & 08 2009 & 10 2011 & 12 2013 & 14

100

70.775.6

80.585.4

90.295.1

100

90

80

70

60

50

70.0 (2008)

77.2 (2009)

Did this group meet its 2009 improvement target?

Com

posi

te P

erfo

rman

ce In

dex

(CPI

)

(100-2008 CPI) ÷ 6 Years100 – 70 = 30 points remaining

30 ÷ 6 = 5 points per year70 + 5 = 75 (imp. target for 2009)

Yes, because 77.2 > 75

15

(B) Performance (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

IMPROVEMENT: Did the student group meet its own 2009 improvement target?C

A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

16

ADDITIONAL INDICATOR: Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)?D

A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

(D) Attendance

% Change Met Target

Aggregate 93.6 0.0 Yes

Low Income 91.1 -2.0 No

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

Student groups in schools and districts serving grades 1-8 must:

17

ADDITIONAL INDICATOR: Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)?D

A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination

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.

(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

18

Summary / Detailed Data Links

2009 AYP Data – School Summary

AYP History

Title I Status, Choice / SES

19

2009 AYP Data – School Detail

20

2009 AYP Data – District Summary

Grade span AYP Determinations

AYP History

Summary / Detailed Data Links

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 NotificationPlanning10% 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 fundsState takes 1+ corrective actions

24

• 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

2009 NCLB Accountability Highlights

25

ResourcesContact Us: ayp@doe.mass.edu / 781-338-3550School 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 Leader’s 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