Management Time

Clock Hours Information

State of School Address

District Leadership Team

Contract Overview

(9/4 Building Administrators & 9/18 Building Teams)

I can now relate to Miss South Carolina 2007

Assessment & AccountabilityUpdates

Principal Seminar8/15/2012

ESEA Flexibility Waiver

AYP

Sanctions

Uniform Bar

Achievement (Accountability) Index

From:

Current annual measurable goals for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) and associated sanctions

To:

New “ambitious but achievable” AMOs to guide improvement efforts for reading, mathematics, and graduation rates

Flexibility Waiver of ESEA Requirements

Elimination of AYP determinations & associated sanctions (i.e. Choice/Supplemental Education Services (SES)/Professional Development set-asides)

New ways of measuring & identifying schools (Reward/Priority/Focus/Emerging Schools)

Continued work with Common Core State Standards to ensure all students are college and career ready

Continued work with our Teacher & Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP) implementation

What does this mean for the Puyallup School District?

Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver

ESEA Waiver Application Accountability System

Used to identify Reward, Focus and Priority and Emerging schools

ESEA New Accountability System

Used to identify Reward, Focus and Priority and Emerging schools

School Improvement

Uses AYP calculations to identify schools and districts in a step of improvement (Title I)

Uses PLA Methodology based on AYP calculations to generate list of Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools

SBE/OSPI Achievement Index

Used to identify Award Schools

AYP Determinations

SanctionsSet-asides

Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyond

AMO Calculations

No Sanctions (letters, transportation, etc.) Up to 20% Set-asides for Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools

Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver

AYP Determinations

Determinations based on current status of % meeting standard compared to Uniform Bar (100% by 2014)

AYP determinations reported on Report Card

Not making AYP results in sanctions for Title 1 schools

$$$ set-asides

Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyond

AMO Calculations

Annual targets to close proficiency gaps by ½ by 2017; uses 2011 as baseline and adds equal annual increments (1/6 of proficiency gap) to get to 2017 target; each subgroup, school, district, and state, have unique annual targets.

Calculations reported on Report Card

No sanctions

Up to 20% Set-asides for Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools

Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver

ESEA Waiver Application

Priority and Focus Schools: Based on calculations used to identify Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools (3 years of R/M or Grad Rate data)

Reward Schools: Uses 3-year average for R/M or Grad Rate data to identify Highest Performing Schools; uses status and growth (1:1) over 3 years to identify High-Progress Schools

Requirements: Priority must implement turnaround principles and Focus must implement meaningful interventions; both receive added support/services

Year to Year change in % meeting standard counts as much as current status of % meeting standard

No year to year individual student growth is incorporated

ESEA New Accountability System

To be developed by SBE in collaboration with OSPI and external stakeholders and informed by Joint Select Committee on Educational Accountability

Likely to incorporate aggregated year to year individual student growth but how/how much not yet determined

Requirements: Priority must implement turnaround principles and Focus must implement meaningful interventions; both receive added support/services

Don’t yet know what the balance of current status, year to year change, and aggregated individual student growth will be

School Improvement

Uses AYP calculations to identify schools and districts in a step of improvement (Title I)

Uses PLA Methodology based on AYP calculations to generate list of Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools

Support and turn around principles optional

SBE/OSPI Achievement Index

Used to identify Award Schools

Current status emphasized (3:1) over year to year change

Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyond

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)WA has opted to establish AMOs as equal increments set toward the goal of reducing

by half the percent of students who are not proficient in all AYP sub categories by fall 2017 (within six years)

Based on 4 Principles

Principle 1:

College and Career Ready expectations for all students via Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

Principle 2:

State-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support

Principle 3:

Supporting effective instruction and leadership

Principle 4:

Reduce duplication and unnecessary burden on school districts by the state

NCLB Flexibility Waiver

Priority5%

Focus10%

Emerging15%

Reward10%

913 Title ISchools

NCLB Flexibility Waiver

Priority

Focus

Emerging

RewardExtremely Low Reading and

Math Performance for all Students

NCLB Flexibility Waiver

Priority

Focus

Emerging

Reward

Low Reading and Math Performance for Specific

Subgroups

NCLB Flexibility Waiver

Priority

Focus

Emerging

Reward

Next 5% of Priority and 10% of Focus

NCLB Flexibility Waiver

Priority

Focus

Emerging

Reward

High Reading and Math Performance for all Students

Smarter Balanced Assessments Consortium

Summative, Interim and Formative

Online

2014 -15

Waves of change…..

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14Reading MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio PortfolioWriting MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP

HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio PortfolioMath MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP HSPE HSPE EOC EOC EOC EOC Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio PortfolioScience MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP HSPE HSPE HSPE EOC EOC EOC Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio

Second Language WLPT WLPT WLPT WELPA WELPA WELPA

Kindergarten WaKIDS WaKIDS WaKIDS

Current StatewideSummative (Student) Assessments

Reading Mathematics

Science Writing

Grade 3 MSP MSP

Grade 4 MSP MSP MSP

Grade 5 MSP MSP MSP

Grade 6 MSP MSP

Grade 7 MSP MSP MSP

Grade 8 MSP MSP MSP

High School HSPE EOC EOC HSPE

MSP= Measurements of Student Progress; HSPE = High School Proficiency Exams; EOC= End of Course exams

Proposed Summative Assessments in 2014–15

English/LA Mathematics Science

Grade 3 SBAC SBAC

Grade 4 SBAC SBAC

Grade 5 SBAC SBAC MSP

Grade 6 SBAC SBAC

Grade 7 SBAC SBAC

Grade 8 SBAC SBAC MSP

Grades 9-10 HSPE Reading & Writing

???

EOCAlgebra/

Geometry ???

EOC

Grade 11 SBAC SBAC

SBAC=SMARTER Balanced Assessment ConsortiumMSP= Measurements of Student ProgressHSPE = High School Proficiency ExamsEOC= End of Course exams

2011-12 MSP HSPE & EOC Preliminary Results

Think, Pair Share…Take a minute to reflect

Which subject areas and grade level do you expect to see the most improvement and why?

Do you anticipate a decline in scores in any area or grade level and why?

Change in Overall Performance2010-11 to 2011-12

Grade Reading Math Writing Science EOC Year 1 EOC Year 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 N/A

- is less than 3% change from previous year

- is a 3% or more increase from previous year

- is a 3% or more decrease from previous year

Preliminary

Change in Overall Performance 2010-11 to 2011-12

Grade

Reading Math Writing Science EOC Year 1 EOC Year 2

2010-11 2011-12 Diff 2010-11 2011-12 Diff 2010-11 2011-12 Diff 2010-11 2011-12 Diff 2010-11 *2011-12 Diff 2010-11 *2011-12 Diff

3rd 78.3 72.2 -6.1 65.2 66.6 1.4                

4th 75.1 78.2 3.1 66.3 64.1 -2.2 64.6 65.4 0.8            

5th 75.9 81.0 5.1 70.1 73.0 2.9     63.8 77.5 13.7        

6th 78.6 79.0 0.4 71.5 74.6 3.1                

7th 60.7 75.7 15.0 68.1 67.0 -1.1 76.3 77.1 0.8     100.0 100.0 0.0    

8th 70.4 69.4 -1.0 60.8 65.5 4.7     64.0 71.4 7.4 95.6 93.9 -1.7 100.0 97.9 -2.1

9th                         55.7 70.3 14.6 95.5 97.7 2.2

10th 88.7 87.1 -1.6       93.6 90.6 -3.0 56.9 N/A   68.3 79.9 11.6 69.6 79.6 10.0

Purple = change of less than 3% from previous year, Blue=increase of 3% or more, Yellow = decrease of 3% or more*2011-12 – includes Previously Passed

Preliminary

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Science 32.7 41.9 41.9 46.4 56.6 60 64 71.4

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

Percent of Grade 8 Students Meeting Standard in Science %

Me

t S

tan

da

rd

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

2006 75.1 82.6 81.4 69.1

2007 78.4 81.9 77.2 74

2008 79.6 76.7 81 71.4

2009 80.6 76.5 79.2 75.8

2010 79.5 73.6 79.3 74.8

2011 78.3 75.1 75.9 78.6

2012 72.2 78.2 81 79

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

Students Meeting Standards in Reading%

Me

t S

tan

da

rd

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10

2007 78.4 81.9 77.2 74 68.3 68.2 87.8

2008 79.6 76.7 81 71.4 65.7 68.8 87

2009 80.6 76.5 79.2 75.8 60.9 74.4 89.8

2010 79.5 73.6 79.3 74.8 69.1 74.7 83.6

2011 78.3 75.1 75.9 78.6 60.7 70.4 88.7

2012 72.2 78.2 81 79 75.7 69.4 87.1

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

Students Meeting Standards in Reading%

Me

t S

tan

da

rd

Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10

2005 60.5 66.1 69.7

2006 56.6 76.4 86.2

2007 63.2 74.1 91.5

2008 61.3 76.2 96

2009 58.7 74.8 96.6

2010 62.34 73.37 92.52

2011 64.6 76.3 93.6

2012 65.4 77.1 90.6

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

Students Meeting Standards in Writing%

Me

t S

tan

da

rd

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10

2007 73.7 65.4 64.2 56.3 57.8 51.3 54.2

2008 74.3 58.6 66.4 53.2 56.9 50.3 54

2009 69.2 54.2 65.6 59.7 56.5 53 51.4

2010 66.5 59.8 63.9 60.4 63.4 57.4 43.2

2011 65.2 66.3 70.1 71.5 68.1 60.8 69

2012 66.6 64.1 73 74.6 67 65.5 NaN

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0 Students Meeting Standards in Mathematics

% M

et

Sta

nd

ard

Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 10

2005 38.8 32.7 32.9

2006 38.2 41.9 32.2

2007 36.6 41.9 35.3

2008 44.8 46.4 46.9

2009 52.2 56.6 44.8

2010 42.2 60 48.08

2011 63.8 64 56.9

2012 77.5 71.4 NaN

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

Students Meeting Standards in Science%

Me

t S

tan

da

rd

Reading Mathematics Writing

2005 84.4 61.9 60.5

2006 82.6 61.2 56.6

2007 81.9 65.4 63.2

2008 76.7 58.6 61.3

2009 76.5 54.2 58.7

2010 73.6 59.8 62.34

2011 75.1 66.3 64.6

2012 78.2 64.1 65.4

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

Percent of Grade 4 Students Meeting Standards%

Me

t S

tan

da

rd

Reading Mathematics Writing

2005 71.9 53.5 66.1

2006 60.2 49.6 76.4

2007 68.3 57.8 74.1

2008 65.7 56.9 76.2

2009 60.9 56.5 74.8

2010 69.1 63.4 73.37

2011 60.7 68.1 76.3

2012 75.7 67 77.1

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

Percent of Grade 7 Students Meeting Standards%

Me

t S

tan

da

rd

Reading Mathematics Writing Science

2005 77.8 45.8 69.7 32.9

2006 86.8 52.8 86.2 32.2

2007 87.1 54.2 91.5 35.3

2008 87 54 96 46.9

2009 89.8 51.4 96.6 44.8

2010 83.6 43.2 92.52 48.08

2011 88.7 69 93.6 56.9

2012 87.1 NaN 90.6 NaN

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

95.0

Percent of Grade 10 Students Meeting Standard%

Me

t S

tan

da

rd

Preliminary School Data

August 23: EOC Biology and WAAS-Portfolio scores are included.

August 28: Round 2 of Record Reconciliation (RR) opens 

August 29: State assessment general test score release

August 31: Districts preview preliminary AMO site

September 11: Round 2 of Record Reconciliation (RR) closes

September 14: AMO appeals received by this date will be reviewed, decisions made and reflected in the AMO press release

September 26: AMO press release (tentative)

Next Steps Reflection

Today’s Learning?

Takeaways?

Evidence?

Next Best Step?

Help?

Hopes & Dreams Turn to your elbow partner and share one hope

and one dream for the year.

Be ready to share one hope or dream from your table with the large group.

Thank you!