Date post: | 13-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | chad-jefferson |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status
School Committee Presentation
September 24, 2013
Vision
The vision of the Webster Public Schools
is to provide a quality education and a safe learning environment for all students,
and to empower all students to succeed as responsible, productive citizens in an ever-changing global society.
Theory of Action
If Webster Public Schools has a prekindergarten through grade 12 system, which effectively transitions every student between classrooms, grade levels, and schools by connecting high quality instruction with learning,
then the students will have continued success beyond graduation.
Core ValuesAll students can learn, and we welcome the responsibility to
teach all students.
All students have the right to a safe and academically rich learning environment characterized by rigorous expectations, effective instruction, and respect for diversity.
The work of educators is complex and best accomplished through collaboration for the purpose of improving instructional practice and student learning.
Ownership of educational progress and sustainability of improvement are achieved through shared leadership.
Assessment
Curriculum
Instruction
Student Learning
The Instructional Core
No Child Left Behind and ESEA Waiver
NCLB (2001)100% of students scoring
Proficient/Advanced by 2014
NCLB Accountability Labels of “Corrective Action” and “Restructuring”
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determined by student, school, and district Composite Performance Index (CPI) for aggregate and subgroups
Accountability status determined by two consecutive years of student achievement data
ESEA Waiver (2012)Closing of achievement gaps between the
total student population (aggregate) and subgroups (low income, special education, etc.) student populations by half based on improvement targets
Levels of status determined by narrowing gaps, student growth, dropout rate, and cohort graduation rate
Annual Performance Progress Index (PPI) determined by CPI for indicators
Accountability status based on four years data with the most recent year weighted the most in determining the Cumulative PPI
State Performance Targets Under NCLB
Reduce proficiency gap by half by 2016–17
What are some key PPI concepts?
• PPI is a measure of progress toward a gap-narrowing goals – PPI points scale runs from 0 to 100. Target = 75, 50 =
improvement below target, 25 = no change, 0 = decline
– Annual PPI indicates progress from one year to the next
– Cumulative PPI represents a trend over time
• PPI determinations for all groups provide valuable information to help direct supports and interventions
What are some key Level concepts?
• Schools and districts are classified into a Level based on a four-year trend
• Districts are classified based on the Level of lowest-performing school
• School percentiles (1-99) represent performance relative to other schools in the grade span, and are used to determine Level 3 schools (lowest-performing 20 percent)
Accountability Status
Level Description DESE Involvement
1 Meeting proficiency gap narrowing goals
(for aggregate & high needs students) Very Low
2 Not meeting proficiency gap narrowing goals
(for aggregate &/or high needs students)
Low
3 Lowest performing 20% of schools*
(including lowest performing subgroups) High
4 Lowest performing schools
(subset of Level 3) Very High
5 Chronically underperforming schools
(subset of Level 3 & 4) Extremely High
Webster Public Schools
2013ELA
CPI no change (25 PPI points)SGP below target (50 PPI points)Extra Credit (0 points)
MathCPI declined (0 PPI points)SGP had declined (0 PPI points)Extra Credit (0 points)
Webster Public Schools
2012 – Science
CPI- declined (0 PPI points)
Extra Credit (0 PPI points)
Annual Dropout Rate – (25 PPI points)
Cohort Graduation Rate – (25 PPI points)
Webster Public Schools
• Total points awarded = 125
• Divided by 7 Indicators – CPI for ELA, Math, and Science– SGP for ELA and Math– Dropout Rate and Cohort Graduation Rate
Annual PPI = 18
Webster Public Schools
PPI Data 2010 2011 2012 2013
Points Awarded 275 350 200 125
Extra Credit Points
75 50 50 0
Subtotal 350 400 250 125
Indicators 7 7 7 7
Annual PPI 50 57 36 18
Cumulative PPI
(2010*1) + (2011 *2) + (2012 *3) + (2013 *4)
34
Achievement Percent Proficient and Advanced
Grade/Content Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 State 2013
Grade 10 ELA 74 77 78 82 91 91
Grade 10 MATH 67 67 70 65 80 78
Grade 8 ELA 51 58 60 67 59 78
Grade 8 Math 23 18 21 21 14 55
Grade 7 ELA 37 45 55 45 48 72
Grade 7 Math 17 22 25 21 19 52
Grade 6 ELA 60 55 61 41 56 67
Grade 6 Math 33 38 48 29 29 61
Grade 5 ELA 49 43 44 40 52 66
Grade 5 Math 33 29 23 31 39 61
Grade 4 ELA 41 35 45 43 32 53
Grade 4 Math 29 25 33 36 11 52
Grade 3 ELA 40 52 59 52 36 57
Grade 3 Math 33 45 61 37 46 66
Composite Performance Index Comparisons
2010-2013
Composite Performance Index (CPI)
• A student raw score is converted into a scaled score
• A scaled score correlates to a performance level (Advanced; Proficient; Needs Improvement; Warning/Failing)
• Points are awarded for each student’s performance level
• CPI is equal to the total number of performance level points divided by the number of students in the aggregate
Sample CPI CalculationPerformance level Scaled Score MCAS ALT Points # of
StudentsTotal Points
Proficient or Advanced 240-280 Progressing 100 18 1800
High Needs Improvement
230-238 Progressing or Emerging
75 15 1125
Low Needs Improvement
220-228 Awareness 50 10 500
High Warning/Failing 210-218 Portfolio Incomplete
25 5 125
Low Warning/Failing 200-208 Portfolio not submitted
0 2 0
Total 50 3550
CPI = 3550/50 = 71
Grade 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Math
ELA
Math 73.4 81 63.6 70.4
ELA 81.6 80.9 77.9 72.7
2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 4
0
20
40
60
80
Math
ELA
Math 64.8 72.3 69.1 53.2
ELA 71.9 77.9 68.9 67.4
2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 5
0
20
40
60
80
Math
ELA
Math 60 56.1 65.1 65.4
ELA 74.1 76.8 72.4 75.6
201 2011 2012 2013
Grade 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
Math
ELA
Math 65.7 73.4 61.9 63.1
ELA 82.4 82.7 69.7 79.1
2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Math
ELA
Math 53.7 56.4 54 47.2
ELA 75.3 82.8 76.8 76.9
2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Math
ELA
Math 54.6 51.4 56.4 50
ELA 80.8 79.6 87.6 80.1
2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10
75
80
85
90
95
100
Math
ELA
Math 86.2 86.5 85.2 88.8
ELA 91.8 93.3 94.1 96.7
2010 2011 2012 2013
Student Growth Percentile Comparisons
Student Growth Percentile
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mathematics median SGP, 2008
Ma
th %
pro
fic
ien
t o
r a
dv
an
ce
d, 2
00
8
Higher achievingLower growing
Lower achievingLower growing
Higher achievingHigher growing
Lower achievingHigher growing
Low Median High
WMS Student Growth
• Growth Report Grades 3-6 for ELA
• Growth Report Grades 3-6 for Math
BHS Student Growth
• Growth Report Grades 7, 8, 10 ELA
• Growth Report Grades 7, 8, 10 for Math