No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Accountability System Update

Adequate Yearly Progress 2009-2010

Kent School DistrictReport to the Board of EducationSeptember 8, 2010

Presentation Outline2

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Mr. Randy Dorn’s August 31, 2010 Press Release

Measurement of Student Progress (MSP)/High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) Results

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)Review of Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP)

Basics and School and District ResultsDistrict and School Level Next Steps

Mr. Dorn’s Press Release OLYMPIA – August 31, 2010 – “State

testing scores from spring 2010 were mixed when compared to spring 2009, State Superintendent Randy Dorn said today at a news conference.”

“Results reflect two straight years of cuts to the K-12 education budget cut many crucial services.”

3

Press Release: State MSP Results Grades 3-8 Measurements of Student

ProgressReading increased in three grades (3, 7 and 8) and decreased in three grades (4, 5 and 6).

MSP writing scores increased in grades 4 and 7; and in Science scores decreased in grade 5 and increased in grade 8.

Math MSP essentially creates a new benchmark, or starting point, for grades 3-8 math because it was a new test that that assessed new learning standards.

4

Press Release: Adequate Yearly Progress

In 2010, preliminary figures show that 968 schools did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), a decrease of 317 schools from 2009. (40.4% of WA schools made AYP)

Of that total, 1,129 are in one of five steps of improvement.

For districts, 212 did not make AYP, an increase of three from 2009, and 110 are in one of two steps of improvement. (28.7% of WA Districts made AYP)

5

Comparisons: WA and KSD6

Reading: KSD students did not perform as well as their

state peers at all grades except grade 6 At grade 7, KSD students outperformed their

state peers Math:

New standards were tested for the first time KSD students outperformed their state peers

in grades 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10. At grades 3 and 5, KSD performance was

similar to their state peers

Washington State & KSD MSP Reading: Spring 2010

7

WA Gr3 KSD Gr3

WA Gr4 KSD Gr4

WA Gr5 KSD Gr5

WA Gr6 KSD Gr6

WA Gr7 KSD Gr7

WA Gr8 KSD Gr8

WA Gr10

KSD Gr10

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

72.0%64.4% 67.1%

61.0%

69.5%65.8% 64.5% 65.5% 63.3%

57.7%

69.2% 66.3%

78.8% 76.5%

MSP Reading 09-10

Washington State and KSD MSP Math: Spring 2010

8

WA Gr3 KSD Gr3

WA Gr4 KSD Gr4

WA Gr5 KSD Gr5

WA Gr6 KSD Gr6

WA Gr7 KSD Gr7

WA Gr8 KSD Gr8

WA Gr10

KSD Gr10

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

61.7% 61.4%

53.6%55.4%

53.6% 53.5%51.8%

59.1%55.2%

58.2%

51.5%

55.7%

41.6%

47.4%

Math 09-10

Math 09-10

9

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WASL Grade 10 Reading and MathKSD and WA 2001-02 to 2009-10

WA ReadingKSD ReadingWA WritingKSD WritingWA MathKSD Math

% M

et S

tand

ard

Reading Cohort Performance in Comparison to WA

10

KSD as % of WA Reading 06_07 Reading 07_08 Reading 08_09 Reading 09_10

Gr3 KSD-WA 94.3% 91.5% 91.6% 89.4%

Gr4 KSD-WA 95.3% 97.9% 94.4% 90.9%

Gr5 KSD-WA 95.3% 92.5% 95.1% 94.7%

Gr6 KSD-WA 98.1% 94.3% 96.8% 101.6%

Gr7 KSD-WA 92.0% 95.1% 86.8% 91.2%

Gr8 KSD-WA 93.1% 92.9% 99.3% 95.8%

Gr10 KSD-WA 101.1% 97.1% 97.3% 97.1%

100% means KSD performed as well as WA Greater than 100% means KSD outperformed WA

Math Cohort Performance in Comparison to WA

11100% means KSD performed as well as WA

Greater than 100% means KSD outperformed WA

KSD as % of WA Math 06_07 Math 07_08 Math 08_09 Math 09_10

Gr3 KSD-WA 94.0% 92.9% 91.0% 99.5%

Gr4 KSD-WA 98.1% 96.1% 100.6% 103.4%

Gr5 KSD-WA 95.5% 93.3% 94.8% 99.8%

Gr6 KSD-WA 109.1% 100.8% 105.3% 114.1%

Gr7 KSD-WA 103.8% 114.5% 104.1% 105.4%

Gr8 KSD-WA 104.2% 106.6% 113.4% 108.2%

Gr10 KSD-WA 112.9% 106.7% 104.6% 113.9%

AYP Elements Still in Effect12

ALL students “proficient” by 2014 Separate annual proficiency goals in reading & math

1 % can be proficient at district level using alternative performance standard

Same Goal on ‘state uniform bar’ for nine groups All students Five Racial/Ethnic Groups Students with Disabilities (Special Education) Students with Limited English Proficiency (ELL) Students from Low-Income Families (Poverty)

95 % of students in each group to be assessed One other indicator

Graduation rate (high schools): 67% (or two percentage point increase) Unexcused absences (Grades 1-8): 1% (or any decrease)

Percent ProficientReading Math

Percent ParticipationReading Math

Unexcused Absence/

Graduation Rate

All Students

American Indian

Asian/Pac. Is.

Black

Hispanic

White

Special Education

Limited English (ELL)

Low IncomeState Target

AYP Matrix (37 categories)

13

52.2

64.2

76.1

88.1

29.7

100.0

64.9

47.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Per

cent

mee

ting

stan

dard

58.0

79.0

Reading

Mathematics

Grades 3-5 Yearly Targets (Revised)

NOTE: The state uniform bar has changed for 2010—13 based upon new cut scores on the mathematics assessments.

Grades 6-8 Yearly Targets

82.5

65.1

47.6

30.1

38.0

58.7

79.3

100.0

17.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Per

cent

mee

ting

stan

dard

15

High School Yearly Targets

48.6

61.5

74.3

87.2

24.8

100.0

81.2

62.4

43.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Per

cent

mee

ting

stan

dard

16

School Improvement

Plan

Continue:

Public School Choice

Continue: Public School

Choice Supplemental

Continue: Public School

ChoiceSupplemental

Services

Public School Choice

Supplemental

Services

Corrective

Action

Plan for

AlternativeGovernance

AYP AYPAYPAYP AYP

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Implement Plan For

Alternative Governance

Step 51 2

AYP AYP

AYP TIMELINE FOR SCHOOLS(Consequences apply only to schools receiving Title I funds)

Sanctions are a District Responsibility

Identified for School Improvement

WASLResults

WASLResults

17

From OSPI

40.4% of WA schools made AYP

AYP TIMELINE FOR DISTRICTS(Consequences apply only to districts receiving Title I funds)

State Responsibility

DistrictImprovement Plan

DistrictImprovement Plan

State OffersTechnical Assistance and MAY take

Corrective Action

State

MUST Take Corrective Action

Corrective Action: District Must Develop Corrective Action Plan

Step 1 Step 2

1 2 AYP AYP

AYPAYP

Identified for District Improvement

WASLResults

WASLResults

18

From OSPI

28.7% of WA Districts made AYP

2008-2009 and 2009-2010 District AYP

2009-2010 Made AYP Overall:   

No   In Improvement:   

Step 2 Number of Yes: 67 Number of No: 16 % of Yes/Total:

80.7%

2008-2009 Made AYP Overall:   

No   In Improvement:   

Step 2 Number of Yes: 62 Number of No: 21 % of Yes/Total:

74.7%

19

From a growth model perspective:Overall, KSD improved from 74.7% of cells met to 80.7% of cells met – an increase of 6 percentage points.

20

Elementary School Band (Grades 3 - 5)

2009-2010Met Proficiency Goal

Student Group Reading MathAll No Yes

American Indian N<Required N<Required

Asian/Pacific Islander Yes Yes Black No Yes Hispanic No Yes White Yes Yes

Limited English Yes Yes

Special Education No No

Low Income No Yes Number of Yes:

27 |

Elementary School Band (Grades 3 - 5)

2008-2009Met Proficiency Goal

Student Group Reading MathAll No No

American Indian N<Required N<Required

Asian/Pacific Islander Yes Yes Black No No Hispanic No No White Yes Yes

Limited English Yes Yes

Special Education No No

Low Income No No

Number of Yes: 23 |

21

Middle School Band (Grades 6 - 8)

2009-2010Met Proficiency Goal

Student Group Reading MathAll Yes Yes

American Indian N<Required N<Required

Asian/Pacific Islander Yes Yes Black No No Hispanic No No White Yes Yes

Limited English Yes Yes Special Education Yes Yes

Low Income No No Number of Yes: 27 |

Middle School Band (Grades 6 - 8)

2008-2009Met Proficiency Goal

Student Group Reading MathAll Yes Yes

American Indian N<Required N<Required

Asian/Pacific Islander Yes Yes Black No No Hispanic Yes No White Yes Yes

Limited English Yes Yes Special Education No No

Low Income No No

Number of Yes: 26 |

22

High School Band (Grade 10)

2009-2010Met Proficiency Goal

Student Group Reading MathAll Yes No

American Indian N<Required N<Required

Asian/Pacific Islander Yes No

Black N<Required N<Required

Hispanic N<Required N<Required White Yes Yes

Limited English N<Required N<Required

Special Education N<Required N<Required Low Income No No

Number of Yes: 13 |

High School Band (Grade 10)

2008-2009Met Proficiency Goal

Student Group Reading MathAll Yes No

American Indian N<Required N<Required

Asian/Pacific Islander Yes No

Black N<Required N<Required

Hispanic N<Required N<Required White Yes Yes

Limited English N<Required N<Required

Special Education N<Required N<Required

Low Income No No

Number of Yes: 13 |

Schools AYP Results Mixed

Changes to schools in AYP School Improvement in 2009-2010:

Made AYP in 2010 but not in 2009= 4 schools Did not make AYP in 2010 but did in 2009 =

5 schools Made AYP Both Years= 3 schools Did not make AYP Both Years = 28 schools

23

24

Not in AYP Step

25

26

AYP Fall 2009 Fall 2010Carriage Crest YES NOCedar Valley NO YESCovington NO NOCrestwood YES NODaniel NO NOEast Hill NO NOEmerald Park NO NOFairwood NO NOGlenridge YES NOGrass Lake YES NOHorizon NO NOJenkins Creek NO NOKent Elem NO YESLake Youngs NO NOMartin Sortun YES NOMeadow Ridge NO NOMeridian Elem NO NOMillennium NO NONeely O'Brien NO NOPanther Lake NO NOPark Orchard NO YESPine Tree NO YESRidgewood YES YESSawyer Woods YES YESScenic Hill NO NOSoos Creek NO NOSpringbrook NO NOSunrise NO NOCedar Heights NO NOMattson NO NOMeeker NO NOMeridian Mid NO NOMill Creek NO NONorthwood NO NOKentlake NO NOKent-Meridian NO NOKentridge NO NOKentwood NO NOKent Mountain View YES YESKent Phoenix Acad NO NO

Growth Shown in Improved Subgroup Performance in Elementary Schools% of Cells Making AYP

CC CV CO CW DE EH EP FW GR GL HE JC KE LY MS MR ME ML NO PL PO PT RW SW SH SC SB SR0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CC

CV

CO

CWDE

EH

EPFW

GR GL

HE

JC

KELY

MS

MR

ME

ML

NO

PL

PO PT RW SW

SH

SC SBSR

%Yes 2009 %Yes 2010

CH MA MK MJ MC NW KL KM KR KW KMVA KPA0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CH

MA MK

MJ

MC

NW

KL KM

KR

KW

KMVA

KPA

%Yes 2009 %Yes 2010

Mixed Results Shown in Subgroup Performance in Secondary Schools

% of Cells Making AYP

Press Release: Changes In spring 2011, students in grades 5 and 8

will be tested on the new science learning standards for the first time.

Incoming 10th graders in the class of 2013 will be required to pass all state exams – reading, writing, math and science – to be eligible for a diploma.

Last November, Superintendent Dorn proposed changes to the math requirement through the class of 2015 and a delay in the science requirement until the class of 2017. However, the Legislature opted not to act upon his proposal.

29

Inquiry into Current Practice Are the Washington standards being taught at

each grade level? Is the district adopted curriculum aligned with

Washington standards? Assessments Materials Instructional Strategies

Are standards taught at grade level? Are formative assessment results used to

inform instruction? Is instruction differentiated based upon

student needs?

30

Next Steps District Improvement Plan Formalized

Identify Power Standards Implement Standards-Based Classroom Model Expand Formative Assessment System Expansion of Tiered Intervention Organizational Learning and Improvement

Team Identify and Share Effective Classroom Practices

District Office Support Team Reorganization: Direct Assistance to Schools

School Data Analysis Reviews with School Leadership Teams

School Improvement Plans Developed Present School Improvement Plans to Board for

Approval

31