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!