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