AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA UpdateJanuary 20, 2013

Thank you to Nancy Katims- Edmonds School District for much of the content of this presentation

Ben GauyanDirector of Title 1/LAPBGAUYAN@tacoma.k12.wa.us(253) 571-1049

Pat CummingsDirector of Research and EvaluationPCUMMIN@tacoma.k12.wa.us(253) 571-1280

Background

• The federal government granted Washington State a flexibility waiver from the original ESEA No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements, including the calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

• The changes in the accountability system take effect starting this school year. 2

Background -- To get waiver, states must address three priorities

Priority 1: Ensure college- and career-ready

expectations for all students Washington state is addressing this priority

by adopting:• Common Core State Standards [CCSS]• Smarter Balanced Assessment [SBA]

3

…three priorities continued

Priority 2: Support effective instruction and leadership Washington state is addressing this priority

by implementing the:• Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project

[TPEP]

4

…three priorities continued

Priority 3: Implement state-developed system of

differentiated recognition, accountability, and support

Washington state is addressing this priority by adopting a new accountability system.

5

What has not changed

• Goals are still determined for:• Performance on state assessments • Participation in state assessments• Unexcused absence rate for elementary and

middle schools• Graduation rates for high schools -- for all sub-groups (ethnicity groups, English language learners, special education, poverty)

• Performance is still determined by scores for continuously enrolled students.

6

What has changed

• Add two more ethnic groups to sub-groups:• Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup split into two subgroups• “Two or More Races” subgroup added

• Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) replace AYP goals: • By Spring 2017 reduce by half the proficiency gap

between each group’s 2011 level and 100% proficiency• Add equal increments (1/6 of overall target) to create

annual targets between 2011 and 2017• Result in unique annual targets for each subgroup,

school, district, and state.• Do not include a margin of error

7

STATE Uniform Bar GOALS Under Old NCLB Requirements

8

Example:Sample High School - 10th Grade Reading

1. 20% met standard in 20112. 80% did not meet standard3. The goal is to decrease the percent not

meeting standard by half in six year (40%)

9

Example:Sample High School - 10th Grade Reading

4. Therefore the goal in 2017 is 60% meeting standard (20% baseline + 40% growth = 60%)

10

What has changed

• Elimination of:• Sanctions on Title I schools • Classification of schools in “School Improvement

Status”• Public listing of schools that did not make AYP

• New classification of Title I schools:• Priority• Focus• Emerging• Reward

11

PRIORITY, FOCUS, & EMERGING SCHOOLS – Cohort 1

Category Description (Based on 2009 -2011 Data)

PRIORITY

• Lowest performing in all students group over 3 years• Can include Title I-eligible secondary schools that

graduate students if grad rate < 60%• 46 (5%) schools in state

FOCUS

• Lowest performing subgroups over 3 years• Title I schools only• 92 (10%) schools in state• Tacoma has two Focus Schools

EMERGING

• Includes next 5% up from bottom of Priority Schools list (46 schools) and next 10% up from bottom of Focus Schools list (92 schools)

• Tacoma has seven Emerging-Focus schools12

Priority: Based on “All Students” Performance

Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools

Lowest 5% (N=46)Lowest 10% (N = 92)

Next 10% (N=92)

Next 5% (N=46)

Emerging: Next 5% of

Priority and 10% of Focus

Total N = 138

Focus: Based on

“Subgroup” Performance

13

REWARD SCHOOLS – Cohort 1

* School cannot have significant gaps among subgroups and cannot be a Focus or Emerging School.

Category Description (Based on 2009 -2011 Data)

HIGHEST PERFORMING

TITLE I SCHOOLS*

• Title I schools only• Met AYP in “all students” and/or all subgroups for 3 years in both R and M

HIGH-PROGRESS TITLE I

SCHOOLS*

• Up to 92 (10%) Title I schools showing greatest improvement and performance in R/M or graduation rates over 3 years• Tacoma did not have a Rewards school

14

Other Details

• Cohort 1 schools are based on 2009-2011 data and will remain in these categories for the 2012-13 school year.

• Spring 2012 assessment results will determined Cohort 2 schools in these categories and will be used for 2013-14.

• Cohort 1 schools were determined using “N-size” of 30 as minimum number of students for a cell to be counted. Beginning with 2012 data, the “N-size” will change from 30 to 20.

15

Other Details

•AMO calculations will be on State Report Card website for all schools.

• State Achievement Index data will be published in late December/early January for all schools similar to the last two years.

16

AMO calculations on State Report Card website

17

AMO calculations on State Report Card website

18

State Achievement Indexhttps://eds.ospi.k12.wa.us/WAI/IndexReport/dropdown

19

2012–13 Waiver Tasks for State

• The State Board of Education (SBE) and OSPI are required to submit a revised accountability system request, which is likely to include growth data.

• Legislature must pass a law to require focused teacher evaluations to use student growth as a significant factor.

• State must establish rules regarding use of student growth as a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluation and support systems.

20