NCLB:NCLB:A Commitment toA Commitment to

True True Education ReformEducation Reform

John L. WinnJohn L. WinnCommissioner of EducationCommissioner of Education

Florida Department of EducationFlorida Department of Education

May 22, 2006May 22, 2006

NCLB Guiding PrinciplesNCLB Guiding Principles

1. Ensuring Students are Learning

2. Making the School System Accountable

3. Ensuring Information is Accessible and Options are Available

4. Improving the Quality of Teachers

NCLB NCLB –– “Common Sense Approach”“Common Sense Approach”

No Child Left Behind is a landmark education reform law designed to change the culture of America's schools by:

• Closing the achievement gap among groups

of students,

• Offering more flexibility to states,

• Giving parents more options and teaching students based on what works.

1. Achievement Focused1. Achievement Focused

2. Standards Driven2. Standards Driven

3. Accountability Based3. Accountability Based

4. Individual Student Centered4. Individual Student Centered

5. Data Informed5. Data Informed

6. Transparent6. Transparent

7. Seamless7. Seamless

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principlesof Education Reformof Education Reform

5

Achievement FocusedAchievement Focused

1. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) should not be an all or nothing designation.

• Schools should be evaluated based upon the number of criteria met/not met. There should be multiple levels of progress/proficiency.

• AYP should measure student achievement and annual learning gains. Learning gains are the purest measure of progress.

6

Florida’s School Grading SystemFlorida’s School Grading System50% Based on Performance50% Based on Performance

Learning Gains of Lowest 25%

Learning GainsLearning Gains

PerformancePerformancePerformance

WRITINGMATHREADING

7

Florida’s School Grading SystemFlorida’s School Grading System50% Based on Learning Gains50% Based on Learning Gains

Learning Gains of Lowest 25%

Learning GainsLearning Gains

PerformancePerformancePerformance

WRITINGMATHREADING

8

Example Report for 2005Example Report for 2005

9

School Report CardsSchool Report Cards2006 2006

The Florida Department of Education school report card includes the following:

• Information regarding student learning gains

• Information regarding student proficiency

• An explanation of school performance as evaluated by NCLB and Florida’s A+ plan

• Choice options for parents

• Indicators of return on investment

10

School Grades Compared to AYP School Grades Compared to AYP 20052005

11

Return on InvestmentReturn on Investment

$4,210Total Program Cost

Per WFTE

ASchool Grade

72%Reading

78%Mathematics

Percent of Students With Learning Gains:

74%Percent of the Highest

ROI Value

98ROI – Percentile Rank

12

Individual Student CenteredIndividual Student Centered

2. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) should be based on a Growth Model rather than an Improvement Model.

• AYP should measure achievement and annual learning gains. Learning gains are the purest measure of progress.

• An Improvement Model measures how a group of students are performing now compared to a different group of students at a prior time.

• A Growth Model measures how individual students are performing now compared to how those samestudents performed at a prior time.

13

Models for AYPModels for AYP

• Status Model : measures how students are performing now.

• Improvement Model : measures how a group of students are performing now compared to a different group of students at a prior time.

• Growth Model: measures how individual students are performing now compared to how those same students performed at a prior time.

14

Florida’s Growth ProposalFlorida’s Growth Proposal

Determine if a student is “on-track” to be proficient in 3 years:

• Use past years of data for students and average the growth from year-to-year based on the number of grades the student has progressed.

• Florida’s growth targets will be the predefined FCAT proficiency levels three years out from the current year.

• The percent of students reaching proficiency or on track to be proficient in 3 years will determine attainment of AYP as established in Florida’s approved Accountability Workbook.

15

On Track to be ProficientOn Track to be Proficient

Example of a 5th Grade Student's Growth Trajectory to ProficiencExample of a 5th Grade Student's Growth Trajectory to ProficiencExample of a 5th Grade Student's Growth Trajectory to ProficiencExample of a 5th Grade Student's Growth Trajectory to Proficiency y y y

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

FCAT Developmental Scale Score

FCAT Developmental Scale Score

FCAT Developmental Scale Score

FCAT Developmental Scale Score

Level 3 DSS (Proficiency Threshold) Student A: Actual Performance Student A: Growth Trajectory

16

Florida’s ProposalFlorida’s ProposalThree alternatives for each subgroup of students un der NCLB

A. Status Model• All students in each subgroup meet achievement

expectations.

• 95% participate in FCAT (reading plus math) or an alternate assessment.

• School meets the writing indicator.

• Graduation rate of 85%.

• Or improvement of 1% on the writing and graduation rate indicator.

17

Florida’s ProposalFlorida’s ProposalThree alternatives for each subgroup of students un der NCLB

B. Safe HarborIf a subgroup of students does not meet AYP standards in reading or math:

• Percent of non-proficient students decreased by 10 percent.

• Each subgroup in the school attains school-wide objectives for writing and graduation rate.

• Each subgroup attains 95% participation rate.

18

Florida’s ProposalFlorida’s ProposalThree alternatives for each subgroup of students un der NCLB

C. Growth Model

In addition to proficiency status or safe harbor, a school or district may make AYP when students are on track to be proficient, based on 2 to 5 years of performance history for each student.

19

Standards DrivenStandards Driven

3. NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) scores should be compared or included .

• NAEP scores should be used as an “equalizer” to ensure that states do not lower state standards in order to become AYP proficient.

20

Data InformedData Informed

4. Schools should not fail to make AYP based upon a static “percent tested” .

• “Percent tested” is not a performance measure and should not be used as a measure of proficiency. Instead “percent tested” should be used to prorate a school’s performance. If a lower percent of students are tested in a subgroup, then their rating should be adjusted down, commensurate with the percent tested.

21

Achievement FocusedAchievement Focused

5. The lowest performing students’ achievement should be captured.

Issues regarding NCLB subgroups:

• We do not teach subgroups. We teach students.

• The same student’s achievement is counted multiple times in the AYP calculation.

• Subgroup accountability does not necessarily capture the lowest performing students.

22

1.1. Achievement FocusedAchievement Focused

2.2. Standards DrivenStandards Driven

3.3. Accountability BasedAccountability Based

4.4. Individual Student CenteredIndividual Student Centered

5.5. Data InformedData Informed

6.6. TransparentTransparent

7.7. SeamlessSeamless

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

of Education Reformof Education Reform