Utah ESEA Flexibilityfor No Child Left Behind 2012 and

beyond

Implications for Salt Lake City School DistrictAugust 7th 2012

Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS)

2

Flexibility Highlights• One accountability system (Utah Comprehensive

Assessment System)• No more AYP

- No requirement for 100% proficiency 2014• No Schools/Districts in program improvement

(Priority or Focus)All NCLB requirements not addressed in the 2012 waiver are still in place• More flexibility in use of Title I School Improvement

funds• New Utah Comprehensive Assessment System meets

federal and state requirements:- Growth and proficiency- Focus on below proficient students

College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students

• Adoption of the new Utah Core Standards for English language arts and mathematics

• Adoption of a new comprehensive assessment system which will measure the full breadth and depth of the Utah Core Standards using computer based adaptive testing

• Focused student performance outcomes targeted at ensuring all students are college, career, and citizenship ready

• Adoption of the WIDA English language proficiency standards to assist educators to ensure that instruction supports English language learners in the acquisition of English

Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS)

• Incorporates both student achievement and growth toward improvement in a composite score for each school

• Annual public reports will provide summary data for the entire school, as well as disaggregated results by ethnicity, and for economically disadvantaged, English language learners, and students with disabilities

UCAS Principles• Meeting standards (proficiency) and improving academic achievement

(growth) are BOTH valued

• All schools, including those that serve traditionally low performing students, should have an opportunity to demonstrate success

• The system should include strong incentives for schools to improve achievement for the lowest performing students

• Growth expectations for below proficient students should be linked to attaining proficiency

• Growth expectations for all students, including students above proficiency, should be appropriately challenging and meaningful

• Clear and understandable to stakeholders

5

6

Overall School

600 Total Points

Growth 300 total

points

All Students200 total

pointsBelow

Proficient students 100 total

points

Achievement

300 total points

Percent at or above

proficient 300 total

points

Point Structure for Elementary/Middle Schools

Overall School

600 total points

Growth300 total

points

All students 200 total

pointsBelow

Proficient Students 100 total

points

Achievement 300 total points

Percent at or above

proficient 150 total

pointsReadiness Graduation

rate150 total

points

Point Structure for High Schools

Achievement Calculations

TestsTotal Points

Possible

Percent Proficient

Achievement Calculation

Language Arts 86 80% 80% of 86 = 69 pointsMathematics 86 70% 70% of 86 = 60 pointsScience 86 60% 60% of 86 = 51 pointsDWA 42 80% 80% of 42= 34 pointsTotal Points Possible 300 71% 69 + 60 + 51+ 34= 214 214/300

Example Achievement for 5th Grade

Northview Park Elementary School 5th Grade 2012 Achievement

Achievement Score 214/300

Achievement Calculations for Elementary School

Lan-guage Arts (86

pts.)28.5%

Math (86 pts.)

28.5%Science (86 pts.)28.5%

DWA (42

pts.)14.5%

Northview Park School 2012 Achievement

Percent Proficient 150 ptsGraduation Rate 150 ptsTotal Possible 300 pts

High School Achievement

Total Points

Possible2012 graduation rate

Readiness calculation

150 70% 70% of 150 =105 105/150

Example Readiness for High School

North High School

LanguageArts

(50 pts.)33.3%

Math(50 pts.)33.3%

Science (50 pts.)33.3%

TestsTotal Points

Possible

Percent Proficient

Achievement Calculation

Language Arts 50 80% 80% of 50 = 40 points

Mathematics 50 30% 30% of 50 = 15 points

Science 50 40% 40% of 50 = 20 points

Total Points Possible

150 71% 40+15+20=75 75/150

North High School Achievement

Example Achievement

for North High School

Achievement Score 180/300

Achievement

Measures all students who passed the assessment (proficiency)

Growth

Measures how much students progressed from one year to the next

Growth Calculations

Student Growth Percentile• Compute an SGP for each year a student has an

assessment scale score: • Identify a student scale score for all past years where a score exists for that student• Determine the academic peer group (all students in the state with the “same” scale scores for all of the same years) for each student

• Determine how performance in the current year compares with that of the student’s peer group to produce a growth percentile

13

162 162 162 162

164 164 164 164

159159159 159

154

154

154

154

To measure growth, students are only compared to their academic peer group

• Student growth is determined by comparing the performance of a student with all other students in the state with the same past performance

161

161

161

161

2012 Score

Distribution

2011Performan

ce

Far below average growth

Below average growth

Average and above growth High Growth

This value is the 50th

Percentile

The 50th percentile is the value below which 50% of the

scores lie

165

159

155

162

Mean vs. MedianThe median score is used for the school calculations

Why Use SGP ?

• Recognizes growth for the low and the high achieving student

• Growth percentiles are calculated for every student, but can be aggregated to the classroom, subgroup, school, district, and state

Growth Calculation

Growth DescriptionMedian Percentile

Point Value for All Students

Point Value for Non- Proficient Students

High growth60 + 200 100

Average and above growth

50-59 150 75

Below average growth

35-49 100 50

Far below average growth

0-34 50 25

Growth Rubric

Median Growth Percentile (2012)

Point Value (rubric)

Median Growth Percentile (2012)

Point Value (rubric)

Language Arts 56 150 35 50Math 45 100 55 75Science 50 150 40 50

Point Total (mean) 133 Point Total (mean) 58

Northview Park Elementary 2012 Growth All Students Non Proficient Students

Subject

133+58=191 (total point mean added)

Growth Score 191/300

Average Average

Northview Park 2012 UCAS

The long term goal is for schools to earn a minimum of 480 points for elementary schools and 470 for high schools which is approximately the 75th percentile for schools across the state. Accordingly, the targets would be set on reducing the gap between a schools current score and the target score by half in six years: Northview 2012 score = 405 480-405= 75 (1/2 of 75=37.5) 405+ 37.5= 442.5 by 2017

Overall School405/600Total

Points

Growth300 total points

All Students133/200total

points

Below Proficient students

58/100total points

Achievement300 total points

Percent at or above proficient 214/300total

points

School Goal

395

Subgroup Reporting:Annual Measureable Objectives

Federal Requirement to establish and report AMOs

Utah’s Minimum Compliance Plan

• AMOs are not used in any UCAS calculation

• AMO trajectory will reduce in half the percent of non-proficient over six years

• AMOs will be established separately for each subgroup at each school

• UCAS reporting will list the AMO and performance of each school subgroup

• AMO reporting page will be a drill down page in the UCAS report

• AMOs will be used in identifying and exiting Focus/Priority schools

Establishing AMOs• AMOs will be based on the percent of students achieving proficiency on

the states Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRTs) separately in English language arts and mathematics

• ELA: CRT results in grades 3-8 and 10 are used to determine the percent of students proficient

• Mathematics: results are based on CRTs in grades 3-6 and in the course appropriate CRT thereafter which includes 7th grade math or 8th grade math. High schools will be determined by calculating the percent of 10th grade students who scored proficient on the secondary math 1 in 10th grade year or a prior year

• Results from the Utah Alternative Assessment (UAA) are included for students with significant cognitive disabilities approved to participate in this assessment

AMO: to set annual equal goals of reducing by half the percentage of students in each group who are not proficient within six years

All Students Asian African

AmericanAmerican Indian  Hispanic Pacific

Islander Eco Dis LEP SWD

2011 81 82 64 60 63 73 70 51 542012 83 84 67 63 66 75 73 55 582013 84 85 70 67 69 78 75 59 622014 86 87 73 70 72 80 78 63 662015 87 88 76 73 75 82 80 67 692016 89 90 79 77 78 84 83 71 732017 91 91 82 80 82 87 85 76 77Goal: 91 91 82 80 82 87 85 76 77

63% proficient 2011

 Hispanic

2011 632012 662013 692014 722015 752016 782017 82Goal: 82

100-63 =37

½ of 37 =18.5

18.5/6=3 % per year

Year 1 63 + 3 =66

Year 2 66 + 3 =69…

Reporting • UCAS reporting through the Public School Data Gateway on the USOE Website• Salt Lake City School District will also report this data. • SLCSD will also be creating school reports focusing on school and subgroup growth targets

• Drillable school reports that will include achievement gap data that could be used in school improvement plans

• Individual student growth reports with trajectory to proficiency• Subgroup disaggregated data

All U

tah

Scho

ols

Reward Schools: Highest performing Title I schools:Reward Schools: High progress Title I schools:

High/High

Low/Low

Growth

Achi

evem

ent

Priority Schools: already identified using previous 4 years of data through the School Improvement Grant (SIG schools) 15 schools statewide

Focus Schools: USOE will identify a minimum of 28 focus schools,10% of lowest scoring Title I schools not already identified as a priority. Two year average UCAS score, or not achieving AMOs for two years. These schools will be considered in improvement and receive $100,000 to fulfill Title I improvement requirements.

600 pts.

0 pts.

405 Northview Park 2012

Implications for Title I Schools

Old Title I Accountability System• Utah will no longer use AYP

determinations for Title I accountability

• Current Title I school and district improvement requirements have been eliminated through the approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver

• Title I schools identified in need of improvement for 2011-2012 will:• Retain current Title I school

improvement grants through 2012-13

• Be evaluated for Focus School eligibility

New Title I Accountability System• Utah will use the new UCAS

accountability system to identify: • Priority Schools• Focus Schools• Reward Schools

• The Title I requirements of setting aside Title I funds for school improvement sanctions are removed:• Transportation associated with

public school choice• Supplemental Educational

Services (SES)

Priority/Focus SchoolsNOTE: This is allowed under the ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request Guidance and will allow Utah to maintain continuity in funding and service to those schools. All of these schools have already initiated one of the federally-mandated, rigorous, turnaround strategies that are required of Priority Schools.

Exit Criteria Priority Schools:To exit Priority School status, the school must achieve

• a two year composite CAS score of at least 320 or• a two year composite CAS score that is at least the 15th percentile of

Title I schools (Priority) 25th percentile (focus) or• two year meeting of AMOs and/or significant decreases in achievement

gaps

Depending on what the school was identified for-

Reward SchoolsThe USOE will annually recognize two categories of Title I Reward Schools, High-performing and High-progress. These schools will be recognized through: • a press release• certificate of achievement• letter to the LEA superintendent or charter leader• letter to the building principal to be shared with the school

community

High-performing Title I Schools

Schools will be identified based on highest levels of achievement and above average performance on growth

High-progress Title I Schools

Schools will be identified based on highest levels of growth and above average performance on achievement

 

Additional Calculations• Full academic year (FAY) unchanged

• Minimum N • Achievement/Growth =10• Participation =40

• Schools must have data for all components to receive a report

(no growth scores = no report)

November 1 (estimated)Accountability Information Report posted on USOE webpage

UCAS/UPASS reports posted on USOE Gateway

FAQs1. Will schools/districts get an AYP report? No. There will be no Yes or No designation for schools or districts. The UCAS report will show total school points.

2. How will AMAO #3 be calculated? It is anticipated AMAO #3 will be calculated based on the LEA EL subgroup AMO score. We are awaiting clarification from the department of education on this issue.

3. Is there an appeal process? See 2012 Accountability Timeline for detailed explanation

4. When will Priority, Focus and Reward schools be announced?It is anticipated that the USOE will announce Title I Focus and Reward Schools 30 days after CAS results are made available to LEAs.

5. What specific waivers of ESEA requirements did Utah receive from the U.S. Department of Education?For a full listing of the waivers granted, please see pages 5-6 of Utah’s approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Educational-Data/Accountability-School-Performance/Utah-ESEA-Flexibility-Request.aspx