Scribd
Upload
411 views

2013 School Accountability: State Board of Education Presentation September 19, 2013

This document summarizes Delaware's school accountability system under its approved ESEA flexibility waiver. It outlines new targets to reduce non-proficiency in subgroups by 50% by 2017 on state assessments and increase graduation rates. Schools are now classified as meeting or not meeting annual measurable objectives (AMOs) in reading, math and graduation. Focus schools are identified based on subgroup performance gaps. Reward schools showing highest performance and progress and recognition schools are also identified.

Uploaded by

lps2001
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
411 views

2013 School Accountability: State Board of Education Presentation September 19, 2013

This document summarizes Delaware's school accountability system under its approved ESEA flexibility waiver. It outlines new targets to reduce non-proficiency in subgroups by 50% by 2017 on state assessments and increase graduation rates. Schools are now classified as meeting or not meeting annual measurable objectives (AMOs) in reading, math and graduation. Focus schools are identified based on subgroup performance gaps. Reward schools showing highest performance and progress and recognition schools are also identified.

Uploaded by

lps2001
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 26

2013 School Accountability Summary

State Board of Education Presentation September 19, 2013

ESEA Flexibility
Delawares application approved by U.S. Department of Education (USED) on May 29, 2012 Establishes differentiated support at the district and charter level. Requires districts/charters to provide necessary supports to its school or schools. Provides for tailored support based on the specific needs of the districts/charters.

ESEA Flexibility
Schools and districts no longer receive a rating of Superior, Commendable, or Academic Watch AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) determined and reported for all schools and districts as Meets or Does Not Meet

ESEA Flexibility Targets


Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs)

Decrease the percentage of non-proficient students by 50% in each subgroup by the end of the 2017 school year
Reduction in the achievement gaps

Increase the percentage of students graduating from high school by the end of 2017 school year
Increase number of students who graduate in each subgroup by 50%

Reduction in the Achievement Gaps


DCAS Reading AMOs
Status Model
Subgroup Reading All 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 2011 Baseline 2012 Targets 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

AMIN AFAM ASIA


HAWAI HISP WHIT

66.1 49.3 81.2


70 52 74.6

68.9 53.5 82.8


72.5 56 76.7

71.8 57.8 84.3


75 60 78.8

74.6 62 85.9
77.5 64 81

77.4 66.2 87.5


80 68 83.1

80.2 70.4 89
82.5 72 85.2

83.1 74.7 90.6


85 76 87.3

MULTI EL SWD ECODIS

68.1 41.4 29.7 51

70.8 46.3 35.6 55.1

73.4 51.2 41.4 59.2

76.1 56.1 47.3 63.3

78.7 60.9 53.1 67.3

81.4 65.8 59 71.4

84.1 70.7 64.9 75.5

AMOs for DCAS Reading

Reduction in the Achievement Gaps


DCAS Math AMOs
Status Model
Subgroup Math All 64.2 67.2 70.2 73.2 76.1 79.1 82.1 2011 Baseline 2012 Targets 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

AMIN AFAM ASIA


HAWAI HISP WHIT

67.9 47.6 86.2


71.4 55.0 75.1

70.6 52.0 87.4


73.8 58.8 77.2

73.3 56.3 88.5


76.2 62.5 79.3

75.9 60.7 89.7


78.6 66.3 81.3

78.6 65.1 90.8


80.9 70.0 83.4

81.3 69.4 92.0


83.3 73.8 85.5

84.0 73.8 93.1


85.7 77.5 87.6

MULTI EL SWD ECODIS

69.1 48.9 30.2 52.0

71.7 53.2 36.0 56.0

74.3 57.4 41.8 60.0

76.8 61.7 47.7 64.0

79.4 65.9 53.5 68.0

82.0 70.2 59.3 72.0

84.6 74.5 65.1 76.0

AMOs for DCAS Math


100

MATH AMOs
90

80 70
% Making Progress 60

AMIN
AF AM ASIA HAWAI

50
40

HISP WHIT MULTI


ELL SWD ECODIS

30 20
10

0 2011 2012 2013 2014 Y ear 2015 2016 2017

ESEA Four-Year Adjusted Graduation Rate


Adjusted targets were established by using three years of data (2009, 2010 and 2011), and then creating the 201011 baseline data Goal is to reduce the non-proficient graduates in six years by 50%

Increase in Graduation Rate


Graduation Rate AMOs
Graduation Rate Group Name
All Students Targets 2011 78.4 2012 80.2 2013 82 2014 83.8 2015 85.6 2016 87.4 2017 89.2

Hispanic Am In
Af Am

71.9 77.8
72.5

74.24 79.65
74.79

76.58 81.5
77.08

78.92 83.35
79.37

81.26 85.2
81.66

83.6 87.05
83.95

85.95 88.9
86.25

White Asian
Hawaii/PI

78.4 78.4
78.4

80.2 80.2
80.2

82 82
82

83.8 83.8
83.8

85.6 85.6
85.6

87.4 87.4
87.4

89.2 89.2
89.2

Multi EL
SWD ECODIS

78.4 66.8
55.6 69.8

80.2 69.56
59.3 72.31

82 72.32
63 74.82

83.8 75.08
66.7 77.33

85.6 77.84
70.4 79.84

87.4 80.6
74.1 82.35

89.2 83.4
77.8 84.9

AMOs for Graduation Rate

10

AYP Calculations

11

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)


AYP indicators:
Participation (DCAS Reading and Math)

Other Academic Indicators Elementary/Middle Attendance High school Graduation Rate Performance (DCAS Reading and Math) Growth Model Original Model

12

Students Contributing to AYP Calculations

Full academic year students ( FAY)

Students continuously enrolled Sept 30 May 31

Students and subgroups


N = 30 for accountability purposes N = 15 for reporting purposes

13

Impact of Changing Minimum N


Based upon 2010-2011 impact data
Statewide, more school cells estimated to be included in the calculations by changing the minimum N to 30 in 2012-2013 calculation
Indicator Qualified cells/subgroups 40 N-Count Qualified cells/subgroups 30 N-Count Difference Percent Increase

Reading Math Total

826 839 1665

922 944 1866

+96 cells +105 cells +201 cells

11.62% 12.51%

14

2013 School Accountability Summary


Total Number of schools = 218 Elementary/Early Education schools = 106 Middle schools = 34 High schools = 30 Special schools = 20 Charter schools = 22 Combination schools = 5* Other agency schools = 1

*2 elementary/middle; 3 middle/high

15

2013 School Accountability Summary


Total Schools Making AYP: Title I Non Title I 93 55 148

Total Schools Not Making AYP: Title I Non Title I 43 14

57

Total Schools with No Rating: Title I Non Title I 1 12

13

16

Breakdown by Type of School:


2013 Elementary/Early Education Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Schools Charter Schools Combination Schools Agency Schools Total
Meets AYP Does Not Meet AYP No Rating

84 19 22 5 14 4 0 148

20 15 8 5 8 1 0 57

2 0 0 10 0 0 1 13
17

Breakdown by Type of School:


2012
Meets AYP
Does Not Meet AYP

2013
Meets AYP
Does Not Meet AYP

Elementary/Early Education Schools

98

84

20

Middle Schools
High Schools Special Schools Charter Schools Combination Schools Agency Schools

27
24 11 16 5 1

7
6 7 5 0 0

19
22 5 14 4 0

15
8 5 8 1 0

Total

182

31

148

57
18

ESEA Flexibility School Classifications


Reward (2 schools annually)
Highest performing Title I school Highest progress Title I school

Recognition (up to 15 schools annually)


Title I and/or Non-Title I Same criteria as Reward

19

Reward Schools & Schools of Continued Excellence DCAS Performance


100
90
82 98 96
97 97 88

98

1 00

86

88

80
72

80

70
60

68 65 58

69

Percent Proficient

50 40

2012 Reading
30

2013 Reading 2012 Math 2013 Math

20 10
0

Reward Schools

Schools of Continued Excellence

20

Recognition Schools
DCAS Performance
83 83
79 76 90 88 92 92 91 89 84 77 74 81 80 78

100
90 80
83 8081 77

98 97 90 92 91 89 89 88
91 91 92 88

92 96 95 95 93 92 92 88

94 87 82 89 85
9091 88

94 91 91
86

73 64

74

70
60

Percent Proficient

54

50 40

2012 Reading
30

2013 Reading 2012 Math 2013 Math

20 10
0

21

Partnership Zone (PZ) Schools


DCAS Performance
100

2012 Reading
90 80
78 76
67 60 60 60 58

2013 Reading

2012 Math 2013 Math


6767 6 8 6 16 1 63 58

75 73

70
60

62

Percent Proficient

55 52

54 52

52 48 47

5 15 2

50 40
30
31 28

34 33

34

35 31

33 26

27

20 10
0

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

22

Focus School Identification Criteria


District School English Low Income African Students with Low Income Hispanic Language v ersus Non-Low American Disabilities Performance Performance Learner Income Gap Performance Performance Performance

Capital Capital Christina Christina Christina Christina Milford Moy er Red Clay Red Clay Red Clay Seaford Seaford

Fairv iew Elem Washington Elem Bay ard Middle Kirk Middle Newark High Oberle ES Banneker Elem Moy er Academy A I duPont Middle Baltz Elem Warner Elem Fred Douglass Elem West Seaford Elem

X (4) X (3) X (8)


X (1 )

X (6)

X (7 )

X (3) X (5)

X (2) X (5) X (9)

X (1 0)
X (5)

X (6) X (8) X (1 ) X (8) X (5) X (3) X (9)


X (3) X (5) X (1 ) X (2)

X (1 ) X (7 ) X (9) X (3)
X (2) X (6)

X (1 )

X (1 )

X's denote categories that met the criteria below. The numbers in parentheses indicate the schools' rankings in the evaluation category with 1 being the worst. Schools were ranked if there were 40 or more students in the subgroup in 2010-11. Schools were identified as Focus Schools if: a. the school was ranked among the worst 6 Title I schools in Low Income versus Non-Low Income category and the school's gap was worse than the overall gap among all schools in the category or b. the school was ranked among the worst 10 Title I schools in two or more categories and the school's performance in each of those categories was worse than the overall performance among all schools in each of the categories. and 23 c. the school was not previously identified as a Priority School

DCAS Performance
100
90 80
89
84 81 77 95 96 92 91

Focus Schools

2012 Reading 2013 Reading

2012 Math
75 73
68 69 65 62 65 62 62 60

2013 Math
68

70
60

69

67

57 48
42 51 50

Percent Proficient

55

50 40
30
38 35

50

52 50 50
45 40

51

56 54 52 52

46 43 42 41
38 36 31 30

33

27 25

23

20 10
0

24

CONTACT INFORMATION

Susan Haberstroh

[email protected] 302-857-3301

Keith Sanders Chief Officer School Turnaround Officer


[email protected] 302-857-3394

25

You might also like