Annual Student Performance Report

October 2012

Overview

• NCLB requirements related to AYP

• 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status

• Next steps

No Child Left Behind Act andAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

•Overall goal is 100% proficiency inReading and Math by 2014•Targets increase nearly every year•Recent target proficiencies:

•2010: 77.5%•2011: 85%•2012: 85% (Illinois waiver)•2013: 92.5%

No Child Left Behind Act andAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

40 4047.5 47.5

5562.5

7077.5

85 8592.5

100

Target Percentage

Making AYP: Subgroups

•Target must be met by all subgroups:•Ethnic group•Economically disadvantaged•Students with disabilities•Limited English proficiency

•Applies to all subgroups with at least 45members

Making AYP: Overall Requirements

•Three overall requirements:1. At least 95% of students in each subgroup must be tested in reading and math.2. At least 85% (in 2012) of students must meet or exceedstandards in the subject. If the percentage is less than 85%, the95% confidence interval is applied. If a subgroup did not make AYP the previous year, but decreased the percentage notmeeting standards by at least 10%, the Safe Harbor provision willallow it to meet the conditions.3.School must have at least a 91% attendance rate.

Making AYP: Additional Factors

•Annual target percentages are lowered inspecific circumstances:

•95% confidence interval based on group size

•Safe Harbor provision of 10% decrease in

percent not meeting from one year to next

Making AYP: Complicating Factors

•Home school versus serving school•May 1 attendance cutoff•Some students in multiple subgroups

Reading ISAT

DISTRICT

BeyeHatc

h

Holmes

Irving

Linco

ln

Longfe

llow

Man

n

Whitti

er

Brooks

Julia

n0

20

40

60

80

100 90.8 84.992.9 92 88.9 87.8

96.6 93.9 93.7 90.5 91.4

Reading

Math ISAT

DISTRICT

BeyeHatc

h

Holmes

Irving

Linco

ln

Longfe

llow

Man

n

Whitti

er

Brooks

Julia

n0

20

40

60

80

100 92.7 91.5 94.9 93.8 93.7 95.1 98.3 96.5 96.990.3 90.3

Math

2012 AYP Status

•Eight schools made AYP in both subjects•Two schools did not make AYP in one orboth subjects for one or more subgroups

•One failed for the second consecutive year

•One failed for the third consecutive year

•The District as a whole did not make AYPfor the second consecutive year

2012 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups Making AYP in Math

Subgroup MATH

% meeting or exceeding

95 % Confidence

TargetALL students (3337) 92.7%

(3095)84.0%(2804)

White students (1894) 96.9%(1836)

83.7%(1586)

Black students(817)

82.1%(671)

82.9%(678)

Hispanic students (154)

89.0%(137)

80.3%(124)

Asian students (137) 97.1%(133)

79.8%(110)

Two or more races (333)

94.9%(316)

81.7%(273)

2012 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups Making AYP in Reading

Subgroup READING

% meeting or exceeding

95 % Confidence

TargetALL students (3335) 90.8%

(3027)84.0%(2802)

White students (1895) 95.7%(1813)

83.7%(1587)

Black students(817)

77.6%(634)

82.9%(678)

Hispanic students (153)

87.7%(135)

80.3%(123)

Asian students (135) 94.8%(128)

79.8%(108)

Two or more races (333)

94.6%(315)

81.7%(273)

2012 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups not Making AYP

Subgroup READING MATH

% meeting or

exceeding

Safe Harbor Target

% meeting or

exceeding

Safe Harbor Target

Students with Disabilities (579)

62.9%(364)

66.7%(387)

71.6%(414)

73.7%(444)

Economically Disadvantaged Students (673)

74.4%*(501)

75.8%(511)

79.9%(539)

81.3%(549)

*met AYP target

2012 AYP Status Update

SCHOOLNot Making AYP: Subjects and Subgroups

2011 State Status 2012 State Status

2012 Federal Status

Beye Reading and Math: Black students

Academic Early Warning: Year 1

Choice

Holmes Made AYP in all subgroups Academic Early Warning: Year 1

Academic Early Warning: Year 1

Brooks Reading and Math: Economically disadvantaged students

Academic Early Warning: Year 1

Academic Early Warning: Year 2

Julian Reading and Math: Economically disadvantaged students

Academic Early Warning: Year 1

Academic Early Warning: Year 1

Federal and State Requirementsfor Schools not Making AYP

•First year: No consequences•Second consecutive year: Complete a School ImprovementPlan and receive change in status:

•Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (Choice)•State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 1

•Third consecutive year: Complete a School ImprovementPlan and receive change in status:

•Federal (Title I schools): School in Need of Improvement (SES)•State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 2

Student Progress: 2011-2012

•Reminders:• AYP compares different sets of

students from year to year

• Vast majority of students do improve from one year to next• District focus is on student growth

Next Steps:Response to AYP Status

•School improvement planning at all tenschools using new Rising Star tool•West 40 engaged as consultants toprocess

School Improvement Planning:Characteristics of Rising Star•Continual monitoring

•Student outcomes and effective practices

•Combines several initiatives in one comprehensive plan

•Focus on all schools, not just Title I

•Completely online; increased record-keeping requirements

School Improvement Planningwith Rising Star•Required webinar to gain system access prior to Oct. 4•Initial overview with West 40 consultants: Oct. 4•Each school assembling team of 6-8, creatingcalendar, and gathering data•Smart Start and Smart Data indicators recorded: Nov. 1•Smart Plan indicators recorded: Dec. 14•On-going West 40 support throughout school

improvementplanning process

School Improvement Planning:Summary•Plans completed online following requiredformat•Goal: all plans (SIP, Title I, and Technology)working together to improve student achievementby using best practices•Intent: classroom focus changes from “I

taught…”to “The students learned…”; all teachers andadministrators utilize effective practices•Duration: on-going