A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress AYP

A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference 2008

2

http: //www. michigan. gov/ayp 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Proficiency Index • The difference between the percent proficient and the grade level target is computed for each grade level • The difference is weighted by the number tested at each grade • The weighted differences are summed across grades • The school meets the state objective if the Proficiency Index is 0 or more 22

Index ELA 23

AYP Reliability - Margin of Error • Provisionally Proficient – Would the student score the same if tested again? • Conditional Standard Error of Measurement – Differs by grade, subject and form – Applies to “partially proficient” students on MEAP 24

Provisionally Proficient 25

Progress/Growth • Frustration with the assessment data used for AYP – classifies a student at a single point in time (status) • Teachers often work students and make improvements in achievement • Status models alone do not allow student improvement, which may be attributable to teacher intervention, to be tracked • Growth Model gives credit in the AYP decision for growth from year-to-year by demonstrating that improvement in the student’s achievement is on a trajectory such that the student is expected to attain proficiency within the next three years. 26

MEAP Progress Value Table 27

Growth Model for AYP • Growth models give schools credit for student improvement over time by tracking individual student achievement year to year. • The U. S. Department of Education convened a group of experts and policymakers to examine and compare various models to determine how growth models could meet the goals of NCLB. • A pilot program gives the Department the ability to rigorously evaluate growth models and their alignment with NCLB, and to share results with other states. 28

AYP Growth Requirements • Ensure that all students are proficient by 2014 and set annual goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students; • Set expectations for annual achievement based upon meeting grade-level proficiency, not based on student background or school characteristics; • Hold schools accountable for student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics; • Ensure that all students in tested grades are included in the assessment and accountability system, hold schools and districts accountable for the performance of each student subgroup, and include all schools and districts; • Include assessments in each of grades three through eight and high school in both reading/language arts and mathematics, must have been operational for more than one year, and must receive approval through the NCLB peer review process for the 2005 -06 school year. The assessment system must also produce comparable results from grade to grade and year to year. • Track student progress as part of the State data system; and • Include student participation rates and student achievement on a separate academic indicator in the state accountability system. 29

States Approved for Growth Pilot • Alaska • Michigan • Arkansas • North Carolina • Delaware • Ohio – Pending state acceptance • Florida • Iowa • Missouri • Tennessee 30

“On Trajectory” Toward Proficiency Fall 2007 Achievement ELA Fall 2006 Achievement ELA Not Proficient Low Not Proficient Partially Proficient Advanced Mid Partially Proficient High Low Mid High Low 412 232 180 113 Mid 521 272 150 High 2, 738 1, 817 Low 4, 636 3, 996 Mid 6, 635 High Low Mid High 31

“On Trajectory” Toward Proficiency Fall 2006 Achievement Math Not Proficient Partially Proficient Advanced Fall 2007 Achievement Math Not Proficient Low Mid Partially Proficient High Low Mid High Low 59 32 26 10 Mid 448 217 116 High 5, 275 3. 001 Low 6. 258 4, 772 Mid 6, 990 High Low Mid High 32

“On Trajectory” Toward Proficiency Fall 2007 ELA Achievement Fall 2006 ELA Achievement Emerging Low Emerging Attained Surpassed Mid High Low 53 43 Mid 176 High Low Mid High 33

“On Trajectory” Toward Proficiency Fall 2006 Math Achievement Fall 2007 Achievement Math Emerging Low Emerging Attained Surpassed Mid High 38 55 “On Trajectory” Toward Proficiency 131 Mid High Low Mid High 34

Growth Model Message • Focus on “improvement” – Don’t work only with “bubble” students – Getting from 4 -L to 3 -L is enough improvement to be “on trajectory” • The growth models provides modest adjustments 35

Multiple Year Averaging • Can only help a school or district • Can be used for participation or achievement • Only used when the school or district doesn’t meet AYP using current year data • Doesn’t create a subgroup • Achievement targets are still the same 36

Safe Harbor • An additional way to meet the AYP achievement target • Achievement must improve from year to year • Provisionally proficient students counted in both the prior year and the current year 37

Safe Harbor 38

Student Attendance • Student attendance is taken from the End-of-Year SRSD submission of the prior school year • Attendance is computed by summing the scheduled and actual days of attendance and then dividing the sum of the actual by the sum of scheduled 39

District AYP • Treats the district as one big school • May have different group size • Only done if district has more than one school 40

District AYP • Elementary Range – Grades 3 -5 • Middle School Range – Grades 6 -8 • High School Range – Grade 11 • Ranges used for District AYP regardless of School Configurations 41

District AYP • Some students are counted as district FAY and school LTFAY if the student moves from school to school within the district • District is considered to make AYP if it makes AYP at least at one grade range 42

Group Size • ALL schools are given an AYP status • Group Size applies to subgroups – NOT to all students • Small school procedure – Improved reliability for small schools – At least one student must be proficient 43

Group Size • Minimum Group Size – Across Grades Tested is 30 • If total enrollment is more than 3, 000 – 1% Percent of Total Enrollment (district or school) – District AYP – Maximum subgroup size is 200 44

Student Data File • Enrollment – Students counted from SRSD • Participation – MEAP, MME, MI-Access, and ELPA • Proficiency – Full Academic Year – Feeder Codes for grades 3 -9 45

Student Data File 46

Enrollment in Data File • Enrollment District Code • Enrollment Building Code 47

Enrollment in Data File 48

Participation in Data File • District Code Where Tested • Building Code Where Tested • ELA valid • Math valid 49

Participation in Data File 50

Proficiency in Data File • Feeder Codes (school and district) • Previous Feeder Codes (school and district) • FAY designation 51

Proficiency in Data File 52

Proficiency in Data File 53

District FAY 54

Corrections to Data File 55

Contact Information Paul Bielawski Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Michigan Department of Education PO Box 30008 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335 -5784 bielawskip@michigan. gov 56