1

Annual Student Performance Report

September 2013

2

Overview

• Review of NCLB requirements

• 2013 ISAT performance and AYP status

• Next steps

3

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%

4

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

5

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

6

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 92.5% (in 2013) of students must meet or exceedstandards in the subject. If the percentage is less than 92.5%,

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 92% attendance rate.

7

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

8

Making AYP: Complicating Factors

•Home school versus serving school

•May 1 attendance cutoff

•Some students in multiple subgroups

9

Why Cut Scores Were Raised

• Focus on college and career readiness

• Closer alignment to PARCC test

• Common Core State Standards set higher bar

10

Changes to Cut Scores

Reading Math

Grade 2012 2013 2012 2013

3 191 207 184 214

4 203 217 200 224

5 215 228 214 235

6 220 237 225 247

7 226 239 235 257

8 231 248 246 267

11

Student Progress: 2012-2013

•Reminders:•AYP compares different sets of

students fromyear to year•Vast majority of students do improve

fromone year to next

12

2013 Reading Compared to 2012

DISTRICT

BeyeHatc

h

Holmes

Irving

Linco

ln

Longfe

llow

Man

n

Whitti

er

Brooks

Julia

n0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0 90.884.9

92.9 92.0 88.9 87.896.6 93.9 93.7 90.5 91.4

79.786.4

78.485.4

75.6 77.4 81.989.1

79.9 78.4 77.2

Spring 2012Spring 2013

13

2013 Math Compared to 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100 92.7 91.5 94.9 93.8 93.7 95.1 98.3 96.5 96.990.4 91.4

76.6 79.8 78.483.3

74.5 70.3

84 82.8 8472.2 76

Spring 2012Spring 2013

14

Past Performance Under New Cut Scores

2010 Rdg

2011 Rdg

2012 Rdg

2013 Rdg

. 2010 Math

2011 Math

2012 Math

2013 Math

0

20

40

60

80

10089 88 90 91 91 92

75 7377 80

73 73 76 77

Old cut scoresNew cut scores

15

Disproportionate Effect on SubgroupsOld cut scores

New cut scores

16

2013 AYP Status

•One school made AYP in both subjects•Nine schools did not make AYP in one orboth subjects for one or more subgroups

•One failed for the third consecutive year

•One failed for the fourth consecutive year

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

17

2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups Making AYP

Spring break

READINGSubgroup % Meets or Exceeds Safe Harbor Target

White students 90.0% 89.4%

Economically disadvantaged students 52.4% 53.7%

MATHSubgroup % Meets or Exceeds Safe Harbor Target

Asian students 87.2% 89.3%

Students of two or more races 79.5% 80.6%

18

2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups Not Making AYP in Reading

READINGSubgroup % Meets or Exceeds Safe Harbor TargetALL students 79.7% 80.5%Black students 55.9% 57.7%Hispanic students 65.7% 69.4%Asian student 83.7% 90.6%Students of two or more races 80.8% 86.5%Students with disabilities 40.3% 48.1%

19

2013 AYP Status: District 97Subgroups not Making AYP in Math

MATHSubgroup % Meets or Exceeds Safe Harbor TargetALL students 76.6% 79.5%White students 88.0% 89.8%Black students 48.0% 54.7%Hispanic students 62.8% 71.9%Students with disabilities 38.2% 50.3%Economically disadvantaged students 47.1% 52.8%

20

2012 AYP Status Update

SCHOOL Not Making AYP: Subjects and Subgroups

2013StateStatus

2013 Federal Status

Beye Math: White students Academic Early Warning: Year 2

Choice and SES

Brooks Reading: Students with disabilitiesMath: All students, Black students, Students with disabilities, Economically disadvantaged students

Academic Watch:Year 1

Does not apply

Julian Reading: Students of two or more races, Students with disabilitiesMath: Students with disabilities, Economically disadvantaged students

Academic Early Warning: Year 2

Does not apply

District AYP statusState: Academic Early Warning Year

2Federal: District Improvement Year

2

21

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 (School 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 (School choice and

Supplemental Educational Services)•State: Academic Early Warning Status – Year 2

22

Student Growth Model

Local growth model (ECRA)• ISAT, MAP, EXPLORE, and DIBELS• Uses past student performance to

predict future• Compares actual to predicted to

identify areas needing attention

23

School Improvement Planning

•Rising Star plans at district level and all ten schools

•Continuous improvement model•Focused on research-based indicators

•West 40 again engaged as consultant

24

Questions?