no child left behind act of 2001 implementation of virginia’s consolidated plan

8//03 Virginia Department of Education1

NO CHILD LEFT NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001BEHIND ACT OF 2001

Implementation of Implementation of Virginia’s Consolidated Virginia’s Consolidated PlanPlanDr. Patricia I. Wright

Assistant Superintendent for Instruction

August 5, 2003


PURPOSE OF NCLB LAW

Enacted “to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind”


No Child Left Behind ActPerformance Goals for All States

1. By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics.

2. All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.

3. By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.

4. All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.

5. All students will graduate from high school.


• The Consolidated State Application

– NCLB Overview

– NCLB and Virginia’s Accountability System

• Choice Options

• Annual Testing (Academic Content and English Language Proficiency)

• Adequate Yearly Progress Measures

• "Highly Qualified" Teachers and Paraprofessionals

• Parental Knowledge and Involvement (Report Cards)

NCLB ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN VIRGINIA


The Consolidated Application Timeline

• May 2002, Board of Education (BOE) submitted initial consolidated application to the U.S. Education Department (USED) to secure funding (Excludes: Reading First and Title VI, Part A)

– $274.8 million for 2002-2003 (22 percent increase)– $267.8 million allocated to school divisions– $7.0 million formula-driven state set-aside

• November 26, 2002, USED issued final Title I regulations

• January 2003, BOE submitted to USED “Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook”

– February 2003, USED conducted peer review of state accountability plan

• May 1, 2003, SEA submitted final plan for meeting NCLB accountability requirements and AYP related baseline data

• June 9, 2003, SEA submitted, under protest, amendments to state accountability plan related to 2002-2003 policies for testing, and the formula for determining Adequate Yearly Progress (“AYP”) for certain LEP students and students with disabilities

• June 10, 2003, USED approved Virginia’s accountability plan

• September 2003, SEA submits baseline data and state targets for non-AYP related indicators


VA Consolidated State Application Accountability

Workbook Approved• The U.S. Department of Education has approved Virginia’s

Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, as amended on June 9, 2003.

• The NCLB accountability plan that Virginia had proposed for 2003-2004 and beyond was approved with minor changes and clarifications.

• The June 9 amendments relate to testing policies in effect for 2002-2003 and the formula for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) in 2002-2003 for certain students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. Virginia agreed to these amendments under protest and only because USED mandated them.


THE CONSOLIDATED STATE ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

• “Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook” describes NCLB implementation status, including

• Virginia's definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

• Virginia's Adequate Yearly Progress starting points and intermediate targets

• Preliminary yearly objectives:

– Increasing to 100 percent in 2013-2014


STATEWIDE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM

NCLB law requires a single statewide accountability system that will be effective in ensuring

that all public schools and school divisions make adequate yearly

progress.


Virginia’s Standards of Learning program has given us a head start

in meeting the goals and challenges of the No Child Left

Behind Act.

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTS:

THE USE OF ASSESSMENT DATA IN VIRGINIA

• Within 12 years, beginning with 2002-2003, all students in Virginia are to achieve proficiency in English (reading/ language arts) and mathematics.

• Adequate Yearly Progress, as defined in the “Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook”, will be the measure by which all Virginia public schools, school divisions, and the state will be evaluated to determine whether progress in reaching academic proficiency levels is being made.


ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTS

SANCTIONS AND REWARDS

• Virginia will implement a system of sanctions and rewards to hold ALL public schools and school divisions accountable for student achievement.

• Sanctions will be imposed on schools and divisions that do not make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years.

– Title I schools in “School Improvement” will be subject to sanctions that increase in number and severity with each year of the designation (Sec. 1116).

– The state’s current system of sanctions and rewards through the school accrediting process will be expanded to include school divisions.


"SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT" STATUS

• Under NCLB, Title I schools are identified for school improvement through two means:

– Title I schools have been Accredited with Warning in English and/or mathematics for two years, based on Standards of Learning tests administered in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001

– Title I schools fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years after establishment of the starting points


Choice Provisions in NCLB

Public School Choice

Title I, section 1116(b)(E)

Supplemental Services

Title I, section 1116(e)

Unsafe School Choice Option

Title IX, section 9532


PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICETitle I Schools in Improvement

• Must be provided no later than the first day of the school year following school improvement identification

• Must give priority to the lowest performing students in the highest poverty schools

• Must be effectively communicated to parents


STUDENT TRANSFER CHOICE: 2002-2003

• 34 Title I schools in Virginia identified as needing improvement

• These schools offer a student transfer option for parents this school year

• Nine school divisions affected to date


SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES

• Schools that fail to make AYP after first full year in school improvement must:– Offer supplemental services– Continue to provide public school choice

• Board of Education (BOE) criteria for providers:– Have a proven record of effectiveness– Use high quality, research-based approaches– Align materials with the SOL

• BOE approved preliminary list of eligible providers in September 2002, and the review and evaluation process are ongoing.

Virginia Board of Education


Unsafe School Choice Option

Allows students to transfer when:

A school is determined to be “persistently dangerous,” and/or

A student becomes the victim of a violent crime at a school.


Unsafe School Choice Option Persistently Dangerous Schools

The SEA must develop objective criteria to be used in identifying unsafe schools.

Board of Education adopted criteria and identification process at its April 29, 2003 meeting

Identification process will involve three years of data.

The incidents that will be used to analyze whether a school is persistently dangerous are referenced in the criminal section of the Code of Virginia (Title 18.2) as those crimes and offenses against a person and illegal possession of controlled drugs and substances with intent to distribute, each constituting a felony. Only those incidents that occur on school property as it is defined by the Code of Virginia, or at school-sponsored events on school property, will be used in determining a school’s persistently dangerous status.

The SEA must identify persistently dangerous schools no later than 14 days prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year (USED recently notified SEA of the extended deadline.)

Division superintendents who have schools potentially categorized as “cautioned” or on “probation” in 2003-2004 have been notified and provided the opportunity to review school incident data.


Summary of NCLB Testing Requirements

• Annual testing in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 by 2005-2006. Administration of reading and mathematics tests at least once at the high school level.

• Administration of science tests at least one time each in elementary, middle, and high schools by 2007-2008

• Current Science Standards of Learning tests meet this requirement

• Participation in NAEP testing

• Assessment of English proficiency for all Limited English Proficient (LEP students)


EXPANSION OF VIRGINIA STATE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

• All students expected to participate in Standards of Learning testing program (95 % participation required)

• Virginia will develop and administer additional tests

– New Standards of Learning tests to be developed in reading and mathematics for grades 4, 6, and 7

– Additional forms of the Standards of Learning tests in mathematics for grades 3-8 will be developed for certain LEP students

– Additional alternate assessments aligned to grade-level standards for certain children with disabilities

• Test development to follow Virginia’s standard process; items to be field tested over the next few years


ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY (ELP) TESTING

FOR LEP STUDENTS• Virginia Board of Education adopted English

Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards of Learning in November 2002

• Local school divisions will select and annually administer ELP assessments to LEP students beginning 2002-2003

– State approved ELP tests to be used in Title III funded divisions

• BOE adopted list of ELP tests in January 2003

• State participating in CCSSO Consortium to develop ELP test


LEP ACADEMIC CONTENT TESTING

• Options for LEP students in grades 3-8 at lowest levels (Levels 1 and 2) of English language proficiency

– Students may take state-approved ELP tests linked directly to Standards of Learning for English/reading Standards of Learning tests for up to 3 years

– State to develop and administer additional forms for mathematics with linguistic accommodations (i.e., plain language forms)

• Students at upper levels of proficiency will take the regular Standards of Learning tests


ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS

• AYP measures school, division, and state progress in:

– Reading (English/Language Arts)

– Mathematics

– Graduation Rates

– Attendance Rates

• Board of Education set starting points in January 2003.– Starting points calculated using formulas prescribed in federal law

and are the same for all subgroups, schools, divisions, and the state

– 2001-2002 data and two prior consecutive years of data included in calculations

• Reading/language arts: 60.7 percent pass rate

• Mathematics: 58.4 percent pass rate


ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS(cont.)

• Board of Education set annual measurable objectives in mathematics and reading in January 2003.

• "Yearly Objectives" increase to 100 percent in 2013-2014

• Objectives must be met by all subgroups of students:– Students with disabilities

– Economically disadvantaged students

– Limited English proficient students

– Major racial/ethnic groups

• Groups exceeding 5% of total student population in state: Black (not of Hispanic origin), White (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic


Starting Points: Other Academic Indicators

• Graduation rate data:

– 67.2% graduation rate

– Secondary schools and any school having a graduating class

• Attendance rate data:

– 93.4% ADA

– Elementary/Middle schools and any school NOT having a graduating class


AYP: Annual Measurable Objectives

2001-2002

Start Point

2002-2003

2003-2004`

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

60.7 61.0 61.0

Int. Goal

70.070.0 70.0

Int. Goal

80.080.0 80.0

Int. Goal

90.090.0 90.0 100

Reading/Language arts (percent pass)


2001-2002

Start Point

2002-2003

2003-2004`

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

58.4 59.0 59.0

Int. Goal

70.070.0 70.0

Int. Goal

80.080.0 80.0

Int. Goal

90.090.0 90.0 100

Mathematics (percent pass)

AYP: Annual Measurable Objectives


AYP• Establish minimum “n” for

statistically valid and reliable determinations:

– 50 students for AYP

– 10 students for reporting

• Include students present for “full academic year”


Summary: Making AYP

• 95% participation of all students and all subgroups of students in statewide assessment program

AND

• Meeting annual measurable objectives for assessments AND meeting/making progress in graduation/attendance

OR

• Reducing failure rates by at least 10% AND making progress in graduation rate or attendance rate (both, for LEAs, state)


Example of “Safe Harbor”

• Suppose a school’s pass rate for mathematics is 57%. The school has not met the annual measurable objective (AMO) for mathematics.

• To check for safe harbor, calculate the failure rate (43%) and compare it to data for 2001-2002.

• Suppose the 2001-2002 failure rate were 48%. 10% of 48% is 4.8% .

• Therefore, the failure rate must be less than (48% -4.8%) 43.2% to meet safe harbor.

• Since the failure rate is 43%, safe harbor has been met.


Calculating AYP

• DOE staff will calculate AYP in the summer of 2003 using student-level test data. This data is the same as that received by divisions for review prior to summary reports being run.

• AYP will be calculated as data becomes available.

• AYP calculations will include scores from SOL tests, alternate assessment, and substitute tests.


AYP Issues

• Students with Disabilities

– Participation Rate

– Alternate assessment

• Limited English Proficient Students

– Participation Rate


Notification of AYP

• Superintendents will be notified of AYP status as data becomes available.

• School divisions will have the opportunity to appeal AYP status based on questions about statistical accuracy


The LEA and AYP

• The local school division must:

– Ensure schools have assessment and indicator data

– Notify schools making/not making AYP prior to the beginning of the school year

– Publicize and disseminate AYP determinations to school community

– Review efforts of schools to improve student achievement [Section 1116(a)]


ANNUAL STATE, DIVISION, AND SCHOOL REPORT CARDS

• Virginia’s annual School Performance Report Card will be expanded to include all required NCLB data elements.– School Performance

• Student achievement disaggregated by subgroup• Graduation rates• Attendance• Number and names of schools identified for school

improvement

– Teacher Quality• Percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified

teachers• Percentage of teachers with provisional credentials


• The Virginia Department of Education will

– Design and publish Web-based report cards for the state, divisions, and schools

– Expand data collections to capture additional required data

– Enhance data analysis capacity to ensure accurate reporting of results to USED and parents

– Seek solutions for instituting a statewide individual student records system

VIRGINIA’S ANNUAL REPORT CARD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


LEA Report Cards

• The local school division must disseminate to parents, schools, and the general public an annual school and division report card designed by the state. The report will summarize the academic performance of schools and students.

• The following data will be included:

– Student academic achievement on the Standards of Learning tests disaggregated by:

• economically disadvantaged students

• students from each major racial and ethnic group

• students with disabilities

• LEP students

• gender

• student’s migrant status


LEA Report Card Requirements(continued)

• The report card must include:

– Student achievement at the proficient and advanced levels on the state assessments

– Secondary school graduation rates disaggregated by subgroup

– The number, percentage, and names of schools identified for improvement

– How students in each school performed on the state assessments compared to school division and state as a whole

– The percentage of students who were not tested disaggregated by subgroup

– The professional qualifications of division teachers


ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE CLASSROOMHIGH QUALITY STANDARDS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL

PERSONNEL

• Virginia will require certain teachers and paraprofessionals, as required in NCLB, to meet the definition of “highly qualified” within required time frames.

• The Board of Education is in the process of examining and amending its “Licensure Regulations for School Personnel” to provide greater flexibility for teachers entering the profession.


HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

• Teachers

– Board of Education initiated:

• Review of regulatory and policy actions

• Revision of licensure regulations to address requirements for certain teachers to meet NCLB highly qualified definition

– Local license holders teaching in core academic areas are not considered to be "highly qualified”

Virginia Board of Education


HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

• All teachers of core academic subjects hired after the first day of the 2002-2003 school year who work in Title I, Part A supported programs must be “highly qualified.”

– The core academic subjects under NCLB are English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign language, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography

• ALL teachers of core academic subjects must be "highly qualified" by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

• In Virginia, a "highly qualified teacher" means:

– a teacher of core academic subjects who:• holds full state licensure as a teacher (including licensure earned

through alternate routes)AND

• is teaching only in the area(s) of endorsement


HIGHLY QUALIFIED PARAPROFESSIONALS

• Paraprofessionals

– All paraprofessionals who are hired to perform instructional duties in programs supported by Title I, Part A funds

• Regardless of hiring date

• Must have a secondary school diploma or a GED


HIGHLY QUALIFIED PARAPROFESSIONALS (cont.)


– All Title I paraprofessionals hired after January 8, 2002

• whose duties include instructional support

• must be "highly qualified”

– All Title I paraprofessionals hired on or before January 8, 2002

• whose duties include instructional support

• must become "highly qualified" by January 8, 2006


• A “highly qualified” paraprofessional means one of the following options has been met:

– completed two years of study at an institution of higher education;

– obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree;

– met a rigorous standard of quality and be able to demonstrate, through a formal state or local academic assessment, knowledge of and the ability to assist in instructing reading, writing, and mathematics (or, as appropriate, reading readiness, writing readiness, and mathematics readiness)





– The ParaPro Assessment

• A formal state test for paraprofessionals

• Developed by Educational Testing Service (ETS)

• Administered over the Internet

• BOE set statewide cut-score (455) in March 2003

– School divisions may also develop and administer their own assessment.


TEACHER QUALITY DATA

• State must implement plan for achieving annual increases in highly qualified teachers

– Comprehensive data collection to identify an accurate number of current highly qualified teachers

– Identify high-quality professional development offerings

• Information collected must be reported to parents and public


A Parent’s “Right-to-Know” Teacher Qualifications

Local school divisions receiving Title I funds must notify parents at the beginning of each school year that they may request and obtain information from the division about qualifications of staff instructing their children in Title I schools.


A Parent’s “Right-to-Know” Teacher Qualifications

(continued)

• Information must include:

– Whether the teacher has met state qualification and licensing criteria for the grade levels and subject areas taught

– Whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or other provisional status

– The baccalaureate degree major of the teacher and any other graduate certification

– Whether their children are provided services by paraprofessionals and, if so, their qualifications


Parental Notification:Not “Highly Qualified”

The local school division must ensure that Title I schools give timely notice to parents that their children have been assigned or have been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified.


Military Access

• Local school divisions receiving assistance under NCLB must provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is generally provided to post-secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.

• A secondary school student or parent may request that the student’s name, address, and telephone listing not be released without prior written consent.


Constitutionally Protected Prayer

• As a condition of receiving funding under No Child Left Behind, school divisions must annually certify to the state that they have no policies that would prevent or deny participation in constitutionally protected prayer.

• Written certification must be provided to the state by October 1 of each year.

– A constitutionally protected prayer assurance for superintendent and local school board chairperson’s signature can be found among the assurances in the local consolidated or individual applications for federal funds.

no child left behind act of 2001 implementation of virginia’s consolidated plan

Documents