View
214
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
BIE Accountability:Adequate Yearly Progress
Brian W. BoughSauk-Suiattle Indian TribeEducation Research Analyst
Bureau of Indian EducationDivision of Performance and Accountability
Overview of BIE• The BIE serves 44,000 students in 173 schools with
academic programs and 12 dormitory-only facilities on or near 64 reservations across 23 states.
• It is responsible for two post-secondary education schools, Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) in Lawrence, Kansas, and Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
• Approximately seven percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students attend schools administered by the Department of Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) supported schools.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA):No Child Left Behind Act
• Emphasized measurement and transparency to hold schools accountable for student performance on tests
• Designed to inform parents about school performance and to offer parents choices about where their students could be educated
• Requires that all students and sub-groups be held to the same standards of achievement
• Outlined requirements for standards and assessments for states
• Mandated that all students perform at 100% proficiency on Mathematics and Reading tests by 2014
• The BIE judges whether a school is making Adequate Yearly Progress as measured by the performance indicators
BIE Implementation• 25 CFR 30.100-150 is the result of Negotiated Rulemaking
Process for BIE implementation of NCLB• Negotiated Rulemaking required the BIE to determine AYP
using state standards for the state in which the school is located
• 25 CFR and NCLB both require the BIE to make school-level AYP determinations (as opposed to district-level determinations)
• NCLB requires schools to meet all AYP indicators in order to be judged as Making AYP
• US Department of Education requires that the BIE verify assessment data used in NCLB determinations and BIE reporting to ED
Indicator All Students Limited English Proficient
Special Education
Mathematics (Achievement) AMO AMO AMO
Mathematics(Participation) 95% 95% 95%
Reading or Language Arts(Achievement) AMO AMO AMO
Reading or Language Arts(Participation) 95% 95% 95%
Science(Participation) Administered Administered Administered
Attendance (K-8) Target or Improve Target or Improve Target or Improve
Graduation (9-12) Target or Improve Target or Improve Target or Improve
Definitions
Arizona New Mexico Utah
Minimum N (FAY) 40 per grade 25 per school 10 per sub-group
Full Academic Year Enrolled in First 10 Days of the School Year
Enrolled In All Four Census Periods
Enrolled 160 Days Prior to Testing
Confidence Interval 95% 95% 95%
Attendance Target(FAY and Non-FAY) 90% 92% 93%
Graduation Target(FAY and Non-FAY) 71% 52% 85%
ArizonaAnnual Measurable Objectives
(Averaged Across Grades)
SYS2008-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-12 SY2012-13 SY2013-140.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
ReadingMathematics
New MexicoAnnual Measurable Objectives
(Kindergarten through High School Configuration)
SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-12 SY2012-13 SY2013-140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ReadingMathematics
UtahAnnual Measurable Objectives
SY2007-08 SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Language ArtsMathematics
SY2007-08 SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Language ArtsMathematics
Grades 3-8
High School
SY2009-10 AYP DeterminationsArizona, New Mexico, and Utah
Disaggregated by Tribally-Controlled and Bureau-Operated Schools
AZ Nav Tribal AZ Nav Bureau AZ Tribal AZ Breau NM Nav Tribal NM Nav Bureau NM Tribal NM Bureau0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Percent of schools making AYP within the category
Bureau Trends in AYP
SY0708 SY0809 SY09100.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
TribalBureau
Percent of schools making AYP, tribally-controlled versus BIE-operated
Student Performance on AssessmentsPercent Proficient or Advanced
SY2006-07 SY2007-08 SY2008-09 SY2009-100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ReadingMathematics
Unintended Consequences• State standards are not designed for BIE schools
(nor should they be)• AYP determinations, like state assessments, are not
comparable across state lines• BIE makes decisions on grants and school
improvement plans based on AYP determinations• Program implementation success is difficult to
assess• BIE lacks a consistent definition of what
accountability means that is applied to all BIE-funded schools
Discontent with NCLB“Current law also sets annual targets for proficiency and mandates that every student meet those goals by 2014. Today, almost 40 percent of America's schools are not meeting their goals and as we approach the 2014 deadline, that number will rise steeply. “In fact, we did an analysis which shows that -- next year -- the number of schools not meeting their goals under NCLB could double to over 80 percent -- even if we assume that all schools will gain as much as the top quartile in the state.“So let me repeat that: four out of five schools in America may not meet their goals under NCLB by next year.” --Arne Duncan testimony before Congress, March 9, 2011
Waiting for Reauthorization• Montana has opted-out of increases in the
AMO• More assessments, less assessment?• Common Core Standards• Local Standards• Changes in assessments• Teacher Accountability• BIE Accountability System: Integrating
Assessments with Curricula
Vision• Accountability system is meaningful• Accountability system is consistent across BIE• Accountability system, course standards
(curricula), and assessments are all aligned• Intervention in curricula and instruction are
well-defined• DPA serves as a comprehensive statewide
system of support for schools on matters of program implementation and school improvement
Recommended