Closing the GAP

“No Child Left Behind” (ESEA)

Who’s To Blame

The college professor said, “Such rawness in a student is a shame.

Lack of preparation in the high school is to blame,”

Said the high school teacher:

“Good heavens! That boy’s a fool.

The fault of course, is with the middle school.”

The middle school teacher said,

“From such stupidity may I be spared.

They sent him up so unprepared.’

The primary teacher huffed, “Kindergarten blockheads all.

They call that preparation – Why, it’s worse than none at all.”

The kindergarten teacher said, “Such lack of training never did I see.

What kind of a woman must that mother be?”

The mother said, “Poor helpless child. He’s not to blame.

His father’s people were all the same.”

Said the father at the end of the line,

“I doubt the rascal’s even mine!”

Before we begin……………………

Just a little history lesson

The 1960’s Brought……..

• Man on the moon• Voting Rights Act• Civil Rights Act• Head Start• Medicare

AND….

The First ESEA!!

(in 1965)

If you can remember the 60’s………

You weren’t there!!

2001ESEA Reauthorization Act

Congress took the engine out of ESEA and

Attempted to create……

A New Vehicle

Whether this is really a “New Vehicle”

or a “K-Car”

is still to be determined!

“My teacher is real tricky. I study hard -- she gives me an easy test.

I don’t study -- she gives me a hard test.”

Is this student in your class?Is this student in your class?

3.16

ESEA 2001 Final Vote

House: 381-41

Senate: 87-10

95.2% of Democrats and

86.3% of Republicans

Voted for Passage

Closing the Achievement Gap

Disaggregating the Data

Disability

SES

LEP

Ethnicity

Promoting AccountabilityAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

AYP accumulative

2001/2002 results

Baseline data

12 years to reach 100% proficiency

Subgroups

Adequate Yearly Progress

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Multiple Measures: Adequate Yearly Progress

(2002-03)

Reading Math

Grade 4 40.5% 35.9%

Grade 6 36.0% 36.8%

Grade 9 78.0% 53.1%

NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (2004-05 targets)

Grade Span Reading Math

Elementary 71.3 (Grade 3 achievement)

46.5% (Grade 4 proficiency)

Middle 47.0% (Grade 6 proficiency)

46.3% (Grade 6 proficiency)

High 71.8% (Grade 10 OGT)

60.0% (Grade 10 OGT)

SAFE HARBOR

• If a school building or district fails to meet the annual measurable objective, or if one or more subgroups fail to meet the annual measurable objective, then the school building or district makes adequate yearly progress if:

The percentage of tested students in that building, district, or subgroup below the proficient achievement level decreases by at least 10 percent from the preceding year.

CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS

Year One: Improvement Plan

CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS(continued)

YEAR TWO:YEAR TWO:

Offer School Choice

Notify parents

Option to transfer

Transportation provided

CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS

(continued)

Year Three: Offer supplemental services and school choice

CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS

(continued)

Year Four: Continue to offer school choice and supplemental services.

District takes corrective action, including one of the following: Institute new curriculum

Decrease school management authority

Appoint an outside expert

Extend school year or day

Replace the principal and/or other key staff

Secure an external manager

Close the building and reassign students

Redesign the building

Consequences: All Districts

Less Intrusive• Withhold Title I

funds• New curriculum• Alternate

governance for particular schools

More Intrusive• Replace key staff• Appoint trustee in

place of superintendent & school board

after 4 years missing AYP

District Designations & AYP (2003-04 results)

Number Percent

Excellent 117 20 17% 1

Effective 229 63 28% 2

Continuous Improvement

224 98 44% 22

Academic Watch

34 34 100% 21

Academic Emergency

4 4 100% 3

TOTAL 608 219 36% 49

Missing AYP

Designation

Number Receiving

Designation

Number in Improvement

Status

AYP Applies to:

Previously• Title I funded

schools & districts only

Now• All public schools &

districts, including community schools

• Regardless of Title I funding

Ohio’s New Accountability System

Ohio’s Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act

a.k.a. ESEA

Challenges

• Tougher system• New ground-rules

– All students accounted for– Group, as well as aggregate, performance

counts

• Creates new starting point for judging future performance– 2002-03 results are not directly comparable

to past years

Opportunities

• Multiple ways to tell the achievement story

• Highlights the achievement of all students

• Ohio’s educators have been improving achievement for almost a decade -- we believe that 2003-04 and beyond will result in continuing improvement

Tests Administered

Previously• Grades 4, 6, 9• 5 subjects

ReadingMathematicsWritingScienceCitizenship

Now• Grades 3-8, 10• 5 subjects

ReadingMathematicsWritingScienceSocial studies

Test Performance Levels

Proficiency Tests• Advanced• Proficient• Basic• Below Basic

Achievement Tests• Advanced• Accelerated• Proficient• Basic• Limited

Same Five Designations for Ohio

• Excellent

• Effective

• Continuous Improvement

• Academic Watch

• Academic Emergency

Multiple Measures: Ohio Performance Index

• More sensitive to gradations of achievement than indicators

• Credits achievement at all performance levels

• Weights higher performance more than lower performance

• Rewards “advanced” performance

Multiple Measures: Ohio Performance Index

Advanced 1.2Accelerated 1.1Proficient 1.0Basic 0.6Below Basic 0.3Untested 0.0

Multiple Measures: Performance Index

Perf. Level Percent Number Weight ScoreAdvanced 5.3% 109 1.2 6.3Accelerated 7.0% 145 1.1 7.7Proficient 33.3% 690 1.0 33.3Basic 18.4% 382 0.6 11.1Limited 35.8% 741 0.3 10.7Untested 0.2% 5 0.0 0.0TOTAL 100.0% 2072 69.1

2002-03 Report Card Content

Previously• Percent of

performance (local report card) indicators met

• Designation

Now• Percent of performance

indicators• Performance index

score• Improvement• AYP• Designation

New Report Card Criteria:Multiple Ways of Earning Designations

94% to 100%(21 or 22 for districts)

94% to 100%(21 or 22 for districts)

75% to 93%(17 to 20 for districts)

75% to 100%(17 to 22 for districts)

0% to 74%(0 to 16 for districts)

50% to 74%(11 to 16 for districts)

31% to 49%(7 to 10 for districts)

0% to 31%(0 to 6 for districts)

Temporary Growth Calculation ** --

Districts and schools will move from Emergency to Watch or from Watch to

Improvement if: (a) improved performance index score each of past two years, (b) total two-year gain of at least 10 points, and (c) most recent year's gain of at least

3 points.

and

Academic Watch

Academic Emergency and

Effective

or

or

or

or

or

or

Federal AYP Requirements

Value Added -- Once grades 3 to 8 reading and

math assessments are implemented and multiple

years of data available, Ohio will incorporate a measure of individual student grade-to-grade achievement gains

to help determine school building and district

designations.

Performance Index Score Growth Calculation

100 to 120

0 to 69

100 to 120

90 to 99

90 to 120

and

and

and

and

Missed AYP*

Met AYP

Missed AYP*

Met AYP

80 to 89

70 to 79

0 to 89Continuous

Improvement

or

Missed AYP

Missed AYP

Missed AYP

and

and

and

Met AYPandor

Excellent

Existing Ohio Report Card

Indicators

DesignationsDesignations

Designations

Districts Schools

2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004

Excellent 85 117 630 920Effective 177 229 771 906Continuous Improvement 278 224 1,242 1,207

Academic Watch 52 34 237 126

Academic Emergency 16 4 338 225

Not Rated 4 4 500 518

Change in Designation Change in Designation from Last Yearfrom Last Year

Districts Schools

# % # %

Moved Up 177 29% 1,024 30%

Moved Down 29 5% 288 9%

Excellent or EffectiveExcellent or Effective

DISTRICTSDISTRICTS

57%57%

SCHOOLSSCHOOLS

54%54%

Excellent, Effective, or Excellent, Effective, or Continuous Continuous ImprovementImprovement

DISTRICTSDISTRICTS

94%94%

SCHOOLSSCHOOLS

90%90%

Performance Index Performance Index Score Score (all grades)(all grades)

73.7

78.7

81.983.1

86.6

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Improved Performance Improved Performance Index ScoreIndex Score

DISTRICTSDISTRICTS

87%87%

SCHOOLSSCHOOLS

79%79%

At Least 10-point Gain At Least 10-point Gain in Performance Index in Performance Index Score over Two YearsScore over Two Years

Districts Schools

# % # %

36 6% 361 26%

Performance Level

Percent Number Weight Score

Advanced 11.7% 97 1.2 14.0

Proficient 54.1% 449 1.0 54.1

Basic 16.5% 137 0.6 9.9

Limited 17.7% 147 0.3 5.3

Untested 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 100.0% 830 83.3

Performance Level

Percent Number Weight Score

Advanced 15.3% 127 1.2 18.4

Proficient 57.7% 479 1.0 57.7

Basic 20.1% 167 0.6 12.1

Limited 6.9% 57 0.3 2.1

Untested 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 100.0% 830 90.2

The PI Calculator

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/accountability/performanceindexcal.xls

Improved Reading Improved Reading Proficiency over Last Proficiency over Last YearYear

Grade 4 Grade 6Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency)

# % # % # %

Districts 435 72% 300 49% 416 68%

Schools 1,280 66% 621 50% 488 73%

Improved Mathematics Improved Mathematics Proficiency over Last Proficiency over Last YearYear

Grade 4 Grade 6Grade 10 (9th Grade Proficiency)

# % # % # %

Districts 493 81% 560 92% 426 70%

Schools 1,392 71% 1,095 88% 495 70%

2004-05 Performance 2004-05 Performance Indicators -- 23 TotalIndicators -- 23 Total

21 test indicators21 test indicatorsProficiency TestsProficiency Tests– Grade 4Grade 4 math, science, & citizenship math, science, & citizenship– Grade 6Grade 6 reading, math, writing, science, & reading, math, writing, science, &

citizenshipcitizenshipAchievement TestsAchievement Tests– ReadingReading grades 3, 4, 5, & 8 grades 3, 4, 5, & 8– MathMath grades 3, 7, & 8 grades 3, 7, & 8– WritingWriting grade 4 grade 4– OGTOGT Grade 10 reading, math, writing, Grade 10 reading, math, writing,

science, social studiesscience, social studies Graduation rateGraduation rate Attendance rateAttendance rate

Operating Standards for Ohio’s Schools Serving Children with

DisabilitiesAges 3-21

Effective July 1, 2002

Overview and Implications

Changes

• Flexibility in conducting evaluations

• Interventions– Prior to an evaluation– Intervention data used to determine eligibility

• Parent involved in eligibility determination

Student Intervention

• Required for:– 3rd graders reading below “proficient” -- intense

remediation– Students scoring below “proficient” on

achievement tests– Students failing to make satisfactory progress

toward attaining grade level academic standards on diagnostic tests

– 9th graders scoring below “proficient” on the 10th grade practice test

Grade level corresponding to age

1 2 3 4

Re

ad

ing

gra

de

lev

el 4

3

2

1

5

2.5

5.2

At Risk on Early Screening

Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of Reading Difficulty

Low Risk on Early Screening

This Slide from Reading First Experts

Alligator

Children get tested Here

Screen Early

Why wait to Fail

Gap Starts Small

Grade level corresponding to age

1 2 3 4

Re

ad

ing

gra

de

lev

el 4

3

2

1

5

2.5

5.2

Early Intervention Changes Reading Outcomes

At Risk on Early Screening

Low Risk on Early Screening

3.2

Control

With research-based core but without extra instructional intervention

4.9

Interventio

n

With substantial instructional intervention

This Slide from Reading First Experts

Implication: Interventions

General Education

Interventions

IEPSpecialized Instruction

MFE

Changes: Involvement and Progress in the General

Curriculum

Close the Achievement Gap• Involvement of General Education Teacher• Ensure FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment

Performance

Standards

Content

StandardsChild Progress

DISTRICTSTRATEGIC

PLAN

ProfessionalDevelopment

Service Providers

Building Plans

Change: District’s Required to Include Special Education in the

District-wide Planning

Housing

Implications:

GeneralEducation

SpecialEducation

Child Focus

Needs Based

All Children

SUPPORTSAdministrative Staff Parents Resources

Implication:

IEPChild Progress

Academic Content Standards

Implications:

GeneralEducation

SpecialEducation

Special Education Specialized Instruction

Strategic Strategic PlanPlan

ALL

CHILDREN

SUPPORTS

Administrative Staff Parents Resources

Percent of Total vs. Students with Disabilities

• Learning Disabilities: 5% of total; 47% of SWD

• Speech/Language: 2% of total;17.5% of SWD

• Mental Retardation (C.D.) 1% of total9.7% of SWD

– Mild to Moderate .66% of SWD– Moderate to Severe .33% of SWD

A Final Thought…….

“Considerable evidence supports this conclusion: The differences in achievement observed between and among students of culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds and students of mainstreamed backgrounds are NOT the results of differences in ability to learn. Rather, they are the result of differences in the quality of the instruction these young people receive in school.”

Marietta Saravia-Shore and Eugene Garcia

Diverse Teaching Strategies for Learners

ASCD, 1995

Therefore it is imperative

That teachers provide instruction

using a variety of formats and strategies

Information You Need to Know

• Title I Budget

• Percentage that goes to personnel

• Total staff employed by Title I

• District Accountability Report

• AYP Calculations

• Performance Index Scores