1

Welcome!!!Please place your post-its on each

knowledge continuum:

1. Managing for Performance Portals2. Thinkgate

Then, please sign-in and get a copy of the presentation.

2

New ESEAFlexibility Waiver

RaChelle PerkinsVilla Heights

Federal and State Compliance2012

3

“ Data analysis supports a culture of improvement by building the habit of inquiry which you constantly ask questions and find

answers not in your preconceived judgments of children, but in the observable data. Therefore it is critical to invest the time and effort needed to identify a meaningful problem that becomes the

focus of the improvement process.” K.P. Boudett 2007

What Flexibility Is Offered? WAIVER WHAT IT REMOVES WHAT IT ALLOWS

11111(b)(2)

(E-H)

Removes required procedures for setting AMOs to use in determining AYP

Allows SEA to develop new AMOs for determining AYP reading/math

2 1116(b)

Removes current AYP status of schools and requirements for sanctions

Allows LEA to use set-aside Title I monies in Focus and other Title I schools and reduces burden for administrative and reporting requirements Allows schools to use 10% of Title 1 funds for any authorized purpose

31116(c)

Removes LEA AYP status and requirements for sanctions

46213(B)/6224(E)

Removes restrictions on use of REAP funds related to AYP

Allows LEAs to use REAP funds for any authorized purpose regardless of LEA’s AYP status

What Flexibility Is Offered?WAIVER WHAT IT REMOVES WHAT IT ALLOWS

51114(a)(1)

Removes requirement of 40% poverty to operate school-wide program Allows flexibility to spend  funds on

Priority, Focus, and other Title I schools and reduces administrative burden connected to those restrictions

Allows any school implementing interventions in Priority or Focus schools to operate school-wide

Allows the SEA/LEA to transfer 100% of funds under certain programs into Title I, Part A

61003(a)

Removes restriction that funds are used only for schools in improvement status

71117

(c)(2)(A)

Removes restriction that funds may only be provided for schools in the highest quartile of poverty

82141(a-c)

Removes restrictions on use of Title I and Title II funds related to HQT

9 to6123

Removes limitation on percent transfer of other funds into Title I

101003(g)

Removes restriction that 1003(g) funds are used only for SIG schools Allows use of 1003(g) funds for any Priority

school11

Optional Flexibility

Removes restriction that funds are only be used for programs outside of the school day Allows 21st CCLC funds to be used for expanded

learning w/in school day

What Flexibility Is Offered?WAIVER WHAT IT REMOVES WHAT IT ALLOWS

121116(a)(1)

(A)-(B) and 1116(c)(1)(A)

The requirements in ESEA that require LEAs and SEAs to make determinations of adequate yearly progress (AYP) for schools and LEAs, respectively.

Disaggregated reporting on all subgroups’ progress toward meeting their Annual Measurable Objectives.

131113(a)(3)-(4)

and (c)(1)

The requirements in ESEA that require an LEA to serve eligible schools under Title I in rank order of poverty and to allocate Title I, Part A funds based on that rank ordering.

Allows LEAs to serve a Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate below 60 percent that the SEA has identified as a priority school even if that school does not rank sufficiently high to be served.

7 7

4 Principles of ESEA Flexibility1. College-and-Career-Ready Expectations for All

Students ()

2. State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support (synthesizing feedback)

3. Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership ()

4. Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden ()

8 8

o Development of State Recognition, Accountability and Support System for All Schools

o Resetting Annual Measurable Objectives and ensuring those are a meaningful component of state system

o Identifying and Supporting/Intervening in Priority Schools (the lowest achieving and lowest progress Title I schools)

o Identifying and Supporting/Intervening in Focus Schools(those Title I schools contributing to the achievement gap)

o Identifying and Recognizing Reward Schools(highest achievement and highest progress Title I)

o Support of all

Principle 2Recognition, Accountability and Support System

From USED Flexibility Guidance:

Priority Focus RewardFrom USED Flexibility Guidance:

From USED Flexibility Guidance:

A “focus school” is a Title I school in the State that, based on the most recent data available, is contributing to the achievement gap in the State.

A “priority school” is a Title I or Title I-eligible school that, based on the most recent data available, has been identified as among the lowest-performing schools in the State.

A “reward school” is a Title I school that, based on the most recent data available, is a highest-performing school or a high-progress school. (Must make AYP for all subgroups and cannot have persistent achievement gaps)

Priority, Focus, & RewardUSED Definitions

Determined by• Reading + Math

Performance Composite < 50 % in 2010-11 school year and one of the two previous years (2008-09 or 2009-10)

• Graduation rate < 60 %

Determined by• Schools with the

largest in-school gaps for 2010-11 school year and one of the two previous years (2008-09 or 2009-10)

• Above 3-year state average of 38.7%

• Title I schools with a subgroup with proficiency score below 50% for 2010-11 school year and one of the two previous years

Determined by• Poverty rate at or above

50% and gap between highest and lowest

performing subgroups below 3-year state average

and• Schools made AYP and all

subgroups have performance composite above state performance composite and graduation rate, if any, above state graduation rate

or• Schools in the highest 10%

performance composite progress and graduation rate progress, if any, for “all students” over a 2-year period.

Priority Focus Reward

Priority, Focus, & RewardMethodology Employed by NCDPI

11 11

Reduce Not- Proficient by ½ in 6 years (by 2017)

Sets targets for subgroups to impact

closing of gaps

Principle 2Recognition, Accountability and Support System

Annual Measurable Objectives

Understanding New AMOs

 

2010-2011 Baseline

2011-2012 Targets

2012-2013 Targets

2013-2014 Targets

2014-2015 Targets

2015-2016 Targets

2016-2017 Targets

  Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading

Subgroup GS HS GS HS GS HS GS HS GS HS GS HS GS HSTotal (All students) 72.8 84.2 75.1 85.5 77.3 86.8 79.6 88.2 81.9 89.5 84.1 90.8 86.4 92.1

Native American 57.7 72.8 61.2 75.1 64.8 77.3 68.3 79.6 71.8 81.9 75.3 84.1 78.9 86.4

Asian 79.1 81.0 80.8 82.6 82.6 84.2 84.3 85.8 86.1 87.3 87.8 88.9 89.6 90.5

Black 54.0 74.7 57.8 76.8 61.7 78.9 65.5 81.0 69.3 83.1 73.2 85.2 77.0 87.4

Hispanic 57.6 75.6 61.1 77.6 64.7 79.7 68.2 81.7 71.7 83.7 75.3 85.8 78.8 87.8

Multiracial 73.3 86.6 75.5 87.7 77.8 88.8 80.0 90.0 82.2 91.1 84.4 92.2 86.7 93.3

White 81.7 90.4 83.2 91.2 84.8 92.0 86.3 92.8 87.8 93.6 89.3 94.4 90.9 95.2Economically

Disadvantaged 57.9 75.6 61.4 77.6 64.9 79.7 68.4 81.7 71.9 83.7 75.4 85.8 79.0 87.8

Limited English proficent 37.2 32.1 42.4 37.8 47.7 43.4 52.9 49.1 58.1 54.7 63.4 60.4 68.6 66.1

Students With Disabilities 39.5 45.9 44.5 50.4 49.6 54.9 54.6 59.4 59.7 63.9 64.7 68.4 69.8 73.0

100 - 57.6 means 42.4% are not proficient.

Decrease by half in equal increments over 6-years means42.4/2 = 21.2. 21.2 point improvement over 6 years

21.2/6 ≈ 3.5 point increase every year

13

3 Year Data HistorySchool

CompositeAYP

GrowthAYP

ReadingAYP Math Grad Rate

2008-2009 38.4 -0.00 Met Expected

Met Expected

41.2

2009-2010 40.2 -0.14 Met Expected

Not Met 66.2

2010-2011 32.9 -0.24 Not Met Not Met 70.8

2011-2012 34.9 -0.16 Not Met Not Met 71.1

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12Black ~ 36.2 29.2 33.0

Asian ~ 33.3 100.0 50.0

Hispanic ~ 67.8 60.6 41.2

White ~ 75.0 35.3 50.0

LEP 57.7 74.2 27.6 36.7

SWD 24.3 22.4 17.9 31.0

14 14

Two important results of this method are

1) Acknowledges that subgroups have different starting points

2) Differentiated targets are ambitious and achievable

Understanding New AMOs

15

Understanding New AMO’s

Subgroup Categories

• Total (ALL students)• Native American

• Asian• African American

• Hispanic• 2 or More Races

• White• Economically Disadvantage

• Limited English Proficient (LEP)• Students with Disabilities (SWD)

AYP Difference

• A subgroup will count if 30 students are enrolled instead

of 40• Safe Harbor and Confidence

Interval are still being used to help school meet their AMO

target• Each subgroup has a target

set by the state

16

ESEA Flexibility AMO Targets

17

Math AMO Target

18

Understanding Your AMO Targets

• # of subgroups (n=40 students) X 2 grade spans (3-8 and HS) X 2 tests (read and math) X 2 participation rate + other academic indicator = total number of AMO Targets

• A student can count in multiple subgroups!

19

Let’s Do Your AMO ClassCalculations

StudentName

All N. American

Black Hispanic

2 or more races

Asian LEP SWD AG ED

Sheila

Dee

Ann

Bobby

1. Look at your class roster and identify each subgroup that the student belongs to.

2. Then calculate the total membership #’s for each student.

3. Highlight students with 3 or more subgroups. These are your HEAVY Hitters, they will have a greater impact

on AMO tested reporting

20

Sample AMO State ReportSubgroup % Proficiency AMO Target DifferenceTotal 63.9 84.0 -20.1 Not Met

African American 64.1 72.0 -7.9 Not Met

Asian 60.0 92.2 -32.2 Not Met

Hispanic 66.7 80.8 -14.1 Not Met

Multi Racial 66.7 84.7 -18 Not Met

Native American 100.0 75.9 24.1 Met

White 50.0 90.1 -40.1 Not Met

LEP 46.2 56.2 -10.0 Not Met

SWD 25.5 51.1 -25.6 Not Met

ED * 75.7 *

21

 

Hawthorne High School AMO Report from DPI

22

23

24

Using the DataWise Process

Data Collection- always gather multiple data sources

Ask these questions:

1. What do I see?2.What do you

make of it?3. What trends do

you see?

1. What are your next steps?

25

Placemat Activity

Each group has been given a set of data, in your groups:

1. Examine the data.2. When I say go, you are going to write down all of the

things that you feel addresses each question.3. Keep rotating until all questions have been addressed.4. As a group, decide on 3 statements that best

addresses the data and the learning centered problem5. Be ready to share your statements

26

Questions?