The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment System Consortium (DLM) is a group of 13 states dedicated to the development of an alternative assessment system. The consortium includes the states of Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.DLM is led by the Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation (CETE) and includes experts from a wide range of assessment fields as well as key partners.
8.15 principal seminar final
Management Time Clock Hours Information State of School Address District Leadership Team Contract Overview(9/4 Building Administrators & 9/18 Building Teams)
Flexibility Waiver of ESEA Requirements From:Current annual measurable goals for determiningadequate yearly progress (AYP) and associatedsanctions To:New “ambitious but achievable” AMOs to guideimprovement efforts for reading, mathematics, andgraduation rates
What does this mean for the Puyallup School District? Elimination of AYP determinations & associated sanctions (i.e. Choice/Supplemental Education Services (SES)/Professional Development set- asides) New ways of measuring & identifying schools (Reward/Priority/Focus/Emerging Schools) Continued work with Common Core State Standards to ensure all students are college and career ready Continued work with our Teacher & Principal
Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyondAYP Determinations AMO CalculationsSanctions No Sanctions (letters, transportation, etc.)Set-asides Up to 20% Set-asides for Priority, Focus, and Emerging SchoolsSchool ImprovementUses AYP calculations to identifyschools and districts in a step ofimprovement (Title I)Uses PLA Methodology based onAYP calculations to generate list ofPersistently Lowest Achieving ESEA Waiver Application ESEA New AccountabilitySchools Accountability System System Used to identify Reward, Focus and Priority Used to identify Reward, Focus andSBE/OSPI Achievement and Emerging schools Priority and Emerging schoolsIndexUsed to identify Award Schools
Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyondAYP Determinations AMO CalculationsDeterminations based Annual targets to close proficiency gaps by ½ by 2017;on current status of % uses 2011 as baseline and adds equal annualmeeting standardcompared to Uniform increments (1/6 of proficiency gap) to get to 2017Bar (100% by 2014) target; each subgroup, school, district, and state, have unique annual targets.AYP determinationsreported on Report Calculations reported on Report CardCard No sanctionsNot making AYPresults in sanctionsfor Title 1 schools Up to 20% Set-asides for Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools$$$ set-asides
Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyondSchool Improvement ESEA Waiver Application ESEA New Accountability SystemUses AYP calculations to identify Priority and Focus Schools: Based on To be developed by SBE in collaborationschools and districts in a step of calculations used to identify Persistently with OSPI and external stakeholders andimprovement (Title I) Lowest Achieving Schools (3 years of R/M informed by Joint Select Committee on or Grad Rate data) Educational AccountabilityUses PLA Methodology based onAYP calculations to generate list of Reward Schools: Uses 3-year average for Likely to incorporate aggregated yearPersistently Lowest Achieving R/M or Grad Rate data to identify Highest to year individual student growth butSchools Performing Schools; uses status and how/how much not yet determined growth (1:1) over 3 years to identify High-Support and turn around principles Progress Schools Requirements: Priority must implementoptional turnaround principles and Focus must Requirements: Priority must implement implement meaningful interventions; turnaround principles and Focus must both receive added support/services implement meaningful interventions; bothSBE/OSPI Achievement receive added support/services Don’t yet know what the balance ofIndex current status, year to year change, and Year to Year change in % meeting standard aggregated individual student growth willUsed to identify Award Schools counts as much as current status of % be meeting standardCurrent status emphasized (3:1)over year to year change No year to year individual student growth is incorporated
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) WA has opted to establish AMOs as equal increments set toward the goal of reducing by half the percent of students who are not proficient in all AYP sub categories by fall 2017 (within six years)
Based on 4 PrinciplesPrinciple 1: Principle 3:College and Career Supporting effectiveReady expectations for instruction and leadershipall students via CommonCore State Standards(CCSS)Principle 2: Principle 4:State-developed Reduce duplication anddifferentiated recognition, unnecessary burden onaccountability, and school districts by the statesupport
NCLB Flexibility Waiver Reward 10% Focus 10% 913 Title I Schools Emerging Priority 15% 5%
NCLB Flexibility Waiver Reward Extremely Low Reading and Math Performance for all Students Focus Emerging Priority
NCLB Flexibility Waiver Low Reading and Math Reward Performance for Specific Subgroups Focus Emerging Priority
NCLB Flexibility Waiver Next 5% of Priority and 10% of Reward Focus Focus Emerging Priority
NCLB Flexibility Waiver High Reading and Math Reward Performance for all Students Focus Emerging Priority
2011-12 MSP HSPE & EOC Preliminary Results Think, Pair Share…Take a minute to reflect Which subject areas and grade level do you expect to see the most improvement and why? Do you anticipate a decline in scores in any area or grade level and why?
Change in Overall Performance 2010-11 to 2011-12Grade Reading Math Writing Science EOC Year 1 EOC Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A - is less than 3% change from previous year - is a 3% or more increase from previous year - is a 3% or more decrease from previous year
Change in Overall Performance 2010-11 to 2011-12 Reading Math Writing Science EOC Year 1 EOC Year 2Grade 2010-11 2011-12 Diff 2010-11 2011-12 Diff 2010-11 2011-12 Diff 2010-11 2011-12 Diff 2010-11 *2011-12 Diff 2010-11 *2011-12 Diff3rd 78.3 72.2 -6.1 65.2 66.6 1.4 4th 75.1 78.2 3.1 66.3 64.1 -2.2 64.6 65.4 0.8 5th 75.9 81.0 5.1 70.1 73.0 2.9 63.8 77.5 13.7 6th 78.6 79.0 0.4 71.5 74.6 3.1 7th 60.7 75.7 15.0 68.1 67.0 -1.1 76.3 77.1 0.8 100.0 100.0 0.0 8th 70.4 69.4 -1.0 60.8 65.5 4.7 64.0 71.4 7.4 95.6 93.9 -1.7 100.0 97.9 -2.1 9th 55.7 70.3 14.6 95.5 97.7 2.210th 88.7 87.1 -1.6 93.6 90.6 -3.0 56.9 N/A 68.3 79.9 11.6 69.6 79.6 10.0 Purple = change of less than 3% from previous year, Blue=increase of 3% or more, Yellow = decrease of 3% or more *2011-12 – includes Previously Passed
Percent of Grade 8 Students Meeting Standard in Science 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0% Met Standard 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Science 32.7 41.9 41.9 46.4 56.6 60.0 64.0 71.4
Preliminary School Data August 23: EOC Biology and WAAS-Portfolio scores are included. August 28: Round 2 of Record Reconciliation (RR) opens August 29: State assessment general test score release August 31: Districts preview preliminary AMO site September 11: Round 2 of Record Reconciliation (RR) closes September 14: AMO appeals received by this date will be reviewed, decisions made and reflected in the AMO press release September 26: AMO press release (tentative)
Next Steps Reflection Today’s Learning? Takeaways? Evidence? Next Best Step? Help?
Hopes & Dreams Turn to your elbow partner and share one hope and one dream for the year. Be ready to share one hope or dream from your table with the large group. Thank you!