School Improvement and Accountability in Indiana The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and P.L.221-1999 1999 Indiana Department of Education May 10, 2004 1
P.L.221-1999 Primer P.L.221-1999 1999 is Indiana s school improvement and accountability law, predating NCLB. Its guiding principles are: Standards. Assessment. Accountability (rewards and consequences). 2
P.L.221-1999 Primer Key components include: School Improvement Plan. Professional Development Program and Grant. Achievement Grants. Consequences (do not apply to Charter Schools). 3
School Improvement Plan Plan is adopted for three-year period and must be reviewed and revised, if necessary, annually. Plan is developed with input from committee of persons interested in the school (administrators, teachers, parents, community and business leaders). 4
School Improvement Plan Plan must be consistent with Indiana s Academic Standards and include improvement at least in: Attendance rate Percentage of students passing ISTEP Graduation rate (high schools) Plan must address learning needs of all students, including exceptional learners. 5
School Improvement Plan Plan must specify how and to what extent the school expects to make continuous improvement by setting benchmarks for progress. Plan must identify areas where improvement is needed immediately. Most plans and models include much more. 6
School Improvement Plan Plan is never approved by IDOE and is not reviewed if developed under approved model. 7
Professional Development Program Program must: emphasize improved learning and performance; be developed by the committee that develops the school improvement plan; and be integrated with the school improvement plan. Program is supported by state grant. 8
Achievement Grants Rewards improvement on ISTEP. Currently not funded. 9
P.L.221 Accountability State Board of Education places schools in categories of school improvement and performance based on: Percentage of students who pass English and math tests (averaged across subjects and grade levels). Improvement in passing percentage of nonmobile cohort group of students. 10
P.L.221 Accountability Improvement is based on three-year rolling average. Schools will first be placed into categories after 2005 ISTEP results are returned. 11
Indiana School Improvement and Performance Categories Performance Exemplary Progress Commendable Progress Academic Progress Academic Watch (Priority) Academic Probation (High Priority) 90% Exemplary School 80% 1% Commendable School 70% 3% 2% 1% <1% 60% 4% 3% 2% <2% 50% 5% 4% 3% 0% <0% 40% 6% 5% 4% 1% <1% <40% 6% 5% 3% <3% Improvement from Fall to Fall 12
P.L.221 Accountability In addition to English and math tests in Grades 3-10, 3 schools must participate in: NAEP and TIMSS testing, if selected. Science testing at designated grades. Social studies testing. (not funded currently) Core 40 end-of of-course tests (for placement in upper categories). 13
NCLB Primer NCLB is the latest reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act. NCLB includes funding for all major education programs except special education. Indiana must comply with NCLB to receive $400+ million in federal funds. 14
NCLB Primer Its guiding principles are: Standards. Assessment. Accountability (rewards and consequences). 15
Common Goals Both the Congress of the United States and the Indiana General Assembly have adopted common goals: High academic standards Assessment using tests aligned with the standards Accountability for achievement Data-based decision making Focus on the needs of all children 16
Common Goals Both the Congress of the United States and the Indiana General Assembly have adopted common goals: Highly qualified teachers School safety measures School report cards Comprehensive data system (http://www.asap.state.in.us) 17
NCLB-Indiana Comparison Requirement Data Student level Disaggregated Academic Standards English, Math and Science NCLB Yes Yes Grades 3-83 8 and high school grade tested Indiana Yes Yes All grades Social Studies Not required All grades English Proficiency All grades Not required 18
NCLB-Indiana Comparison Requirement Assessment English and Math Science NCLB Grades 3-83 8 and once in Grades 10-12 Three grade levels (not part of accountability) Indiana Grades 3-103 Grades 4-94 9 (need to add Grade 10 or higher, could be Core 40 ECA) 19
NCLB-Indiana Comparison Requirement Assessment Social Studies English Proficiency NAEP End of Course Tests NCLB Not required All LEP students Yes Not required Indiana Grades 4-94 All LEP students Yes Twelve subjects (voluntary for schools) 20
NCLB-Indiana Comparison Requirement Assessment Early Grades Assessments Improvement Schools NCLB Not required (assessment is component of Reading First) All public (includes Charter) Indiana English and math, Grades K-2K (voluntary for schools) All public (includes Charter) and accredited nonpublic Corporations All All 21
NCLB-Indiana Comparison Requirement Improvement Plan Schools NCLB Title I school improvement Indiana All schools Corporations Rewards Technical Assistance Title I corporation improvement Yes (all public schools) Yes (Title I schools and school corporations only) Not required Yes (all public schools) Yes (all public schools) 22
NCLB-Indiana Comparison Requirement Consequences School Report Cards School Safety Transfers NCLB Yes (Title I schools and school corporations) Yes, available through several means (web and paper sufficient) Persistently dangerous schools or crime victims Indiana Yes (all public schools except Charter) Yes, published in newspaper, on Internet, and on paper Medical 23
NCLB-Indiana Comparison Requirement Staff Qualifications Teachers NCLB Highly qualified (academic major in subject, test or other proficiency demonstration, license) Indiana Fully licensed (meets federal definition, special and alternative education may be concerns) Instructional Assistants Two years of college or pass test (Title I only) Training for Special Education and Primetime 24
Indiana Alignment with NCLB English and math tests will be expanded to Grades 3-103 in 2004-2005. 2005. Science tests were phased in beginning in 2003-2004 2004 at Grade 5. 2002 and 2003 ISTEP scores were reported against two standards, dividing students into three groups (Pass Plus, Pass, Did Not Pass). 25
NCLB Accountability States, school districts, and schools must demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP). All students are expected to be at the state- defined proficient level by 2013-2014 2014 (Fall 2014 ISTEP). States calculated starting point based on 2001-2002 2002 test data (Fall 2002 ISTEP). 26
NCLB Accountability Indiana s starting points were: 58.8% passing in English. 57.1% passing in mathematics. Intermediate goals must be established by increases, from the starting point, in equal increments. Goals must be increased no less frequently than every three years. 27
Increasing Goals Under NCLB Annual Goals 100 90 Percent Passing 80 70 Eng Math 60 50 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 School Year 28
Determining AYP All students and student groups (duplicated count) must meet annual AYP goal in English and math (calculated separately), including the following groups: Customary racial/ethnic subgroups (White, Black not of Hispanic Origin, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) Students with disabilities Limited English proficient students Economically disadvantaged students 29
Determining AYP Additional indicator is graduation rate for high schools and attendance rate for other schools, with initial goal of 95%. Any improvement is sufficient. Must test 95% of all students and each group. 30
Every Cell At or Above State Goal to Make AYP Eng/LA Math Other Indicator 95% Test in E/LA 95% Test in Math Overall IEP LEP Econ Dis A. Indian Black Asian Hispanic White 31
Federal and State Models Are Different Indiana Improvement of cohort group of students over time Continuous improvement for all schools Comparison of schools to themselves NCLB Performance of students in school from year to year Required increases for schools below state target Comparison of schools to other schools 32
Federal and State Models Are Different Can we align the different models and let P.L. 221 drive our response to NCLB? Yes, by providing that a school that does not make AYP for two consecutive years be placed in a category no higher than Academic Progress. 33
Indiana School Improvement and Performance Categories for Schools Not Meeting AYP Goals Performance Exemplary Progress Commendable Progress Academic Progress Academic Watch (Priority) Academic Probation (High Priority) 90% Exemplary School 80% 1% Commendable School 70% 3% 2% 1% <1% 60% 4% 3% 2% <2% 50% 5% 4% 3% 0% <0% 40% 6% 5% 4% 1% <1% <40% 6% 5% 3% <3% Improvement from Fall to Fall 34
Determining AYP - Safeguards Multiple Ns are used: 10 for reporting 30 for accountability 40 for 95% participation requirement AYP determinations will be based on the higher of the most current performance or a three-year average. Only students enrolled for 162 days, Indiana s definition of full academic year, are included in AYP determinations. 35
Determining AYP - Safeguards A test of statistical significance is applied to AYP decisions. A school is considered as not making AYP only if there is 99% confidence that the school did not meet the annual goal. Students with severe cognitive disabilities, up to 1% of all students tested, may be counted as proficient based on alternate standards. Unlimited number of special education students may be counted as proficient based on alternate assessment of age-appropriate appropriate grade level standards.. State law currently does not permit. 36
Determining AYP - Safeguards For accountability purposes, a limited English proficient student remains a member of the LEP student group until the student achieves a proficient score on the English proficiency test for two consecutive years. LEP students will be tested using alternate form of assessment during their first three years in the U.S. Rubric aligned with standards. Results linked to state assessment score. 37
Determining AYP - Safeguards Safe Harbor applies if a student group does not meet AYP goal but the percentage of non- proficient students is reduced by 10% from the previous year and the group demonstrates improvement on the other indicator (or maintains performance at or above goal). Participation calculations may exclude students with chronic illness and use averages. Appeal process is included. 38
Some AYP Concerns P.L.221 system is superior. AYP status is the same regardless of the number of student groups do not meet the goal and the amount by which they miss the goal. Student groups start at different points but have same trajectory. Differences within special education group are as distinct as differences among student groups. Safe harbor is based on percent passing. Scale score increases are not relevant. 39
What Now? AYP is the only accountability measure (P.L.221 does not begin until 2005 test results are back). AYP must be determined annually for all public schools. NCLB consequences apply only to Title I schools in school improvement (two consecutive years of not making AYP). 40
What now? Title I schools in school improvement must implement: Choice, after two consecutive years of not making AYP Supplemental services, after an additional year of not making AYP (without two consecutive years of making AYP) Corrective action, after an additional year of not making AYP Plan for restructuring, after an additional year of not making AYP Restructuring, after an additional year of not making AYP 41
What now? New Title I teachers in core academic subjects must be highly qualified. By the end of 2005-06, 06, every teacher in every school must be highly qualified. Indiana teachers who teach in their license area are highly qualified. 96.2 of all classes are taught by highly qualified teachers (95 % of classes in high poverty schools) Schools need plan to get to 100%. 42
What now? Title I schools may hire only highly qualified instructional paraprofessionals. All Title I paraprofessionals must be highly qualified by January 8, 2006. ETS ParaPro test has been designated (http://www.in. http://www.in.gov/psb/parapro) Test preparation activities are being developed. 43% of Title I paraprofessionals are highly qualified. School corporations need plan to get to 100% 43
What now? Every Indiana public school has a school improvement plan. Schools should ask? Is the plan based on analysis of data? Is it reviewed annually and revised if necessary? Does the professional development program align with the school improvement plan? Are curriculum and instruction aligned with standards and student needs? 44