WHITEFISH SCHOOL DISTRICTAYP 2013
OCT 8,2013
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESSUNDERSTANDING THE NUMBERS
Scott Furois
Research and Analysis Manager –
Department of Measurement and Accountability
Office of Public Instruction
July 2013
STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT (CRT)
Criterion-referenced Test (CRT) Aligned to current Montana Content Standards Grades 3-8 & grade 10 tested (math and
reading) Additional test for science (grade 4, 8, 10) Administered every year since 2004
NCLB/ ESEA
Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2006 (reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001)
By 2013-14, 100% of students tested must score at or above proficient in reading and math, or the school/district will not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
PROGRESSION OF MT AMO TARGETS
Reading Math0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SY
2006,
Year
1 ;
74.0
%
SY
2006,
Year
1 ;
51.0
%
SY
2007,
Year
2;
74.0
%
SY
2007,
Year
2;
51.0
%
SY
2008,
Year
3 ;
83.0
%
SY
2008,
Year
3 ;
68.0
%
SY
2009,
Year
4;
83.0
%
SY
2009,
Year
4;
68.0
%
SY
2010,
Year
5;
83.0
%
SY
2010,
Year
5;
68.0
%
SY
2011,
Year
6;
84.4
%
SY
2011,
Year
6;
70.0
%
SY
2012,
Year
7;
89.6
%
SY
2012,
Year
7;
80.0
%
SY
20
13
, Y
ea
r 8
; 9
4.8
%
SY
20
13
, Y
ea
r 8
; 9
0.0
%
SY
2014,
Year
9;
100.0
%
SY
2014,
Year
9;
100.0
%
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) progression, 2006-2014
STUDENT GROUPS In addition to evaluating an entire school or
district, groups of tested students are evaluated separately
By Race/Ethnicity (six categories) Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Special Education (SE or IEP) Economically Disadvantaged students
defined by OPI as “eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRL)”
AYP CALCULATED PROCESS
Required for all schools with >30 students tested
CRT Reading and Math for student groups >30
95% Participation rate for all student groups > 40
Attendance Rate (80% or Improvement) for K-8
Cohort Graduation Rate (85% or 2 percentage point improvement) for 9-12
54.5% of schools evaluated through calculated process
AYP CALCULATED PROCESS
Two other methods to make AYP for schools in calculated process
99% CI Filter: CRT achievement scores are very close to target, and school made the other indicators. School is evaluated through SSAP.
Safe Harbor: School shows a 10% reduction in the number of students scoring below proficient, also makes other indicators. School makes AYP if all evaluated groups meet target.
SMALL SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS
Small School Accountability Process (SSAP)
Used for schools with <30 students tested 3 years of CRT Achievement data for all student groups
with >10 students tested 2 cycles of CRT Improvement Attendance or cohort graduation rate (current year) CRT Participation Rate (current year) Accreditation Continuous School Improvement Plan
(CSIP) report
44.3% of all schools evaluated through SSAP
FEEDER SCHOOL PROCESS
16 schools do not serve any grades tested Example: Eastgate School in East Helena (PK-
1) These schools receive AYP results from the
school that they “feed” into. Example: Eastgate School feeds into Radley
Elementary School (2-5), and receives the same AYP status as Radley Elementary
MONTANA ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS
Schools making AYP
In 2008, 71.8% of Montana schools made AYP In 2009, 73.6% of Montana schools made AYP In 2010, 72.6% of Montana schools made AYP In 2011, 72.2% of Montana schools made AYP In 2012, 74.1% of Montana schools made AYP In 2013, 46.6% of Montana schools made
AYP
MT AYP BY PROCESS
SSAP: 362 schools evaluated (including 6 schools originally evaluated through calculated process): 310 Made AYP. (86%)
Calculated Process: 440 Schools evaluated (doesn’t include the 6 schools above): 70 made AYP. (16%) 46 made through “Safe Harbor” process
Feeder School process: 16 schools, 1 made AYP
CRT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
School Year
Reading Proficient %
Math Proficient
%2004 62% 57%2005 68% 59%2006 78% 61%2007 81% 63%2008 81% 63%2009 82% 64%2010 84% 67%2011 85% 68%2012 86% 68%2013 84% 66%
Until this year, “all student” CRT achievement results had increased for every year in both reading and math since 2004.
CONCLUSIONS
AMO targets have risen to a very high mark 94.8% proficient in Reading 90% proficient in Math
CRT statewide results decreased slightly this year 2 percentage points in both reading and math
These two facts combine to result in a large number (53.4%) of schools not making AYP
WHITEFISH SCHOOL DISTRICT ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS - 2013
View: CRT Reading At or Above Proficiency TrendsDate: 8/29/2013Dashboard: MontCAS (CRT)Parameter: State,Whitefish Elem - 0334
Reading ScoresWF Elementary Dist.
View: CRT Mathematics At or Above Proficiency TrendsDate: 8/29/2013Dashboard: MontCAS (CRT)Parameter: State,Whitefish Elem - 0334
Math ScoresWF Elementary District
View: CRT Reading At or Above Proficiency TrendsDate: 8/29/2013Dashboard: MontCAS (CRT)Parameter: State,Whitefish H S - 0335
Reading ScoresWF High School District
View: CRT Mathematics At or Above Proficiency TrendsDate: 8/29/2013Dashboard: MontCAS (CRT)Parameter: State,Whitefish H S - 0335
Math ScoresWF High School District
AYP RESULTS- 2013
Whitefish Elementary District
Reading Target
Reading Score
Math Target
Math Score
All 94.8% 93% 90% 83%White 93% 83%EconomicallyDisadvantaged
86% 71%
Students With Disabilities
64% 45%
Muldown
Reading Target
Reading Score
Math Target
Math Score
All 94.8% 92% 90% 83%White 92% 84%EconomicallyDisadvantaged
84% 70%
Students With Disabilities
N/A N/A
Muldown
Reading Target
Reading Score
Math Target
Math Score
All 94.8% 92% 90% 83%White 92% 84%EconomicallyDisadvantaged
84% 70%
Students With Disabilities
N/A N/A
WMS
Reading Target
Reading Score
Math Target
Math Score
All 94.8% 94% 90% 84%White 94% 85%EconomicallyDisadvantaged
89% 76%
Students With Disabilities
69% 47%
WHS Dist. & WHS School
Reading Target
Reading Score
Math Target
Math Score
All 94.8% 92% 90% 76%White 93% 78%EconomicallyDisadvantaged
N/A N/A
Students With Disabilities
N/A N/A
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
345678Series710
Whitefish School DistrictCRT Results 2004-2013
Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3Series2
CRT – 3rd Grade 2006-2013Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4Series2
CRT Results – 4th Grade 2004-2013Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
5Series2
CRT Results – 5th Grade 2006-2013Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
6Series2
CRT Results – 6th Grade 2006-2013Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7Series2
CRT Results – 7th Grade 2006-2013Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8Series2
CRT Results – 8th Grade 2004-2013Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Series110
CRT Results – 10th Grade 2004-2013Reading
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
3rd Grade4th Grade5th Grade6th Grade7th Grade8th Grade10th Grade
Whitefish School DistrictCRT Results 2004-2013
Math
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
3rd Grade
CRT Results – 3rd Grade 2004-2013Math
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
4th Grade
CRT Results – 4th Grade 2004-2013Math
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5th Grade
5th Grade
CRT Results – 5th Grade 2004-2013Math
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6th Grade
6th Grade
CRT Results – 6th Grade 2004-2013Math
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
7th Grade
7th Grade
CRT Results – 7th Grade 2004-2013Math
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
8th Grade
8th Grade
CRT Results – 8th Grade 2004-2013Math
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10th Grade
10th Grade
CRT Results – 10th Grade 2004-2013Math
CRT READING SC1500
Grade2004
Reading2005
Reading 2006
Reading2007
Reading2008
Reading2009
Reading2010
Reading2011
Reading2012
Reading2013
Reading
3 82% 82% 78% 85% 90% 91% 93% 86%
4 77% 73% 82% 88% 91% 81% 83% 90% 86% 82%
5 92% 88% 88% 95% 88% 91% 95% 91%
6 91% 96% 80% 90% 96% 93% 91% 91%
7 81% 91% 95% 89% 93% 99% 95% 94%
8 71% 83% 86% 83% 91% 90% 93% 88% 97% 88%
10 76% 86% 87% 90% 85% 86% 86% 97% 90% 87%Follow the diagonal for longitudinal cohort Data source: MARS
CRT MATHSC1500
Grade2004 Math
2005 Math
2006 Math
2007 Math
2008 Math
2009 Math
2010 Math
2011 Math
2012 Math
2013 Math
3 62% 85% 70% 72% 78% 80% 86% 79%
4 55% 60% 62% 77% 76% 65% 78% 76% 80% 78%
5 66% 57% 78% 81% 73% 80% 86% 84%
6 70% 67% 76% 73% 88% 77% 79% 84%
7 64% 67% 68% 76% 72% 83% 77% 86%
8 69% 75% 55% 58% 66% 66% 74% 68% 82% 74%
10 70% 70% 61% 70% 53% 52% 73% 61% 77% 69%Follow the diagonal for longitudinal cohort Data source: MARS
CONCLUSIONS
Whitefish Schools continue to show strong student achievement on the CRT
Whitefish Schools was among the 74% of schools that did not make AYP using the Calculated Method.
SOME LOCAL COMPARISONS
CRT Assessment - Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding StandardsGrade/Subject Whitefish H S Columbia Falls
H SBigfork H S Flathead H S
10th Grade - Reading
All Students (Including ELL and Sp Ed) 87.07% 80.84% 87.14% 87.12%
Male Students 83.08% 75.47% 76.32% 83.14%
Female Students 92.00% 86.11% 100.00% 91.15%
American Indian/Alaskan Native N/A * * 58.33%
Asian or Pacific Islander * N/A N/A *
White, Non-Hispanic * N/A N/A N/A
Black, Non-Hispanic * N/A N/A *
Hispanic * * * 73.33%
Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch 58.33% 73.79% 89.29% 83.40%
Students served in Migrant Program N/A N/A N/A N/A
Special Education Students 30.00% 5.88% * 44.64%
English Language Learners N/A N/A N/A N/A
CRT Assessment - Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding StandardsGrade/Subject Whitefish H S Columbia Falls
H SBigfork H S Flathead H S
10th Grade - Mathematics
All Students (Including ELL and Sp Ed) 68.10% 53.74% 72.86% 60.76%
Male Students 69.23% 50.00% 63.16% 60.47%
Female Students 68.00% 57.41% 84.38% 61.06%
American Indian/Alaskan Native N/A * * 25.00%
Asian or Pacific Islander * N/A N/A *
White, Non-Hispanic N/A N/A N/A N/A
Black, Non-Hispanic * N/A N/A *
Hispanic * * * 53.33%
Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch 41.67% 43.69% 82.14% 51.38%
Students served in Migrant Program N/A N/A N/A N/A
Special Education Students 20.00% 11.76% * 12.50%
English Language Learners N/A N/A N/A N/A
CRT Assessment - Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards
Grade/Subject Whitefish H S Columbia Falls H S
Bigfork H S Flathead H S
10th Grade - Science
All Students (Including ELL and Sp Ed) 56.90% 51.87% 47.14% 47.29%
Male Students 61.54% 49.06% 31.58% 52.03%
Female Students 52.00% 54.63% 65.63% 42.48%
American Indian/Alaskan Native * N/A * 25.00%
Asian or Pacific Islander * * N/A *
White, Non-Hispanic N/A N/A N/A N/A
Black, Non-Hispanic * N/A N/A *
Hispanic * * * 53.33%
Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch 33.33% 37.86% 42.86% 38.74%
Students served in Migrant Program N/A N/A N/A N/A
Special Education Students 10.00% 5.88% * 14.29%
English Language Learners N/A * N/A N/A
Flathead High School - 0462
Glacier High School - 1835
Columbia Falls High Schl -
0425
Bigfork High School - 0443
Polson High School - 0633
Belgrade High School - 0491
Whitefish High School -
0448
OverAll 3rd Year Identified for Restructuring
1st Year Identified for Restructuring
1st Year Identified for Restructuring
Made AYP 4th Year Identified for Restructuring
4th Year Identified for Improvement
1st Year Identified for Restructuring
Reading 1st Year did not make AYP
(Watch List)
Holding at Corrective
Action Year 1
1st Year Identified for Corrective
Action
Made AYP 1st Year Identified for Improvement
1st Year did not make AYP
(Watch List)
1st Year did not make AYP (Watch List)
Math 1st Year Identified for Improvement
1st Year Identified for Restructuring
1st Year Identified for Restructuring
Made AYP 1st Year Identified for Corrective
Action
4th Year Identified for Improvement
1st Year did not make AYP (Watch List)
Graduation Rate
Holding at Corrective
Action Year 1
Holding at Improvement
Year 1
1st Year did not make AYP
(Watch List)
Made AYP 1st Year did not make AYP
(Watch List)
Made AYP Holding at Improvement
Year 1
Attendance Rate
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
AYP Status of Flathead Valley High Schools
WHAT’S ON THE HORIZON FOR THE CRT? State Superintendent Denise Juneau announced that she had
submitted a request for flexibility to Education Secretary Arne Duncan stating that Montana wants to discontinue giving the CRT in the spring of 2013-14 and give only the new tests prepared by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
How will schools be rated under NCLB because the law is still in place? The answer is that Montana would report our NCLB scores just as they were this year -- for example if your school was 90% proficient/advanced in Reading and 84% proficient/advanced in 2013 that is the same report for 2014.
Will there be a bar set for performance on the SBAC tests that will cause schools to be compared on the new tests? At this point, the SBAC tests are being piloted in most of the states in order to collect baseline data, so there is no reason to believe an artificial target would be set (especially when growth models are being considered as best practice) in the pilot year.
Questions?
Ongoing Discussion
Thanks!