Implications for
Salt Lake City School District
August 7th 2012
Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS)
• One accountability system (Utah Comprehensive Assessment System)
• No more AYP
- No requirement for 100% proficiency 2014
• No Schools/Districts in program improvement (Priority or Focus)
All NCLB requirements not addressed in the 2012 waiver are still in
place
• More flexibility in use of Title I School Improvement funds
• New Utah Comprehensive Assessment System meets federal and
state requirements:
- Growth and proficiency
- Focus on below proficient students
2
• Adoption of the new Utah Core Standards for English language
arts and mathematics
• Adoption of a new comprehensive assessment system which will
measure the full breadth and depth of the Utah Core Standards
using computer based adaptive testing
• Focused student performance outcomes targeted at ensuring all
students are college, career, and citizenship ready
• Adoption of the WIDA English language proficiency standards
to assist educators to ensure that instruction supports English
language learners in the acquisition of English
Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS)
• Incorporates both student achievement and growth
toward improvement in a composite score for each
school
• Annual public reports will provide summary data for
the entire school, as well as disaggregated results by
ethnicity, and for economically disadvantaged, English
language learners, and students with disabilities
• Meeting standards (proficiency) and improving academic achievement
(growth) are BOTH valued
• All schools, including those that serve traditionally low performing
students, should have an opportunity to demonstrate success
• The system should include strong incentives for schools to improve
achievement for the lowest performing students
• Growth expectations for below proficient students should be linked to
attaining proficiency
• Growth expectations for all students, including students above
proficiency, should be appropriately challenging and meaningful
• Clear and understandable to stakeholders
5
Point Structure for Elementary/Middle Schools
Overall School
600 Total Points
Growth
300 total points
Achievement
300 total points
All Students
200 total points
Percent at or
above proficient
300 total points
Below Proficient
students
100 total points
6
Point Structure for High Schools
Overall School
600 total points
Growth
300 total points
Achievement
300 total points
All students
200 total points
Percent at or
above proficient
150 total points
Below Proficient
Students
100 total points
Readiness
Graduation rate
150 total points
Math
(86 pts.)
28.5%
Language
Arts
(86 pts.)
28.5%
Science
(86 pts.)
28.5%
DWA
(42 pts.)
14.5%
Northview
Park Elementary
School 5th
GradeAchievement
2012 Achievement
Northview
Park School
2012
Total
Percent
Achievement
Tests
Points
Proficient
Calculation
Possible
Example
Language Arts
86
80%
80% of 86 = 69 points
Achievement
Mathematics
86
70%
70% of 86 = 60 points
for 5th Grade
Science
86
60%
60% of 86 = 51 points
DWA
42
80%
80% of 42= 34 points
Total Points Possible
300
71%
69 + 60 + 51+ 34= 214
Achievement Score
214/300
214/300
Science
(50 pts.)
33.3%
Language
High School Achievement
Percent Proficient 150 pts
Graduation Rate 150 pts
Total Possible
300 pts
Arts
(50 pts.)
33.3%
Math
(50 pts.)
33.3%
Tests
Example
Language Arts
Achievement
for North Mathematics
High School
Science
Total Points
Possible
North High School Achievement
Total
Percent
Points
Proficient
Possible
Achievement
Calculation
50
80%
80% of 50 = 40 points
50
30%
30% of 50 = 15 points
50
40%
40% of 50 = 20 points
150
71%
40+15+20=75
North High School
Example
Total
Readiness Points 2012 graduation Readiness
for High
Possible rate
calculation
School
150
70%
70% of 150 =105 105/150
Achievement Score
180/300
75/150
Measures all students who passed the assessment (proficiency)
Measures how much students progressed from one year to the next
• Compute an SGP for each year a student has an assessment scale
score:
• Identify a student scale score for all past years where a score
exists for that student
• Determine the academic peer group (all students in the state
with the “same” scale scores for all of the same years) for each
student
• Determine how performance in the current year compares with
that of the student’s peer group to produce a growth percentile
13
164
164
164
164
162
162
162
162
159
154
159
154
159
154
159
154
2011
Performance
2012 Score
Distribution
162
161
161
159
165
161
161
This value is the
50th Percentile
The 50th percentile is the
value below which 50%
of the scores lie
155
Far below average growth
Below average growth
Average and above growth
High Growth
• Student growth is determined by comparing the performance of a student with
all other students in the state with the same past performance
Growth Rubric
Median
Growth Description Percentile
Point
Point
Value for
Value for NonAll
Proficient
Students Students
60 +
200
100
Average and
above growth
50-59
150
75
Below average
growth
35-49
100
50
Far below
average growth
0-34
50
25
High growth
Northview Park Elementary 2012 Growth
All Students
Non Proficient Students
Median Growth Point Value
Median Growth Point Value
Subject
Percentile (2012) (rubric)
Percentile (2012) (rubric)
Language Arts
56
150
35
50
Average
Math
45
100
55
75
Science
50
150
40
50
Point Total (mean)
133
Point Total (mean)
58
133+58=191 (total point mean added)
Growth Score
191/300
Average
Northview Park 2012 UCAS
Overall School
405/600 Total
Points
Growth
300 total points
Achievement
300 total points
All Students
133/200 total
points
Percent at or
above proficient
214/300 total
points
Below Proficient
students
58/100 total
points
The long term goal is for schools to earn a minimum of 480 points for elementary schools
and 470 for high schools which is approximately the 75th percentile for schools across the
state. Accordingly, the targets would be set on reducing the gap between a schools current
score and the target score by half in six years:
Northview 2012 score = 405
480-405= 75 (1/2 of 75=37.5)
405+ 37.5= 442.5 by 2017
School Goal
395
Federal Requirement to establish and report AMOs
Utah’s Minimum Compliance Plan
• AMOs are not used in any UCAS calculation
• AMO trajectory will reduce in half the percent of non-proficient over six years
• AMOs will be established separately for each subgroup at each school
• UCAS reporting will list the AMO and performance of each school subgroup
• AMO reporting page will be a drill down page in the UCAS report
• AMOs will be used in identifying and exiting Focus/Priority schools
• AMOs will be based on the percent of students achieving proficiency on the
states Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRTs) separately in English language arts
and mathematics
• ELA: CRT results in grades 3-8 and 10 are used to determine the percent of
students proficient
• Mathematics: results are based on CRTs in grades 3-6 and in the course
appropriate CRT thereafter which includes 7th grade math or 8th grade
math. High schools will be determined by calculating the percent of 10th
grade students who scored proficient on the secondary math 1 in 10th grade
year or a prior year
• Results from the Utah Alternative Assessment (UAA) are included for students
with significant cognitive disabilities approved to participate in this
assessment
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Goal:
All
Students
Asian
African
American
American Indian
Hispanic
Pacific
Eco Dis
Islander
LEP
SWD
81
83
84
86
87
89
91
91
82
84
85
87
88
90
91
91
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
82
63
66
69
72
75
78
82
82
73
75
78
80
82
84
87
87
51
55
59
63
67
71
76
76
54
58
62
66
69
73
77
77
60
63
67
70
73
77
80
80
70
73
75
78
80
83
85
85
63% proficient 2011
Hispanic
100-63 =37
½ of 37 =18.5
18.5/6=3 % per year
Year 1 63 + 3 =66
Year 2 66 + 3 =69…
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Goal:
63
66
69
72
75
78
82
82
• UCAS reporting through the Public School Data Gateway on the USOE Website
• Salt Lake City School District will also report this data.
• SLCSD will also be creating school reports focusing on
school and subgroup growth targets
• Drillable school reports that will include achievement gap data that could be used in
school improvement plans
• Individual student growth reports with trajectory to proficiency
• Subgroup disaggregated data
600 pts.
Reward Schools: Highest performing Title I schools:
Reward Schools: High progress Title I schools:
High/High
Achievement
All Utah Schools
405 Northview Park 2012
Low/Low
Growth
Focus Schools: USOE will identify a minimum of 28 focus schools,10% of lowest
scoring Title I schools not already identified as a priority. Two year average UCAS
score, or not achieving AMOs for two years. These schools will be considered in
improvement and receive $100,000 to fulfill Title I improvement requirements.
Priority Schools: already identified using previous 4 years of data through the
School Improvement Grant (SIG schools) 15 schools statewide
0 pts.
Old Title I Accountability System
• Utah will no longer use AYP
determinations for Title I
accountability
• Current Title I school and district
improvement requirements have
been eliminated through the
approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver
• Title I schools identified in need of
improvement for 2011-2012 will:
• Retain current Title I school
improvement grants through 201213
• Be evaluated for Focus School
eligibility
New Title I Accountability System
• Utah will use the new UCAS
accountability system to identify:
• Priority Schools
• Focus Schools
• Reward Schools
• The Title I requirements of setting
aside Title I funds for school
improvement sanctions are
removed:
• Transportation associated with
public school choice
• Supplemental Educational Services
(SES)
NOTE: This is allowed under the ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request Guidance and will
allow Utah to maintain continuity in funding and service to those schools. All of
these schools have already initiated one of the federally-mandated, rigorous,
turnaround strategies that are required of Priority Schools.
Exit Criteria Priority Schools:
To exit Priority School status, the school must achieve
• a two year composite CAS score of at least 320
or
• a two year composite CAS score that is at least the 15th percentile of Title I
schools (Priority) 25th percentile (focus)
or
• two year meeting of AMOs and/or significant decreases in achievement gaps
Depending on what the school was identified for-
The USOE will annually recognize two categories of Title I Reward
Schools, High-performing and High-progress. These schools will be
recognized through:
•
•
•
•
a press release
certificate of achievement
letter to the LEA superintendent or charter leader
letter to the building principal to be shared with the school community
High-performing Title I Schools
Schools will be identified based
on highest levels of achievement
and above average
performance on growth
High-progress Title I Schools
Schools will be identified
based on highest levels of
growth and above average
performance on achievement
• Full academic year (FAY) unchanged
• Minimum N
• Achievement/Growth =10
• Participation =40
• Schools must have data for all components to receive a report
(no growth scores = no report)
November 1 (estimated)
Accountability Information Report posted on USOE webpage
UCAS/UPASS reports posted on USOE Gateway
1. Will schools/districts get an AYP report?
No. There will be no Yes or No designation for schools or districts. The UCAS report will
show total school points.
2. How will AMAO #3 be calculated?
It is anticipated AMAO #3 will be calculated based on the LEA EL subgroup AMO score.
We are awaiting clarification from the department of education on this issue.
3. Is there an appeal process?
See 2012 Accountability Timeline for detailed explanation
4. When will Priority, Focus and Reward schools be announced?
It is anticipated that the USOE will announce Title I Focus and Reward Schools 30 days
after CAS results are made available to LEAs.
5. What specific waivers of ESEA requirements did Utah receive from the U.S. Department
of Education?
For a full listing of the waivers granted, please see pages 5-6 of Utah’s approved ESEA
Flexibility Waiver Request http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/EducationalData/Accountability-School-Performance/Utah-ESEA-Flexibility-Request.aspx