2. Management Time
 Clock Hours Information
 State of School Address
 District Leadership Team
 Contract Overview
(9/4 Building Administrators & 9/18 Building Teams)

3. I can now relate to Miss South Carolina 2007

4. Assessment & Accountability
Updates
Principal Seminar
8/15/2012

5. ESEA Flexibility Waiver
 AYP
 Sanctions
 Uniform Bar
 Achievement (Accountability) Index

6. Flexibility Waiver of
ESEA Requirements
From:
Current annual measurable goals for determining
adequate yearly progress (AYP) and associated
sanctions
To:
New “ambitious but achievable” AMOs to guide
improvement efforts for reading, mathematics, and
graduation rates

7. 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

8. Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver
Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyond
AYP Determinations AMO Calculations
Sanctions No Sanctions (letters, transportation, etc.)
Set-asides
Up to 20% Set-asides for Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools
School Improvement
Uses AYP calculations to identify
schools and districts in a step of
improvement (Title I)
Uses PLA Methodology based on
AYP calculations to generate list of
Persistently Lowest Achieving ESEA Waiver Application ESEA New Accountability
Schools Accountability System System
Used to identify Reward, Focus and Priority Used to identify Reward, Focus and
SBE/OSPI Achievement and Emerging schools Priority and Emerging schools
Index
Used to identify Award Schools

9. Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver
Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyond
AYP Determinations AMO Calculations
Determinations based Annual targets to close proficiency gaps by ½ by 2017;
on current status of %
uses 2011 as baseline and adds equal annual
meeting standard
compared to Uniform
increments (1/6 of proficiency gap) to get to 2017
Bar (100% by 2014) target; each subgroup, school, district, and state, have
unique annual targets.
AYP determinations
reported on Report Calculations reported on Report Card
Card
No sanctions
Not making AYP
results in sanctions
for Title 1 schools
Up to 20% Set-asides for Priority, Focus, and Emerging
Schools
$$$ set-asides

10. Accountability Evolution with ESEA Waiver
Up to 2011-12 2012-13 and 2013-14 2014-15 and beyond
School Improvement ESEA Waiver Application ESEA New Accountability System
Uses AYP calculations to identify Priority and Focus Schools: Based on To be developed by SBE in collaboration
schools and districts in a step of calculations used to identify Persistently with OSPI and external stakeholders and
improvement (Title I) Lowest Achieving Schools (3 years of R/M informed by Joint Select Committee on
or Grad Rate data) Educational Accountability
Uses PLA Methodology based on
AYP calculations to generate list of Reward Schools: Uses 3-year average for Likely to incorporate aggregated year
Persistently Lowest Achieving R/M or Grad Rate data to identify Highest to year individual student growth but
Schools 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 implement
optional 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; both
SBE/OSPI Achievement receive added support/services Don’t yet know what the balance of
Index current status, year to year change, and
Year to Year change in % meeting standard aggregated individual student growth will
Used to identify Award Schools counts as much as current status of % be
meeting standard
Current status emphasized (3:1)
over year to year change No year to year individual student growth
is incorporated

11. 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)

12. Based on 4 Principles
Principle 1: Principle 3:
College and Career Supporting effective
Ready expectations for instruction and leadership
all students via Common
Core State Standards
(CCSS)
Principle 2: Principle 4:
State-developed Reduce duplication and
differentiated recognition, unnecessary burden on
accountability, and school districts by the state
support

13. NCLB Flexibility Waiver
Reward
10%
Focus
10%
913 Title I
Schools
Emerging Priority
15% 5%

14. NCLB Flexibility Waiver
Reward
Extremely Low Reading and
Math Performance for all
Students
Focus
Emerging Priority

15. NCLB Flexibility Waiver
Low Reading and Math
Reward Performance for Specific
Subgroups
Focus
Emerging Priority

16. NCLB Flexibility Waiver
Next 5% of Priority and 10% of
Reward Focus
Focus
Emerging Priority

17. NCLB Flexibility Waiver
High Reading and Math
Reward Performance for all Students
Focus
Emerging Priority

19. Smarter Balanced
Assessments Consortium
 Summative, Interim and Formative
 Online
 2014 -15

20. Waves of change…..
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Reading MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP
HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE
Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio
Writing MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP
HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE HSPE
Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio
Math MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP
HSPE HSPE EOC EOC EOC EOC
Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio
Science MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP
HSPE HSPE HSPE EOC EOC EOC
Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio
Second
Language WLPT WLPT WLPT WELPA WELPA WELPA
Kindergarten WaKIDS WaKIDS WaKIDS

21. Current Statewide
Summative (Student) Assessments
Reading Mathematics Science Writing
Grade 3 MSP MSP
Grade 4 MSP MSP MSP
Grade 5 MSP MSP MSP
Grade 6 MSP MSP
Grade 7 MSP MSP MSP
Grade 8 MSP MSP MSP
High School HSPE EOC EOC HSPE
MSP= Measurements of Student Progress;
HSPE = High School Proficiency Exams;
EOC= End of Course exams

22. Proposed Summative Assessments in 2014–15
English/LA Mathematics Science
Grade 3 SBAC SBAC
Grade 4 SBAC SBAC
Grade 5 SBAC SBAC MSP
Grade 6 SBAC SBAC
Grade 7 SBAC SBAC
Grade 8 SBAC SBAC MSP
Grades 9-10 HSPE EOC EOC
Reading & Writing Algebra/Geometry ???
???
Grade 11 SBAC SBAC
SBAC=SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium
MSP= Measurements of Student Progress
HSPE = High School Proficiency Exams
EOC= End of Course exams

24. 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?

25. Change in Overall Performance
2010-11 to 2011-12
Grade 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

26. Change in Overall Performance
2010-11 to 2011-12
Reading Math Writing Science EOC Year 1 EOC Year 2
Grade 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 Diff
3rd 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 2.2
10th 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

27. 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

28. Students Meeting Standards in Reading
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
% Met Standard
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
2006 75.1 82.6 81.4 69.1
2007 78.4 81.9 77.2 74.0
2008 79.6 76.7 81.0 71.4
2009 80.6 76.5 79.2 75.8
2010 79.5 73.6 79.3 74.8
2011 78.3 75.1 75.9 78.6
2012 72.2 78.2 81.0 79.0

29. Students Meeting Standards in Reading
100.0
90.0
80.0
% Met Standard
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10
2007 78.4 81.9 77.2 74.0 68.3 68.2 87.8
2008 79.6 76.7 81.0 71.4 65.7 68.8 87.0
2009 80.6 76.5 79.2 75.8 60.9 74.4 89.8
2010 79.5 73.6 79.3 74.8 69.1 74.7 83.6
2011 78.3 75.1 75.9 78.6 60.7 70.4 88.7
2012 72.2 78.2 81.0 79.0 75.7 69.4 87.1

30. Students Meeting Standards in Writing
100.0
90.0
80.0
% Met Standard
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10
2005 60.5 66.1 69.7
2006 56.6 76.4 86.2
2007 63.2 74.1 91.5
2008 61.3 76.2 96.0
2009 58.7 74.8 96.6
2010 62.3 73.4 92.5
2011 64.6 76.3 93.6
2012 65.4 77.1 90.6

31. 100.0
Students Meeting Standards in Mathematics
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
% Met Standard
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10
2007 73.7 65.4 64.2 56.3 57.8 51.3 54.2
2008 74.3 58.6 66.4 53.2 56.9 50.3 54.0
2009 69.2 54.2 65.6 59.7 56.5 53.0 51.4
2010 66.5 59.8 63.9 60.4 63.4 57.4 43.2
2011 65.2 66.3 70.1 71.5 68.1 60.8 69.0
2012 66.6 64.1 73.0 74.6 67.0 65.5

32. Students Meeting Standards in Science
100.0
90.0
80.0
% Met Standard
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 10
2005 38.8 32.7 32.9
2006 38.2 41.9 32.2
2007 36.6 41.9 35.3
2008 44.8 46.4 46.9
2009 52.2 56.6 44.8
2010 42.2 60.0 48.1
2011 63.8 64.0 56.9
2012 77.5 71.4

33. Percent of Grade 4 Students Meeting Standards
100.0
90.0
80.0
% Met Standard
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Reading Mathematics Writing
2005 84.4 61.9 60.5
2006 82.6 61.2 56.6
2007 81.9 65.4 63.2
2008 76.7 58.6 61.3
2009 76.5 54.2 58.7
2010 73.6 59.8 62.3
2011 75.1 66.3 64.6
2012 78.2 64.1 65.4

34. Percent of Grade 7 Students Meeting Standards
100.0
90.0
80.0
% Met Standard
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Reading Mathematics Writing
2005 71.9 53.5 66.1
2006 60.2 49.6 76.4
2007 68.3 57.8 74.1
2008 65.7 56.9 76.2
2009 60.9 56.5 74.8
2010 69.1 63.4 73.4
2011 60.7 68.1 76.3
2012 75.7 67.0 77.1

35. Percent of Grade 10 Students Meeting Standard
100.0
90.0
80.0
% Met Standard
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Reading Mathematics Writing Science
2005 77.8 45.8 69.7 32.9
2006 86.8 52.8 86.2 32.2
2007 87.1 54.2 91.5 35.3
2008 87.0 54.0 96.0 46.9
2009 89.8 51.4 96.6 44.8
2010 83.6 43.2 92.5 48.1
2011 88.7 69.0 93.6 56.9
2012 87.1 90.6

36. 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)

37. Next Steps Reflection
 Today’s Learning?
 Takeaways?
 Evidence?
 Next Best Step?
 Help?

38. 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!