So, here's the JC McKenna data. Here's the key for the alphabet soup involved. AYP is Annual Yearly Progress. PI is Proficiency Index. SH is Safe Harbor. CI is Confidence Interval. WKCE is Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam. Performance levels on the WKCE: A=Advanced, P=Proficient, B=Basic and M=Minimal. NCLB is No Child Left Behind. SWD is Students with Disabilities.
There is good news for "All Students" and "Economically Disadvantaged" students in both Math and Reading.
Math (target value is 79%): All students PI is 89.75%, Economically Disadvantaged students PI is 81.25%.
Reading (target value is 87%): All students PI is is 92.75%; Economically Disadvantaged students PI is 88.7%.
The subgroup challenging our district's achievement of AYP, and arguably that of districts across the nation is the Students with Disabilities. This is a fundamental flaw in the NCLB legislation. Certainly all students should be able to expect to increase their achievement levels WHEN COMPARED TO THEIR OWN PREVIOUS ACHIEVEMENT. WKCE does not measure this at all. It's just an amalgam of this lumped in with all other students. Add to the fray the unreasonable expectation that SWD who qualify for special education services achieve at the same level as their regular education counterparts and there is a ticking time bomb awaiting to go off. Districts are severely limited in the number of SWD whose Alternate assessment results can count as Proficient or Advanced for purposes of the NCLB calculations (1% district totals). So, here's the data:
Math (target value is 79%): SWD PI is 57.55%, 29.45% lower than the target value. It's possible but not probable that this value will meet AYP through the CI calculation. The direct Safe Harbor calculation shows a 24% increase in the number of students scoring B+M and the Inverse Safe Harbor calculation shows a 29% increase as well. Both values are far from the 10% decrease required to qualify for AYP through Safe Harbor.
Reading (target value is 87%): SWD PI is 66.9%, 20.1% lower than the target value. This has more of a chance of falling within the CI to meet AYP than the Math results. If it doesn't fall in the range using the CI, safe harbor data is bleak. Both Safe Harbor calculations for reading show an INCREASE in the percent of students scoring B+M. The first Safe Harbor calculation shows a 15.4% increase, the inverse value indicates an 11.4% increase, failing miserably to meet the 10% reduction criteria to achieve AYP through Safe Harbor.
It's hard to extract all the data from the WINSS system necessary to do precise calculations of these critical NCLB AYP evaluations. As I said for the previous post, I'll decline to make any predictions. Here's the data for you to review and keep in mind once the state comes through with their answers later this spring.