Accountability Index, continued — Dr. Pete Bylsma

English Language Learners Recommendations

-Exclude results of ELLs in their first 3 years of public school enrollment, or until achieving Level 3 on WLPT

-Use performance on WLPT to provide feedback about wheter ELLs are on track to meeting standard

-Report detailed WLPT results on OSPI Report Card

Alternative Schools Recommendations

-Compare index as usual and use normal rules to determine AYP

-If alternative school does not make AYP in 2 consecutive years or “in improvement,” look at more complete set of data

Proposed Recognition System

-Use same accountability matrix, receive recognition when meeting specific benchmarks

-Applies to both schools and districts

-Two forms of recognition

1. Outstanding overall performance

*Recognition in 8 areas for very high levels of performance

*Must meet rigorous minimum conditions to ensure only truly outstanding performance is recognized

2. Noteworthy performance

*Recognition in each of the 20 cells when the 2-year average is at least 5.5 and when the index averages at least 5.0

*Less stringent minimum conditions

>>There was some concern over language used to describe/refer to alternative schools. Members were reminded of the diversity among alternative schools and the students they serve. Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn appreciated the work of the SPA group and the creation of the Accountability Index, but felt that recognition should also be at the discretion of the superintendent’s office. Dr. Mayer said the group felt the systems (superintendent’s awards and Accountability Index recognition) could easily coexist.<<


Update on OSPI Math Plans and Proposed Changes to Math Rule for High School Students — Dr. Alan Burke, Dr. Kathe Taylor

OSPI Math Plans

-Superintendent’s recommendations for K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 instructional materials have all been issued

-Work continues on collecting and making available supplemental material supports for districts

-Core academic standards (CCSSO, NGA, College Board, ACT, and Achieve) movement may have an effect on current math standards [Washington is working with this group]

-Grade 3-8 Mathematics Measurements of Student Progress

*Begin online testing in 2010

*SBE sets cut scores in July/August 2010

-High School Mathematics High School Proficiency Exam

*Shorter, single-session tests in 2010

*Begin end-of-course tests in 2011

-Two “base” tests: Algebra I/Integrated I and Geometry/Integrated II

-Base tests augmented with course specific topics

-SBE sets cut scores in July/August 2011

*Re-take “common core” exam to graduate high school (for students taking math EOCs before high school)

>>Lot of discussion around national standards. OSPI seems to like the idea (and potential cost savings). Concerns and pushback from some board members. Questions raised about the fate of the publishing and testing companies.<<

Changes to Math Rule

-Students who takes high school courses before high school may choose to not have the course recorded on their transcript

-What to do with students who take Algebra or Geometry before 9th grade and don’t record course?

-Rule Revision Recommendation 1: students move on to receive at least 2 credits in a progressive sequence

-Rule Revision Recommendation 2: after students earn credit in Algebra II, they can choose math courses that meet their education and career goals (staff recommendation)

>>General board consensus is around Rule Revision Recommendation 2.<<


Public Comment

Julie Wright, Where’s the Math? — Concerns with certain math curricula; would like more parent participation in curriculum decisions

Posted in: Blog

Leave a Comment (0) →

Leave a Comment