Notes

Outline

School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Contents Measuring Performance: pages 3-8 Accountability Standards: pages 9-13 Making Safe Harbor: pages 14-23 Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): pages 24-29 Determining State and Federal Accountability Status: pages 30-44 Accountability for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students: pages 45-47 Accountability for Schools with Special Circumstances: pages 48-55 Whom to Contact for Further Information: pages 56

Measuring Performance

Measuring Performance

Calculation of the Performance Index (PI)

Elementary- and Middle-Level Accountability Assessments

Secondary-Level Accountability Assessments

Graduation Rate (1998 Cohort for 2002–03)

Accountability Standards

"Elementary Level" Elementary Level English Language Arts AMO = PI of 123 Mathematics AMO = PI of 136 Science State Standard = 40% at or above SDL (2002–03) = PI of 100 (2003–04)* Middle Level English Language Arts AMO  = PI of 107 Mathematics AMO = PI of 81 Science State Standard = PI of 100 Secondary Level English Language Arts AMO = PI of 142 Mathematics AMO = PI of 132 Graduation Rate State Standard = 55% (2002–03)

"School Year Elementary-Level Middle..." School Year Elementary-Level Middle-Level Secondary-Level ELA Math ELA Math English Math 2002–03 123 136 107 81 142 132 2003–04 123 136 107 81 142 132 2004–05 131 142 116 93 148 139 2005–06 138 149 126 105 154 146 2006–07 146 155 135 117 159 152 2007–08 154 162 144 129 165 159 2008–09 162 168 154 141 171 166 2009–10 169 174 163 152 177 173 2010–11 177 181 172 164 183 180 2011–12 185 187 181 176 188 186 2012–13 192 194 191 188 194 193 2013–14 200 200 200 200 200 200

Confidence Intervals Were Used to Determine Effective AMOs

"An Effective AMO is the..." An Effective AMO is the lowest PI that an accountability group of a given size can achieve in a subject for the group’s PI not to be considered significantly different from the AMO for that subject. If an accountability group's PI equals or exceeds the Effective AMO, the group is considered to have made AYP.

Making Safe Harbor

2003–04 Safe Harbor Calculation for ELA and Math Safe Harbor is an alternative means to demonstrate AYP for accountability groups whose PI is less than their Effective AMO. The Safe Harbor Target calculation for ELA and math for 2003–04 is: Safe Harbor Target = 2002–03PI + (200 –  2002–03PI) ´ 0.10

Slide 16

Science and Graduation Rate: Qualifying for Safe Harbor in ELA and Math in 2002–03 To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math at the elementary level, the percent scoring at or above the State Designated Level in elementary-level science for a group must equal or exceed the State Standard (40 percent) or the group’s Progress Target. To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math at the middle level, the PI for middle-level science for a group must equal or exceed the State Standard (100) or the group’s Progress Target. To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math at the secondary level, the percent of the 1998 graduation-rate cohort earning a local diploma by August 31, 2002 must equal or exceed the State Standard (55 percent) or the group’s Progress Target for secondary-level graduation rate.

Special Notes About Safe Harbor Targets If an accountability group did not test 30 or more students in 2000–01 and 2001–02 combined, the group was assigned a Safe Harbor Target of 20. If an accountability group’s Safe Harbor Target for 2002–03 exceeded its Effective AMO, the Safe Harbor Target on the Accountability Status report was printed as the Effective AMO.

Science and Graduation Rate Progress Targets

Elementary- and Middle-Level Science Progress Targets

Slide 21

Secondary-Level Graduation-Rate Progress Targets

Slide 23

Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

AYP Determinations for Schools with Administrative Errors Schools and districts that reported all of their student test results as administrative errors or that did not report results for their students are considered NOT to have made AYP in the subject and grade in which the administrative error/reporting error was made.

Determining State and Federal Accountability Status

Basic Rules for State and Federal Accountability Improvement Status Identification To be identified for improvement status, a school must fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive years in the same grade and subject. If a previously identified school fails to make AYP in the grade and subject in which it was identified, it moves to the next highest status on the continuum. If an identified school makes AYP, it remains in the same status on the continuum. To be removed from improvement status in a subject and grade, the school must make AYP in that subject and grade for two consecutive years. The school may remain or be placed in improvement status in another subject and/or grade for which it has not made AYP.

"Each district is treated as..." Each district is treated as if it were “one big school.” The district results are aggregated for all students attending school in the district as well as continuously enrolled students the district places outside of the school district (i.e., in BOCES, approved private placements). For a district to make AYP in a grade and subject, each district accountability group must make AYP in that grade and subject. A district may be identified for improvement even if no school in the district is identified for improvement. In a district with only one school, the district and school can have a different accountability status, because the district accountability groups include students placed outside the district.

Sample Identifications of School for Improvement Status School A fails to make AYP in the following groups: Grade 4 ELA White Students in 2002–03 Grade 8 Math Low-Income Students in 2003–04 School A is not identified for improvement because it has not failed to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject and grade. School B fails to make AYP in the following groups: Grade 4 ELA Asian Students in 2002–03 Grade 4 ELA LEP Students in 2003–04 School B is identified for improvement because it has failed to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject and grade (grade 4 ELA).

Recognition for High Performance Schools and districts that for two consecutive years achieve all AMOs and State Standards are recognized as “high performing.” Schools and districts that do not achieve all AMOs and State Standards but make AYP for three consecutive years are recognized as “rapidly improving.” The first schools and districts to be considered “high performing” will be identified using 2002–03 and 2003–04 school year results. The first schools and districts to be considered “rapidly improving” will be identified using 2002–03, 2003–04, and 2004–05 school year results.

Determining State Status

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Determining Federal Status Schools that do not receive Title I funding do not have a federal status. To become a School in Need of Improvement, a school must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in which it receives Title I funding. If a school in federal improvement status stops receiving Title I funding, a record of its last status is maintained until it resumes receiving Title I funding.

Determining Federal Status (cont.) When funding resumes, the school assumes the status it would have had in the first year that it did not receive funding. However, if a school without funding makes AYP for two consecutive years, it will be in good standing when funding resumes.

Determining Federal Status (cont.)

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Accountability for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students

New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) NYSAA performance levels are counted the same as general assessment levels when determining PIs for English, mathematics, and science. NCLB regulations allow a maximum of one percent of scores used in calculating the PI to be based on an alternate assessment. In 2002–03, to meet this requirement, districts that had more than one percent of their continuously enrolled students performing at Levels 2, 3, and 4 on the NYSAA had to count some of these students at Level 1 when determining PIs.

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students The New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) was introduced in 2002–03. All LEP students in grade K–12 must take the NYSESLAT annually. NYSESLAT results for LEP students in grade 4 and 8 enrolled in U.S. schools (not including Puerto Rico) for less than three years (in selected cases, less than five years) are used in calculating the PI for ELA.

Accountability for Schools with Special Circumstances

"If an elementary or middle..." If an elementary or middle school did not test 30 continuously enrolled students in ELA or mathematics in 2002–03, the scores of continuously enrolled students tested in 2001–02 and 2002–03 were combined to determine the PI. If a high school did not have 30 students in its 1999 cohort, the 1998 and 1999 cohorts were combined to determine the PI. If a school still did not have 30 students on which to base a decision, the school is subject to special procedures for determining AYP. If the “All Students” group included at least 30 students in 2002–03, results for 2001–02 and 2002–03 were NOT combined for the other accountability groups. This was true even if there were fewer than 30 tested students in the other accountability groups.

"For accountability groups that included..." For accountability groups that included 30 students in 2002–03 but did not include 30 students in 2001–02, the scores of continuously enrolled tested students in that group in 2000–01 and 2001–02 were combined to determine the safe harbor and progress targets. For accountability groups that did not include 30 1998 cohort members, the 1997 and 1998 cohorts were combined to determine the safe harbor and progress targets.  (No 1997 cohort results were collected by racial/ethnic group or poverty, so safe harbor targets could not be calculated for those groups.) If, after combining two years of data, the group still did not have 30 students on which to determine qualification for safe harbor based on science or graduation rate, the school or group was given credit for having made safe harbor if it made its ELA or math target.

"Schools that serve only students..." Schools that serve only students below grade 4 and, consequently, do not participate in State assessments are called “feeder” schools. Accountability decisions for feeder schools were based either on the performance of schools with grade 4 in the same district, or on a procedure called “backmapping.”

"If all district elementary schools..." If all district elementary schools with grade 4 enrollment made AYP in ELA, math, or science, the feeder schools in the district, including K-1 schools, were considered to have made AYP in that subject(s).

"Feeder schools with grades 2..." Feeder schools with grades 2 and/or 3 are accountable for the performance of their former students when these students take the grade 4 assessments in another district school. Feeder schools are responsible for the performance of students who were continuously enrolled in the feeder school’s highest grade (grade 2 or 3). The students’ grade 4 LEAP records must identify the feeder school attended by the student. To determine if the feeder school made AYP, the ELA and math PIs of students enrolled in the feeder school were calculated and compared with the Effective AMOs and/or Safe Harbor Targets. The Percent Above SDL in science was determined and compared with the Science Standard and/or Progress Target. For schools serving only grades K and 1, special evaluation processes are used to determine AYP.

"Since these schools do not..." Since these schools do not include the grades in which State assessments in ELA, math, and science are administered, judgments as to whether the school made adequate yearly progress must be made using special procedures.

"Since these schools do not..." Since these schools do not have a grade 12, assessment and graduation-rate data for cohort members after four years of high school cannot be collected. As such, judgments as to whether the school made adequate yearly progress must be made using special procedures.

"the New York State Report..." the New York State Report Card, contact the School Report Card Coordinator at rptcard@mail.nysed.gov New York State assessments, go to the Office of State Assessment web site at www.nysed.gov/osa federal No Child Left Behind legislation, go to the United States Department of Education web site at www.ed.gov data collection and reporting for New York State, go to the Information and Reporting Services web site at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts or contact Martha Musser at mmusser@mail.nysed.gov or (518) 474-7965 accountability, contact Ira Schwartz at ischwart@mail.nysed.gov or (718) 722-2796