School and District Accountability Rules Implementing No Child Left Behind NCLB

1
School and District Accountability Rules
Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The New York State Education Department
February 2007
2
Measuring Performance
3
Measuring Performance

• At the elementary and middle levels, student
  performance is measured using State assessments
  in English language arts, mathematics, and
  science.
• At the secondary level, student performance is
  measured using State assessments in English
  language arts and mathematics, and using
  graduation rate.

Assessment performance is defined at four
levels Level 1 Basic Level 2 Basic
Proficiency Level 3 Proficient Level 4
Advanced Proficiency
4
Calculation of the Performance Index (PI)
A Performance Index (PI) is a value from 0 to 200
that is assigned to an accountability group,
indicating how that group performed on a required
State test (or approved alternative) in English
language arts, mathematics, or science. PIs are
determined using the following equations
Elementary-Middle Levels PI (number of
continuously enrolled tested students scoring at
Levels 2, 3, and 4 the number scoring at Levels
3 and 4) number of continuously enrolled tested
students X 100
Secondary Level PI (number of cohort members
scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 the number
scoring at Levels 3 and 4) number of cohort
members X 100
5
Calculating the Grades 3-8 Performance Index for
Schools with Grades 3-5

• Test Number Levels
• Grade of Students 1 2 3 4
• 3 35 12 7 10 6
• 4 43 3 6 20 14
• 5 30 6 10 10 4
• TOTAL 108 21 23 40 24
• Index ((2340244024)/108)100140

Note The methodology is the same regardless of
how many grade levels (3-8) a school serves.
6
Elementary- and Middle-Level Accountability
Assessments
At the elementary and middle levels, the
assessments that are used when determining
performance indices for an accountability group
are shown below.
7
Secondary-Level Accountability Assessments
At the secondary level, the assessments that are
used when determining performance indices for an
accountability group are shown below. Beginning
with the 2002 Cohort, the second or third
assessment taken in grade 12 is no longer
excluded from accountability calculations.
8
Participation Rate
9
Participation Rate Elementary-Middle Level
For an accountability group with 40 or more
students to make Adequate Yearly Progress in
English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, 95
percent of students enrolled at the time of test
administration must have valid scores on an
appropriate assessment. In 200607, if the
participation rate of an accountability group
falls below 95 percent, the Department will
calculate a weighted average of the 200506 and
200607 participation rates. If the average
participation rate equals or exceeds 95 percent,
the group will meet the participation
requirement. Sample calculation for group below
95 percent participation in 200607
10
Participation Rule for Grades 4 and 8 Science

• To make AYP in science, a district or school with
  at least 40 students in the All Students group
  (composed of grade 4 and/or grade 8 students)
  must have valid science scores for at least 80
  percent of students enrolled at the time of test
  administration.

11
Medically Excused
If a student in grades 3 through 8 is
incapacitated by illness or injury during the
entire test administration and make-up period for
English language arts, mathematics, or science,
the student is not counted in the denominator
when participation rates are calculated. To use
this flexibility, the district must have on file
documentation from a medical practitioner that
the student was too incapacitated to be tested.
12
Participation Rate Secondary Level
For an accountability group with 40 or more
students to make Adequate Yearly Progress in
English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, 95
percent of seniors must take an assessment that
meets the students graduation requirement in
that subject. In 200607, if the participation
rate of an accountability group falls below 95
percent, the Department will calculate a weighted
average of the 200506 and 200607 participation
rates. If the average participation rate equals
or exceeds 95 percent, the group will meet the
participation requirement. Seniors are
students whose Repository record for the district
or school reports them as enrolled in grade 12 on
June 30, 2007 or as enrolled during the 200607
school year and graduated between July 1, 2006
and June 30, 2007. All students meeting these
criteria will be counted as seniors, including
students who are not included in the district or
school accountability cohort.
13
High School Accountability Cohorts for 2006-07
14
Guide to Accountability Cohorts

• High schools are accountable for three areas
• English and mathematics performance
• English and mathematics participation and
• graduation rate.
• A different group of students is measured in each
  of these areas. Further, the cohort used to
  measure English and mathematics performance was
  redefined beginning with the 2002 cohort the
  cohort used to measure graduation rate has been
  redefined beginning with the 2003 cohort.

15
2006-07 High School Accountability
16
2003 Accountability Cohort Definition

• This cohort will be used to determine if the
  district or school met the performance
  requirements in English and mathematics at the
  secondary level for the 200607 school year. The
  2003 accountability cohort consists of all
  students, regardless of their current grade
  status, who were enrolled in the school on
  October 4, 2006 (BEDS day) and met one of the
  following conditions
• first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the
  200304 school year (July 1, 2003 through June
  30, 2004) or
• in the case of ungraded students with
  disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday
  during the 200304 school year.

17
2003 Accountability Cohort Definition (contd)

• The State will exclude the following students
  when reporting data on the 2003 accountability
  cohort
• Students who transferred to another high school
  or out-of-district placement will be removed from
  the school cohort, students who transferred to
  another district will be removed from the
  district cohort, students who transferred to a
  criminal justice facility outside the district
  between BEDS day 2006 and June 30, 2007 will be
  removed from the school and district cohorts
• students who transferred to an approved
  alternative high school equivalency preparation
  (AHSEP) or high school equivalency preparation
  (HSEP) program (CR 100.7) between BEDS day 2006
  and June 30, 2007 and met the conditions stated
  on the next slide will be removed from the school
  and district cohorts
• students who left the U.S. and its territories
  between BEDS day 2006 and June 30, 2007 will be
  removed from the school and district cohorts and
• students who died between BEDS day 2006 and June
  30, 2007 will be removed from the school and
  district cohorts.

18
2003 Accountability Cohort(Transfers to GED
Removed from Cohort)
Students will be removed from the cohort for the
school and district from which they transferred
to an AHSEP or HSEP program if the final
enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2007 the
student a) has earned a high school equivalency
diploma or b) is enrolled in an AHSEP or HSEP
program. Students will be removed from the school
cohort if the enrollment records show that the
student has transferred to a different high
school and is working toward or has earned a high
school diploma. Students will be removed from the
district cohort if the enrollment records show
that the student has transferred to a high school
in a different district and is working toward or
has earned a high school diploma.
19
2003 Accountability Cohort(Transfers to GED
Remaining in Cohort)
Students will remain in the cohort of the school
and district from which they transferred to an
approved GED program if the final enrollment
record shows that on June 30, 2007 the student
a) has not earned a high school equivalency
diploma b) is not enrolled in an AHSEP or HSEP
program and c) has not transferred to a high
school that provides instruction leading to a
high school diploma. Students who transfer back
to the high school from which they transferred to
an AHSEP or HSEP program without first entering
another high school will remain in the district
and school cohort.
20
Transfers to GED

• On the Repository, districts must provide the
  following information for students who transfer
  to approved GED programs during the 2004-05,
  2005-06, or 2006-07 school years (as defined in
  CR 100.7)
• The ending reason on the enrollment record for
  the high school must be transferred to an AHSEP
  or HSEP program.
• The GED enrollment record must provide a service
  provider code for an AHSEP or HSEP program.

21
Transfers to GED (continued)

• If the student is not enrolled in the AHSEP or
  HSEP program on June 30, 2007, the ending date
  and reason must be provided.
• To be considered still enrolled, the student must
  have been in attendance at least once during the
  last 20 days of the program or have excused
  absences for that period.

22
Graduation Rate2002 Cohort for 200607
2002 Graduation-Rate Cohort Members of the 2002
school accountability cohort students
eliminated from that cohort solely because they
transferred to an AHSEP or HSEP program. 2002
Graduation Rate Number of graduation-rate
cohort members who earned a Regents or local
diploma on or before August 31, 2006 number of
graduation-rate cohort members. Example 2002
school accountability cohort count
153 Students eliminated from this cohort because
they transferred to an AHSEP or HSEP program
7 Graduation-rate cohort (2002 school
accountability cohort count) 153 (students
eliminated from the cohort because they
transferred to an AHSEP or HSEP program) 7
160 2002 graduation-rate cohort members who
earned a Regents or local diploma on or before
August 31, 2006 129 Graduation Rate (Percent
of 2002 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local
Diploma by August 31, 2006) 129 (153 7)
80.6
23
2002 Graduation-Rate Cohort Definition

• This cohort will be used to determine if the
  district or school meets the graduation-rate
  requirements for the 200607 school year. The
  2002 graduation-rate cohort consists of all
  students, regardless of their current grade
  status, who were enrolled in the school on
  October 6, 2005 (BEDS day) and met one of the
  following conditions
• first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the
  200203 school year (July 1, 2002 through June
  30, 2003) or
• in the case of ungraded students with
  disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday
  during the 200203 school year.

24
2002 Graduation-Rate Cohort Definition (contd)

• The State will exclude the following students
  when reporting data on the 2002 cohort
• students who transferred to another high school
  (excluded from the high school graduation-rate
  cohort) or district (excluded from the district
  graduation-rate cohort) or criminal justice
  facility after BEDS day 2005
• students who transferred to an approved
  alternative high school equivalency preparation
  (AHSEP) or high school equivalency preparation
  (HSEP) program (CR 100.7) after BEDS day 2005 and
  met the conditions stated on the next slide
• students who left the U.S. and its territories
  after BEDS day 2005 and before August 30, 2006
  and
• students who died after BEDS day 2005 and before
  August 30, 2006.

25
2002 Graduation-Rate Cohort(Transfers to
GEDRemoved from Cohort)
Students will be removed from the cohort for the
school and district from which they transferred
to an AHSEP or HSEP program if the final
enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2006 the
student a) earned a high school equivalency
diploma or b) was enrolled in an AHSEP or HSEP
program. Students will be removed from the school
cohort if the enrollment records showed that the
student transferred to a different high school
and was working toward or earned a high school
diploma. Students will be removed from the
district cohort if the enrollment records show
that the student transferred to a high school in
a different district and was working toward or
earned a high school diploma.
26
2002 Graduation-Rate Cohort(Transfers to
GEDRemaining in Cohort)
Students willl remain in the cohort of the school
and district from which they transferred to an
AHSEP or HSEP program if the final enrollment
record showed that on June 30, 2006 the student
a) had not earned a high school equivalency
diploma b) was not enrolled in an AHSEP or HSEP
program and c) had not transferred to a high
school that provides instruction leading to a
high school diploma. Students who transferred
back to the high school from which they
transferred to an AHSEP or HSEP program without
first entering another high school will remain in
the district and school cohort.
27
Accountability Standards
28
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and State
Standards for 200607
The Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is the PI
value that signifies that an accountability group
is making satisfactory progress toward the goal
that 100 of students will be proficient in the
States learning standards in ELA and math by
201314. The State Standards are the PI values
that signify minimally satisfactory performance
in science or graduation rate.

• Elementary-Middle Level
• English Language Arts AMO 122
• Mathematics AMO 86
• Science State Standard 100
• Secondary Level
• English Language Arts AMO PI of 159
• Mathematics AMO PI of 152
• Graduation-Rate State Standard 55 (may be
  raised by the Commissioner)

29
Annual Measurable Objectives for200506 to
201314

• School Year Elementary/Middle Level
  Secondary Level
• ELA Math ELA Math
• 200607 122 86 159 152
• 200708 165 159
• 200809 171 166
• 200910 177 173
• 201011 183 180
• 201112 188 186
• 201213 194 193
• 201314 200 200 200 200

30
Confidence Intervals Were Used toDetermine
Effective AMOs
A confidence interval is a range of points around
an AMO for an accountability group of a given
size that is considered to be not significantly
different than the AMO. The four small squares
below represent four schools with the same PI but
with different numbers of tested students. The
vertical lines represent the confidence interval
for each school based on the number of students
tested. The more students tested, the smaller
the confidence interval.
Annual Measurable Objective
31
Effective AMOs

• An Effective AMO is the lowest PI that an
  accountability group of a given size can achieve
  in a subject for the groups 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.

Effective Annual Measurable Objectives (Effective
AMOs) for 200607
Further information about confidence intervals
and Effective AMOs is available
at http//www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/school-accounta
bility/confidence-intervals.htm
32
Making Safe Harbor
33
200607 Safe Harbor Calculation for ELA and Math

• Safe Harbor is an alternate 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 200607 using
  the 200506 PI is
• Safe Harbor Target 2005-06PI (200
  2005-06PI) ? 0.10

For a group to make safe harbor in English or
math, it must meet its Safe Harbor Target and
also meet the science (at the elementary/middle
level) or graduation rate (at the secondary
level) qualification for safe harbor. To qualify
at the elementary/middle level, the group must
make the State Standard or its Progress Target in
science in grades 4 and/or 8. At the secondary
level, it must make the State Standard or its
Progress Target for graduation rate.
34
Sample 2006-07 Safe Harbor Calculation Based on
2005-06 PI
200506 ELA Effective AMO 107 (group size
42) 200506 elementary/middle-level ELA PI
90 200607 Safe Harbor Target 90 (200 90) ?
0.10 101 In 2005-06 this group did not make
its Effective AMO. It was assigned a safe harbor
target for 2006-07 based on the PI it achieved.
35
Sample Calculation To Determine if Group make AYP
in 2006-07

• 200607 ELA PI 104
• 200607 ELA Effective AMO 107
• 200607 Safe Harbor Target 101
• Though this groups PI for 200607 (104) was less
  than its Effective AMO (107), the PI was greater
  than its Safe Harbor Target (101). Therefore,
  this group made its Safe Harbor Target. To make
  AYP, the group must also qualify to make safe
  harbor. To qualify, the science PI for this group
  must equal or exceed the State Standard or its
  Progress Target in grades 4 and/or 8 science.

36
Science and Graduation RateQualifying for Safe
Harborin ELA and Math in 200607

• To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math
  at the elementary/middle level, the PI for
  elementary/middle-level science combined for a
  group must equal or exceed the State Standard
  (100) or the groups Progress Target.
• To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math
  at the secondary level, the percent of the 2002
  graduation-rate cohort earning a local or Regents
  diploma by August 31, 2006 must equal or exceed
  the State Standard (55 percent) or the groups
  Progress Target for secondary-level graduation
  rate.

37
2006-07 Safe Harbor Target Calculations for
Groups With Fewer than 30 Students in 2005-06

• 2006-07 safe harbor targets for elementary/middle
  level ELA and mathematics were not calculated for
  accountability groups with fewer than 30
  continuously enrolled, tested students in
  2005-06. If in 2006-07 a district or school has
  an accountability group with 30 or more students
  that has no 2006-07 safe harbor target, SED will
  combine student scores for 200405 and 200506 to
  calculate the target. If in the combined years,
  there were still not 30 or more tested students
  in the group, the group will be assigned a Safe
  Harbor Target of 20.
• If an accountability groups Safe Harbor Target
  for 200607 exceeds its Effective AMO, the Safe
  Harbor Target on the Accountability Status Report
  will be printed as the Effective AMO.

38
2006-07 Safe Harbor Target Calculations for
Cohorts With Fewer than 30 Members in 2005-06

• 2006-07 safe harbor targets for secondary-level
  ELA and mathematics were not calculated for
  accountability groups with fewer than 30 2002
  cohort members in 2005-06. If in 2006-07 a
  district or school has an accountability group
  with 30 or more 2003 cohort members that has no
  2006-07 safe harbor target, SED will combine
  student scores for the 2001 and 2002 cohorts to
  calculate the target. If there were still not 30
  or more cohort members in the group, the group
  will be assigned a Safe Harbor Target of 20.
• If an accountability groups Safe Harbor Target
  for 200607 exceeds its Effective AMO, the Safe
  Harbor Target on the Accountability Status Report
  will be printed as the Effective AMO.

39
Science and Graduation-Rate Progress Targets
Progress Targets are determined in science at the
elementary/middle level and in graduation rate
at the secondary level for groups that do not
meet the State Standard. To make AYP in science
or graduation rate, the All Students group must
meet the State Standard or its Progress Target.
To qualify for safe harbor in ELA and math, an
accountability group must meet the State Standard
or make its Progress Target. Progress Targets in
science and graduation rate for the following
year can be found on the Accountability and
Overview Report part of the New York State
District/School Report Card. If a school
includes only grade 4 or grade 8, the science PI
and Progress Target will be based on that grade.
40
Elementary/Middle-Level Science Progress Targets
Progress Targets are calculated in science at the
elementary/middle level for schools whose
performance is below the State Standard. Schools
that make their Progress Target are considered to
have made AYP in science and to qualify for safe
harbor in ELA and math in grades 3-8. At the
elementary/middle level, the Science Progress
Target is the value that the PI for the All
Students group must equal or exceed. For
200607, this target is determined by adding one
point to the 200506 PI. Example 200607 State
Science Standard 100 200506 PI 97 200607
Science Progress Target 97 1 98
41
Sample Qualification for ELA Safe Harbor for
Group in School with Grades 6-8

• 200506 Elementary/Middle-Level Science PI 97
• 200607 Science Progress Target 97 1 98
• 200607 Science PI 99
• 200607 Science State Standard 100
• Though this groups PI for 200607 (99) was less
  than the State Standard (100), the PI was greater
  than its Progress Target (98). Therefore, this
  group qualifies to make Safe Harbor in
  elementary/middle-level ELA and math. To make
  Safe Harbor in ELA or math, the group must also
  meet its Safe Harbor Target in that subject.

42
Secondary-Level Graduation-Rate Progress Targets
Progress Targets are calculated in graduation
rate at the secondary level for schools whose
performance is below the State Standard. Schools
that make their Progress Target are considered to
have made AYP in graduation rate and to qualify
for safe harbor in ELA and math at the secondary
level. At the secondary level, the 200607
Graduation-Rate Progress Target is the value that
the Percent of the 2002 Graduation-Rate Cohort
Earning a Local or Regents Diploma by August 31,
2006 for the All Students group must equal or
exceed. For 200607, this target is determined by
adding one point to the Percent of the 2001
Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by
August 31, 2005. Example Graduation-Rate
Standard 55 Percent of the 2001 Graduation-Rate
Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by August 31, 2005
53 200607 Graduation-Rate Progress Target 53
1 54
43
Sample Qualification for Safe Harbor for
Graduation-Rate Cohort

• Percent of 2001 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a
  Local or Regents Diploma by August 31, 2005 46
• 200607 Graduation-Rate Progress Target 46 1
  47
• Percent of 2002 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a
  Local or Regents Diploma by August 31, 2006 47
• 200607 Graduation-Rate Standard 55
• Though this groups percent of the 2002
  graduation-rate cohort earning a local or Regents
  diploma by August 31, 2006 (47) was less than the
  State Standard (55), the percent was equal to its
  Progress Target (47). Therefore, this group
  qualifies to make Safe Harbor in secondary-level
  ELA and math.

44
Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
45
Determining AYP in Elementary/Middle-Level ELA or
Math for Schools with 30 or More Continuously
Enrolled Students
NO AYP
School did not test a weighted average of 95
percent of every group of 40 or more
Schools with 40 or more students enrolled on
test day
School did not test 95 percent of every group of
40 or more
Schools with 30 or more continuously enrolled
tested students
School tested 95 percent of every group of 40 or
more
School did test a weighted average of 95 percent
of every group of 40 or more
Schools with 30 to 39 students enrolled on test
day
Check the Performance Index for each group with
30 or more continuously enrolled tested students
Every groups PI is equal to or greater than the
Effective AMO
Every groups PI is NOT equal to or greater than
the Effective AMO
Find safe harbor targets in ELA or math and
determine if the group met the science
qualification for safe harbor
AYP
A group whose PI is below its Effective AMO did
NOT make safe harbor
Each group whose PI is below its Effective AMO
made safe harbor
NO AYP
46
Determining AYP in Secondary-Level ELA or
Math for Schools with 30 or More Cohort Members
NO AYP
School did not test a weighted average of 95
percent of every group of 40 or more
School did not test 95 percent of every group of
40 or more
Participation Rate for schools with 40 or more
seniors enrolled or graduated on June 30, 2006
School tested 95 percent of every group of 40 or
more
School did test a weighted average of 95 percent
of every group of 40 or more
Schools with 30 to 39 students in the Cohort
Check the Performance Index for each group with
30 or more students
Every groups PI is NOT equal to or greater than
the Effective AMO
Every groups PI is equal to or greater than the
Effective AMO
AYP
Find safe harbor targets in ELA or math and
determine if the group met the graduation-rate
qualification for safe harbor
A group below its Effective AMO did NOT make safe
harbor
Each group below its Effective AMO made safe
harbor
NO AYP
47
Determining AYP in Elementary/Middle-Level Science
Evaluate Performance
Combine results with previous year
School with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled
tested students
Fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested
students in combined group
30 or more continuously enrolled tested students
in combined group
Special Evaluation Process
School with 30 or more continuously enrolled
tested students
Calculate the PI for each group with 30 or more
students
If the All Students group includes 40 or more
students, is the participation rate at least 80
percent?
1st
2nd
Yes
The All Students group is above the State
Standard or the Progress Target
A group is above the State Standard or Progress
Target
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
NO AYP
The group is qualified for safe harbor in ELA and
math
The group is NOT qualified for safe harbor in ELA
and math
NO AYP
AYP
48
Determining AYP in Graduation Rate
Evaluate Performance
Combine results with previous years cohort
School with fewer than 30 graduation-rate cohort
members
Fewer than 30 graduation-rate cohort members in
combined group
30 or more graduation-rate cohort members in
combined group
Special Evaluation Process
School with 30 or more graduation-rate cohort
members
Calculate the Earning a Local Diploma by August
31 of Year 4 in High School
1st
2nd
The All Students group is above the State
Standard or the Progress Target
A group is above the State Standard or Progress
Target
Yes
No
Yes
No
The group is qualified for safe harbor in ELA and
math
The group is NOT qualified for safe harbor in ELA
and math
NO AYP
AYP
49
Determining State and Federal Accountability
Status
General Rules
50
School-Level Accountability

• To be identified for improvement status, a school
  must fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP)
  for two consecutive years on the same measure.
  The school may fail to make AYP for those two
  years because of two different accountability
  groups (e.g., White students in one year and
  Asian students in the next year).
• If a previously identified school fails to make
  AYP on the measure for 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 on a
  measure, the school must make AYP on that measure
  for two consecutive years. The school may remain
  or be placed in improvement status on another
  measure for which it has not made AYP.

51
Sample Identifications of Schools for Improvement
Status

• School A fails to make AYP in the following
  groups
• Elementary/middle-level ELA for White Students
  in 200506
• Elementary/middle-level Math for Economically
  Disadvantaged Students in 200607
• School A is not identified for improvement
  because it has not failed to make AYP for two
  consecutive years on the same measure.
• School B fails to make AYP in the following
  groups
• Elementary/middle-Level ELA for Asian Students in
  200506
• Elementary/middle-level ELA for LEP Students in
  200607
• School B is identified for improvement because it
  has failed to make AYP for two consecutive years
  on the same measure (elementary/middle-level
  ELA).

52
District-Level Accountability

• 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 (e.g., in
  BOCES, approved private placements).
• There are four accountability areas English
  language arts, mathematics, science, and
  graduation rate.
• To be identified for improvement status in an
  accountability area, a district must fail to make
  AYP for two consecutive years in ELA or
  mathematics at both instructional levels
  (elementary/middle and secondary) or in science
  or in graduation rate.
• If a previously identified district fails to make
  AYP at each applicable instructional level in the
  accountability area for which it was identified,
  it moves to the next highest status on the
  continuum.

53
District-Level Accountability (cont.)

• The first year that an identified district makes
  AYP at one or both instructional levels, it
  remains in the same status on the continuum.
• To be removed from improvement status in an
  accountability area, the district must make AYP
  at one or both instructional levels in that
  accountability area for two consecutive years.
• 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.

54
Sample Identifications of Districts for
Improvement Status

• District A results in 200506
• fails to make AYP in ELA at the
  elementary/middle and secondary levels
• District A results in 200607
• fails to make AYP in ELA at the
  elementary/middle level but makes AYP in ELA at
  the secondary level
• District A is not identified for improvement in
  ELA because it has made AYP in the subject in one
  instructional level in one of the last two years.
• District B results in 200506
• fails to make AYP in ELA at the
  elementary/middle and secondary levels
• District B results in 200607
• fails to make AYP in ELA at the
  elementary/middle and secondary levels
• District B is identified for improvement because
  it has failed to make AYP for two consecutive
  years in the same subject at all instructional
  levels.

55
Determining State Status
A school must fail to make AYP for two
consecutive years to be placed in improvement
status. A school that makes AYP for two
consecutive years is removed from improvement
status for the subject and grade in which it was
identified.
56
Determining 200708 State School Status in
ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate Part 1
School was not in improvement status in 200607
The school made AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200506
The school made AYP 200607
The school did not make AYP 200607
The school made AYP 200607
The school did not make AYP 200607
Good Standing
Good Standing
Good Standing
School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)
57
Determining 200708 State School Status in
ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate Part 2
School was a School Requiring Academic Progress
(Year 1) in 200607
The school made AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The school made AYP in 200607
The school made AYP in 200607
Good Standing
School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2)
School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2)
School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)
58
Determining 200708 State School Status in
ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate Part 3
School was a School Requiring Academic Progress
(Year 2) in 200607
The school made AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The school made AYP in 200607
The school made AYP in 200607
Good Standing
School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 3)
School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 3)
School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2)
59
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. State status would continue
  regardless of the federal status.

60
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.

61
Determining Federal Status (cont.)
A school must fail to make AYP for two
consecutive years to be placed in improvement
status. A school that makes AYP for two
consecutive years is removed from improvement
status for the subject and grade in which it was
identified.
62
Determining 200708 Federal School Status in ELA,
Math, Science, or Graduation Rate Part 1
School was not in federal improvement status in
200607
The school made AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200506
The school made AYP in 200607
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The school made AYP in 200607
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The School received Title I Funding in
200607 and 200708 only
200506, 200607, and 200708
Good Standing
Good Standing
Good Standing
Good Stand-ing
School in Need of Improve-ment (Year 1)
63
Determining 200708 Federal School Status in ELA,
Math, Science, or Graduation Rate Part 2
School received or will receive Title I funding
in 200506, 200607, and 200708
School was a School in Need of Improvement (Year
2) in 200607
The school made AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200506
The school made AYP in 200607
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The school made AYP in 200607
The school did not make AYP in 200607
Good Standing
Corrective Action
School in Need of Improvement (Year 2)
Corrective Action
64
Determining 200708 Federal School Status in ELA,
Math, Science, or Graduation Rate Part 3
School received Title I funding in 200506 and
200607, but will not in 200708
School was a School in Need of Improvement (Year
2) in 200607
The school made AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200506
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The school did not make AYP in 200607
The school made AYP in 200607
The school made AYP in 200607
No Federal Status
No Federal Status
No Federal Status
Status in 200708
No Federal Status
Good Standing
Corrective Action
School in Need of Improvement (Year 2)
Corrective Action
Status in Next Year Title I Funding is Received
School will be in good standing if it makes AYP
for two consecutive years, even if no Title I
funding was received in those years.
65
High School Accountability Cohorts for 2007-08
66
2007-08 High School Accountability
67
2003 Graduation-Rate Cohort

• Beginning with the 2003 graduation-rate cohort
  (used for accountability in 2007-08)
• students are included in the cohort based on the
  year they first enter grade 9 (or for ungraded
  students, the year they turn 17).
• students who have spent at least five months in a
  district/school during year 1, 2, 3, or 4 of high
  school are part of the district/school cohort
  unless they transfer to another diploma-granting
  program.

68
Inclusion Rules for the 2003 Graduation-Rate
Cohort

• A student will be included in the
  district/school cohort if the students last
  enrollment record in the district or school
  shows
• that the student was enrolled for at least five
  continuous (not including July and August) months
  and the ending reason was not one of the
  following transferred to another New York State
  district or school, died, transferred by court
  order, or left the U.S.
• fewer than five months enrollment and an ending
  reason indicating that the student dropped out or
  transferred to a GED program and the students
  previous enrollment record in that
  district/school (assuming one exists)
• indicates that the student dropped out or
  transferred to a GED program, and
• that the student was enrolled in the
  district/school for at least five months.

69
2003 Graduation-Rate Cohort Examples

• Students included in the West High School cohort
• A student who entered grade 9 at the school in
  September 2003 and dropped out in the March 2004
  and did not reenter a diploma-granting program
  (enrolled for five months).
• A student who entered grade 9 at another school
  in September 2003 and transferred to West in
  September 2006 and remained enrolled until
  February 2007 (enrolled for five months).

70
2003 Graduation-Rate Cohort Examples

• Students not included in the West High School
  cohort
• A student who entered grade 9 at the school in
  September 2003 and dropped out in December 2003
  and did not reenter a degree-granting program
  (not enrolled for five months).
• A student who entered grade 9 at another school
  in September 2003 and transferred to West in
  September 2006 and dropped out in December 2006
  (not enrolled for five months).

71
Accountability for Limited English Proficient
Students
72
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

• The New York State English as a Second Language
  Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) was introduced in
  200203.
• All LEP students in grade K12 must take the
  NYSESLAT annually.
• LEP students in grades 3 through 8 enrolled in
  U.S. schools (not including Puerto Rico) for less
  than one year (enrolled on or after January 2,
  2006) were not required to take the NYSTP ELA
  assessment in January 2007. For such students who
  did not take the ELA assessment, valid scores on
  the NYSESLAT Reading/Writing and
  Speaking/Listening components will meet the ELA
  participation requirement.
• NYSESLAT performance levels will not be used in
  calculating the Performance Index. LEP students
  meeting the criteria to use the NYSESLAT in lieu
  of the ELA will not be included in the
  Performance Index calculation.
• Districts receiving Title III funding must
  identify each participating student in the State
  Repository System.

73
Accountability for Students with Disabilities
74
New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA)

• NYSAA performance levels are counted the same as
  general assessment (NYSTP, Regents, etc.) levels
  when determining PIs for English, mathematics,
  and science.
• NCLB regulations allow a maximum of one percent
  of scores used in calculating the PI for each
  accountability measure for a district to be based
  on proficient and advanced proficient scores on
  the NYSAA.
• In 200607, to meet this requirement, districts
  that have more than one percent of their
  continuously enrolled tested students performing
  at Levels 3 and 4 on the NYSAA must count some of
  these students at Level 2 when determining PIs.

75
Testing Ungraded Students with Disabilities

• CSE must determine that the student meets the
  criteria specified in the August 2006 Jean
  Stevens/Rebecca Cort memo entitled Revised
  Guidelines for Participation of Students with
  Disabilities in State Assessments for 2006-07 at
  http//www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/
  policy/ungraded.htm .
• Students must be administered the correct test
  for their age, as specified in the memo.
• Students earned performance levels will be used
  to calculate the PIs for the school and district
  in which they are enrolled.

76
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with
Disabilities
77
Background

• The U. S. Department of Education (USED) has
  offered states that meet certain criteria
  flexibility to judge 2 percent of students
  against modified achievement standards.
• We believe USDE will deem New York State eligible
  to adjust the AYP determination for the students
  with disabilities subgroup for the 2006-07 school
  year, as an interim measure until measures of
  modified achievement standards are developed.
• This interim AYP adjustment is for the 2006-07
  school year.

78
Criteria for Flexibility

• To be eligible, New York State also had to meet
  certain criteria, including
• demonstrating the improved performance of
  students with disabilities in English and
  mathematics,
• the availability of an Alternate Assessment
  (based on alternate achievement standards),
• appropriate accommodations on all State
  assessments, and
• sound education policies related to students with
  disabilities.
• An additional criterion was that 95 percent of
  students with disabilities statewide at each
  applicable grade level had to be tested in
  English and mathematics in 2005-06.
• In 2005-06 New York State met this criterion in
  elementary/middle-level English language arts
  (ELA) and mathematics. NYS did not meet the
  criterion in high school ELA or mathematics and
  is not approved to use this flexibility with
  these criteria.

79
Determining New YorkStates Adjustment

• The adjustment is to be made by dividing 2 by
  the statewide percentage of students with
  disabilities (SWD) and adding that percentage to
  the percent proficient in the SWD group.
• In NYS, the percentage of SWDs statewide is 12.
  Therefore, the presumed percentage of SWDs to
  which the 2 cap is applicable is 17 (2 divided
  by 12).
• Under the rules, USDE allows us to deem an
  additional 17 of students with disabilities
  proficient in 2006-07.
• In NYS, students who score at Level 3 are
  considered proficient. An adjustment of 17 would
  equal adding 34 points to the Performance Index.

80
Criteria for SchoolsTo Use Flexibility

• A school or district is eligible to use this
  flexibility on the elementary/middle-level
  English language arts (ELA) and/or mathematics
  accountability measures, if it meets the
  following criteria
• The only accountability group that does not make
  AYP on that measure is the students with
  disability group.
• 95 percent of enrolled students with disabilities
  were tested on that measure.

81
Application of Flexibility for Eligible Schools

• If a school meets the criteria, the Department
  will add 34 points to the Performance Index of
  the students with disability group.
• If the adjusted Performance Index equals or
  exceeds the AMO for the measure, the students
  with disability group will be judged to have made
  AYP and the school will make AYP on that measure.

82
Example 1

• In elementary/middle-level ELA, West Elementary
  School is accountable for four groups all
  students, students with disabilities, White
  students, and Black students.
• 95 percent of enrolled students in each group
  were tested.
• The Performance Index of each group except the
  students with disability group exceeded its
  Effective AMO therefore, each group except the
  students with disabilities group made AYP.
• The students with disability group
• Effective AMO 114
• Safe Harbor Target 110
• Performance Index 106 (did not make AYP)
• Because East Elementary School meets the criteria
  to use the flexibility, the Department will add
  34 points to its Performance Index
• 106 34 140
• The adjusted Performance Index (140) is higher
  than the AMO for elementary/middle-level ELA
  (122).
• Therefore, East is judged to have made AYP in
  elementary/middle-level ELA.

83
Example 2

• In elementary/middle level mathematics, East
  Elementary School is accountable for four groups
  all students, students with disabilities, White
  students, and economically disadvantaged
  students.
• 95 percent of enrolled students in each group
  were tested.
• The Performance Index of each group except the
  students with disability group exceeded its
  Effective AMO therefore, each group except the
  students with disabilities group made AYP.
• The students with disabilities group
• Effective AMO 72
• Safe Harbor Target 70
• Performance Index 49 (did not make AYP)
• Because West elementary school meets the criteria
  to use the flexibility, the Department will add
  34 points to its Performance Index
• 49 34 83
• The adjusted Performance Index (83) is less than
  the AMO for elementary/middle-level mathematics
  (86).
• Therefore, West is judged to have not made AYP in
  elementary/middle-level mathematics.

84
Example 3

• In elementary/middle-level ELA, South Middle
  School is accountable for four groups all
  students, students with disabilities, White
  students, and limited English proficient
  students.
• 95 percent of enrolled students in each group
  were tested.
• The Performance Index of the all students and
  White groups exceeded their Effective AMOs
  therefore, they made AYP.
• The Performance Index of the LEP group was below
  its Effective AMO and it did not make safe
  harbor therefore, the group did not made AYP.
• Because the LEP group did not make AYP, the
  school is not eligible for flexibility for the
  students with disabilities group.
• Therefore, South is judged to have not made AYP
  in elementary/ middle-level ELA.

85
Example 4

• In elementary/middle-level ELA, North Middle
  School is accountable for four groups all
  students, students with disabilities, White
  students, and Hispanic students.
• 95 percent of enrolled students in each group
  except the students with disabilities group were
  tested.
• The Performance Index of each group except the
  students with disability group exceeded its
  Effective AMO therefore, each group except the
  students with disabilities group made AYP.
• Because the school failed to test 95 percent of
  students in the students with disabilities group,
  the school is not eligible for flexibility for
  the students with disabilities group.
• Therefore, North Middle School is judged to have
  not made AYP in elementary/middle-level ELA.

86
Accountability for Schools with Special
Circumstances
87
Small Districts and Schools

• If an elementary or middle school does not test
  30 continuously enrolled students in ELA or
  mathematics in 200607, the scores of
  continuously enrolled students tested in 200506
  and 200607 will be combined to determine the PI.
  
• If a high school does not have 30 students in its
  2003 cohort, the 2002 and 2003 cohorts will be
  combined to determine the PI.
• If a school still does 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 includes at least 30
  students in 200607, results for 200506 and
  200607 will NOT be combined for the other
  accountability groups. This is true even if there
  are fewer than 30 tested students in the other
  accountability groups.

88
Small Districts and Schools (cont.)

• For accountability groups that include 30
  students in 200607 but did not include 30
  students in 200506, the scores of continuously
  enrolled tested students in that group in 200405
  and 200506 will be combined to determine the
  200607 safe harbor and progress targets.
• For accountability groups that do not include 30
  2003 cohort members, the 2001 and 2002 cohorts
  will be combined to determine the 200607 safe
  harbor and progress targets.
• If, after combining two years of data, the group
  still does not have 30 students on which to
  determine qualification for safe harbor based on
  science or graduation rate, the school or group
  is given credit for having made safe harbor if it
  made its ELA or math target.

89
Accountability for Schools That Serve Only
Students Below Grade 3

• Schools that serve only students below grade 3
  and, consequently, do not participate in State
  assessments are called feeder schools.
• Accountability decisions for feeder schools that
  serve grade 1 and/or grade 2 are based either
• on the performance of schools with grade 3 in the
  same district, or
• on a procedure called backmapping.

90
Accountability for FeederSchools in Districts
Where All Elementary Schools Make AYP

• If all district elementary schools with grade 3
  enrollment make AYP in ELA, math, or science, the
  feeder schools in the district, including K-1
  schools, are considered to have made AYP in the
  subject(s). This only applies if the feeder
  schools submit data to the Department. If they do
  not, they are considered not to have made AYP.
  See Slide 90.

91
Accountability for Feeder Schools That Do Not
Submit Data for Backmapping

• Feeder schools that are required to do
  backmapping are those whose highest grade is
  grade 1 or grade 2. These schools are required to
  submit data to the Department. If they do not
  submit data to the Department, they are
  considered not to have made AYP.

92
Accountability for FeederSchools in Districts
WhereSome Elementary Schools DoNot Make AYP
Backmapping

• Feeder schools with grades 1 and/or 2 are
  accountable for the performance of their former
  students when these students take the grade 3
  assessments in another school within the
  district. Feeder schools are responsible for the
  performance of students who were continuously
  enrolled in the feeder schools highest grade
  (grade 1 or 2). The students grade 3 Repository
  records must identify the feeder school attended
  by the student in the Service Provider field. To
  determine if the feeder school made AYP, the ELA
  and math PIs of students enrolled in the feeder
  school are calculated and compared with the
  Effective AMOs and/or Safe Harbor Targets. The PI
  in science is determined and compared with the
  Science Standard and/or Progress Target.
• For schools serving only kindergarten, special
  evaluation processes are used to determine AYP.

93
Accountability for Schools with Enrollments Only
in Grades 9, 10, and/or 11

• 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.

• If all schools in the district with grade 12
  enrollment make AYP in ELA, math, or graduation
  rate, the schools with enrollment only in grades
  9, 10, and/or 11 are considered to have made AYP.
• If one or more schools in the district with grade
  12 enrollment do not make AYP in ELA, math, or
  graduation rate, the schools with enrollment only
  in grades 9, 10, and/or 11 are subject to special
  evaluation procedures to determine AYP.

94
Whom to Contactfor Further Information

• The New York State Report Card, contact the
  School Report Card Coordinator at
  rptcard_at_mail.nysed.gov
• New York State assessments, go to the Office of
  State Assessment web site at www.emsc.nysed.gov/os
  a
• 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_at_mail.nysed.gov or (518)
  474-7965
• Accountability, contact Ira Schwartz at
  ischwart_at_mail.nysed.gov or [phone]