Arkansas ESEA Flexibility Flexibility Amended in October, 2012 Louis Ferren, School Performance Public School Accountability

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  NCLB was passed in January of It had proficiency targets for all schools based on state averages. Targets in 2006 through 2011 increased about 9% each year. The grade 6-8 math proficiency target was The grade 6-8 math proficiency target was The targets would have been 100% proficient. If a school missed the targets for multiple consecutive years, they would be in school improvement and had to use 20% of Title I Part A for school choice and supplemental educational services. They also had to use 10% of Title I Part A for professional development.

 The Arkansas ESEA Flexibility was approved by the United States Department of Education on June 29,  The Arkansas ESEA Flexibility removed the requirements to offer supplemental educational services (SES) or NCLB public school choice.  The ESEA Flexibility can be found at SEA_Flexibility_Amended_ pdf. SEA_Flexibility_Amended_ pdf Arkansas ESEA Flexibility

Arkansas Flexibility Amended  The US Department of Education approved an amendment to the Arkansas ESEA Flexibility in October,  Schools were given credit for meeting AMOs for performance, growth or graduation rate if they were at least at the 90 th percentile of the state distribution.  For 2012, the 90 th percentile was Performance of 91% in literacy and 92% in math, growth of 93% in literacy and 81% in math and 94% for graduation rate.  The amendment allowed meeting graduation rate targets using the better of the last graduation rate or a weighted average of the previous three years of graduation rate data.

ESEA Flexibility Requirements  To improve educational outcomes for all students, Arkansas lowered its minimum N of 40 to 25 for all student groups.  Establishes goals that are both ambitious and attainable.  Supports continuous improvement in every school.  Requires development of college and career-ready assessments that measure student growth.  Provides differentiated accountability, recognition and support.  Will support effective school instruction and school leadership.

TAGG (Targeted Achievement Gap Group)  Only 16% of schools were accountable for the Students with Disabilities subgroup under NCLB AYP.  TAGG causes more students to count in the accountability model. Ninety-eight percent of the state's schools have a TAGG that meets the minimum N of 25.  Economically Disadvantaged Students  English Learners (EL)  Students with Disabilities (SWD)  A student is only counted once in the TAGG even if he is in more than one TAGG subgroup.

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)  School-based AMOs will provide achievable progress targets based on the starting point (2011 for performance and growth, 2010 for graduation rate).  ADE was approved to credit schools/districts as meeting AMOs when the performance, growth or graduation rates are at least at the 90th percentile of the All Students Group in the state distribution.  Schools must test at least 95% for math and literacy in the All Students group and the TAGG.

AMOs reduce by half the proficiency, growth, and graduation gaps for schools within 6 years If the percent proficient and advanced is 76%, the proficiency gap will be 24% (100-76). The proficiency gap must be cut in half in six years - reduced by 12% (24/2) during the six years. The yearly reduction would be 2% (12/6). Therefore, the 2012 target would be 78% proficient and advanced. The 2013 target would be 80% proficient and advanced.

Sample Calculation of School or District AMOs Sample school has to increase proficiency by two percent each year. Starting point (2011) percent proficient was 76. If sample school gets 82% in 2013, the target will still be 82% in AMO = = 78% Proficient 2013 AMO = = 80% Proficient 2014 AMO = = 82% Proficient 2015 AMO = = 84% Proficient 2016 AMO = = 86% Proficient 2017 AMO = = 88% Proficient AMOs for your school are at the following website:

Differentiated Accountability, Recognition and Tiered-Support System (DARTSS)  Exemplary schools had high performance or growth, high graduation rates (if high schools) and very small or no gaps in subgroup performance or graduation rates.  Achieving schools meet their AMOs and percent tested is at least 95 percent.  Needs Improvement schools did not meet their AMOs or did not test at least 95 percent.  Focus schools had large gaps between student subgroups.  Priority schools were the lowest performing.  ADE was only required to calculate Focus or Priority for one year.

Non-Mobile and LEP  Non-Mobile students are continuously enrolled October 1 through the test date.  Mobile and non-mobile students are counted in percent tested.  Non-mobile students are counted in percent proficient.  Grade 11 Literacy Exam students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) in U.S. less than one year can be included in ESEA data corrections if approved by the ADE.  LEP in U.S. less than one year are required to complete mathematics exams. They are included if they score proficient or advanced.

Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate  graduation rate = (Number of cohort members who earned a regular diploma through summer 2011) DIVIDED BY (Number of first- time 9th graders in fall 2007 plus on-time students who transfer in, minus on-time students who transfer out, emigrate, or die during school years , , , , and through summer 2011).  Graduation rates were re-calculated for 2010 and 2011 using improved data quality rules which were able to better uniquely identify students. The change was made because of a problem with duplicate or incorrect student IDs and Social Security Numbers.

Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate  The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for year was used to establish the AMOs from through  Arkansas uses “Lag”. This includes students who graduate by August 15.  Students who repeat a grade are no longer on-time.  Students with disabilities in high school who are following an Individual Education Plan (IEP) may remain in school for six years consistent with their IEP, but this will lower the graduation rate for the school since the student did not graduate in four years.

Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate  Students are removed from the cohort for the following: 1.Enrolled in another school in Arkansas – Pentamation drop code Death - Pentamation drop code Enrolled in private school - Pentamation drop code Enrolled in home school - Pentamation drop code Enrolled in another school out of state - Pentamation 14.  Guidance from the U. S. Department of Education on graduation rate can be viewed at the following link:

Growth Used in ESEA Calculations  Growth trajectories were calculated for students in Grades 3 through 7. The annual increments were proportional to the annual growth in scale score points needed to have a proficient score in Grade 8.  Student identification numbers from the fourth grade are used to match students with their scores from the third grade. Students’ annual scale scores starting at grade four were compared to the sum of their prior scale score and their annual expected growth. Students in grades five through eight are also matched to their scores from the previous year.

Growth Uses Matching to Previous Year  Students that could not be matched lowered the number applicable for growth.  Highly mobile students are not included in growth.  To get the school percentage meeting growth, the number of students that met growth in the school was divided by the number applicable for growth.

Growth Including Proficient Students Schools will be accountable for meeting AMOs for growth based on the progress of all students on the continuum of achievement – not just crediting below proficient students who meet annual growth as proficient. This gives schools credit for maintaining students’ pathways to proficiency by Grade 8, including students who are proficient and advanced. The percentages of students meeting growth for math and literacy for grades 4 through 8 in 2011 was subtracted from 100 to get the growth gap.

2012 ESEA Reports Contain: 1.Accountability Designation 2.Number of tests expected (includes highly mobile) 3.Percent not tested if percent tested is less than 95 4.Graduation rates (high schools) and Graduation rate Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) or target 5.Number of non-mobile tests (# Attempted) 6.Percent proficient and advanced (Percentage Performance) AMO targets for performance and growth (if school has at least one of the grades 4 through 8). 8.# applicable (records matched to previous year for growth) 9.Percent of students with growth (Percentage Growth)

ESEA Accountability Report  2012 performance or growth was compared with the AMOs if there were 25 or more students in the All Students group and the Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG). If TAGG was less than the minimum “N” of 25, the three year average performance or growth had to be used.  If a school did not meet AMOs using the one year calculation, but met AMOs with the three year average, the three year average was used.  The number of math tests for a middle school could be greater than the number of students since schools with grade eight can include both Benchmark and Algebra I tests.

Achieving Schools  Achieving schools meet proficiency or growth AMOs for the All Students group and the TAGG.  Schools must test at least 95% for math and literacy in the All Students group and the TAGG.  High schools must meet the graduation rate AMOs for the All Students group and the TAGG.  Schools will be given the “Needs Improvement” label if they do not meet the AMOs or test less than 95%.

Exemplary Performance  Divide the number of non-mobile students who were at least proficient for math and literacy for 2009 through 2011 by the number of non-mobile students tested during the 3 years.  Exemplary schools were at or above the 99th percentile (grades K-5) or the 95th percentile (grades 6-8 and 9-12). Schools were eliminated for significant gaps in subgroup performance or graduation rates. Schools were not exemplary if percent tested was less than 95 percent or graduation rates were less than the state median graduation rate (83.78). In 2012, all subgroups with at least 25 students had to meet growth and performance AMOs to remain exemplary.

Exemplary Progress  Divide the number of non-mobile students who were at least proficient for math and literacy for 2008 through 2010 by the number of non-mobile students tested during the 3 years.  For progress, subtract the 2008 through 2010 weighted average percent proficient from the one for 2009 through  Calculate the distribution of progress. Exemplary schools were at or above the 99th percentile (grades K-5) or the 95th percentile (grades 6-8 and 9-12).  Schools were eliminated for significant gaps in subgroup performance or graduation rates. Schools were not exemplary if percent tested was less than 95 percent or graduation rates were less than the state median graduation rate (83.78).

Exemplary Schools by Category  There were eight schools designated High Performance (three year proficiency ranged from to 98.08).  Six schools were designated High Performance High TAGG (proficiency ranged from to and percent TAGG was greater than 70.7).  Two schools were designated High Progress (proficiency gain ranged from 5.56 percent to percent).  Three schools were designated High Progress High TAGG (proficiency gain ranged from percent to and percent TAGG was greater than 98.7).

Priority - Five Percent of the State’s Lowest-Performing Title I Schools  Lowest performance was determined using 2009, 2010 and 2011 data with the Added Ranks method in A-15 of the SIG FY 2010 Guidance. This is described at the following webpage:  Non-Title I schools with commensurate low performance are Priority Schools.  Tier I or Tier II schools using SIG funds for a school intervention model are Priority Schools.  To exit Priority, a school must meet AMOs for two consecutive years for All Students and TAGG, have percent tested 95% and make satisfactory progress on their Priority Improvement Plan.

Added Ranks Using 2011 Percent Proficient  a. Schools were sorted from highest to lowest for the percentage of students proficient in mathematics in Each school was assigned a rank based on this order with 1 representing the best.  b. Schools were sorted from highest to lowest for the percentage of students proficient in literacy in Each school was assigned a rank based on this order with 1 representing the best.  c. An overall rank for 2011 academic achievement was obtained by summing the ranks for math and literacy.

Assigning Ranks for Priority School Name2011 Math %Prof & Adv Math Rank2011 Literacy %Prof & Adv Literacy Rank Added Ranks School B School A School C School D

Priority - Lowest 5% of Final Rank Score  A 3-year progress ranking was obtained by summing the 2009, 2010 and 2011 overall rank values.  A final combined rank score was obtained by creating a weighted sum that included overall rank for performance in 2011 and the overall 3-year progress rank. Three-year progress was weighted 1.0 and 2011 performance was weighted.80, thus giving slightly more credit to schools that may have been low performing, but demonstrated progress during the three years.

Priority – Sample Calculation  Three year total rank = 2011 math rank (914) literacy rank (963) math rank (967) literacy rank (957) math rank (939) literacy rank (922) =  Weighted Rank Value (WRV) = 7164 = 3 Year Total Rank (5662) +.80 * 2011 Total Rank (1502).  Schools with a Weighted Rank Value greater than 7100 were identified as Priority Schools.

Identifying Focus Schools  Students are in the Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG) if they belong to one of the following subgroups: Economically Disadvantaged, English Learners and Students with Disabilities.  Three year percent proficient and advanced (prof) in Literacy and Math are calculated both for TAGG and Non-TAGG.  Three year TAGG percent proficient and advanced equals number of TAGG students (#) prof in 2011 math plus # prof in 2011 literacy plus # prof in 2010 math plus # prof in 2010 literacy plus # prof in 2009 math plus # prof in 2009 literacy divided by the number of TAGG students tested in math and literacy in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Focus School Achievement Gaps  Achievement gaps were calculated by subtracting the three year TAGG percent proficient and advanced in math and literacy from the Non-TAGG three year percent proficient and advanced in math and literacy within each school. If the school Non-TAGG group was less than minimum N (25), the median of all schools’ Non-TAGG (88.8%) was compared to the school TAGG.  Focus schools include 10% of Title I schools with the largest TAGG/Non-TAGG gaps. Non-Title I schools with same gaps were also included. Three year gaps for Focus were greater than or equal to 28.5.