1. Update on Accountability March 2006

2. “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” Purpose of No Child Left Behind

3. Developing Better Citizens Is Seen As A More Critical Goal For Schools There are two important tasks in public schools today – developing better citizens and improving achievement. If you had to prioritize, which would you say is more critical to the future of the country – developing better citizens or improving achievement? N=1,000N=1,000 – March 2004 AASA Polling by Ipsos Public Affairs, August 2004

4. Basic Rules for State and Federal Accountability Improvement Status Identification A school that fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive years in the same grade and subject is identified for improvement. 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.

5. 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 Economically Disadvantaged 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).

6. Each district is treated as if it were “one big school.” District accountability is computed by subject (i.e. ELA) not by subject and grade (i.e. ELA 4) as is the case for school 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). For a district to make AYP in a subject it must make AYP at any level in that subject. For example, if a district makes AYP in Grade 4 ELA and fails to make AYP in Grade 8 and High School ELA, it still gets credit for making AYP in ELA. District-Level Accountability

7. Federal Status Restructuring6 Planning for Restructuring5 Corrective Action4 School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 2 3 School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 1 2* Good Standing1 Status Years of Failure Under Title I to Make AYP in a Subject and Grade *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.

8. State Status SRAP 5 - Restructuring6 SRAP 4 - Planning for Restructuring 5 SRAP 3 – Corrective Action4 SRAP — Year 23 School Requiring Academic Progress (SRAP) — Year 1 2* Good Standing1 Status Years of Failure Under Title I to Make AYP in a Subject and Grade *SRAPs are not required to offer choice or SES.

9. Grade 3-8 Testing: What We Know Now We must begin to use Grade 3-8 Results for Accountability Purposes beginning with the 2005-2006 School Year We will seek USDOE approval to: –Create a single Performance Index for ELA and a single Performance Index for math to measure performance of elementary and middle schools. –Adjust AMO’s and Safe Harbors to reflect new Performance Index. We will not be one of the states piloting the use of a growth model.

10. Things We Don’t Know as of March 2006 What will be the Grade 3-8 AMOs for 2005-2006 and beyond? What will be the Safe Harbor targets for schools in 2005-2006?

11. Calculating the Grade 3-8 Performance Index GradeNumber Levels of Students 1234 36014142012 4806124022 5601220208 TOTAL20032468042 Total % 16% 23% 40% 21% Index = (23+40+21+40+21)=145

12. Calculating the Grade 3-8 Performance Index for SWDs GradeNumber Levels of Students 1234 3105500 4158520 51521030 TOTAL40152050 Total % 38% 50% 13% 0% Index = 75

13. Students with Disabilities: Percent of Schools Not Making AYP 2003-04

14. School YearElementary-LevelMiddle-LevelSecondary-Level ELAMathELAMathELAMath 2004–0513114211693148139 2005–06138149126105154146 2006–07146155135117159152 2007–08154162144129165159 2008–09162168154141171166 2009–10169174163152177173 2010–11177181172164183180 2011–12185187181176188186 2012–13192194191188194193 2013–14200200200200200200 Annual Measurable Objectives for 2004–05 to 2013–14

15. School YearElementary & Middle-LevelSecondary-Level ELAMathELAMath 2005–06XX154146 2006–07XX159152 2007–08XX165159 2008–09X+YX+Y171166 2009–10X+2YX+2Y177173 2010–11X+3YX+3Y183180 2011–12X+4YX+4Y188186 2012–13X+5YX+5Y194193 2013–14200200200200 Annual Measurable Objectives for 2005–06 to 2013–14

16. –STEP 1: Determine the percentage of students who are enrolled in buildings below the Grade 4 and 8 2004- 2005 AMOs. –STEP 2: Using 2005-06 Grade 3-8 Performance Index, determine the AMO which would result in the same percentage of students being enrolled in schools below that AMO as were enrolled in schools below the AMO in 2004-2005. –STEP 3: Maintain same AMO for 2006-07 and then increment annually beginning in 2008-2009 to reach 200 in 2013-14 Possible Adjustment Strategy for AMO

17. Example: –In 2004-2005 the Grade 4 ELA AMO is 131 and the Grade 8 ELA AMO is 116. –Assume that 7,000 out of 100,000 4th graders are enrolled in schools that have a PI for the all student group below 131 and 11,000 out of 100,000 8th graders are enrolled in schools with a PI below 116. Therefore, 9% ((7,000+11,000)/200,000) of students are enrolled in schools below the AMO. –Calculate the grade 3-8 PI for all schools using 2005-06 results. Array schools from highest to lowest performing. –Assume that 9% of grade 3-8 students are enrolled in schools with a PI below 118. –The AMO for 2005-2006 will be 118.

18. Modified Standards and Assessments for Students with Disabilities USDOE is preparing regulations to permit the use of modified standards and assessments with up to 2% of a State’s students (i.e. the 2% cap.) For 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, states can apply to USDOE for permission to make a statistical adjustment to the performance of the SWD subgroup. In 2004-2005, NY applied and received permission to use the adjustment for Grade 4 ELA and math and Grade 8 ELA results only. For 2005-2006, NY expects to receive permission to use the 34 point adjustment for both Grade 3-8 ELA and math. In NY, the adjustment results in an addition of 34 points to the Performance Index of the SWD subgroup. The adjustment was available only if the sole reason a school or district fails to make AYP on an accountability criterion was the academic performance of the SWD subgroup. If the adjusted index for the SWD subgroup exceeds the AMO then the school or district is deemed to have made AYP on that accountability criterion..

19. Testing Students with Disabilities: 2005-06 Students should be reported for assessment and accountability purposes as ungraded if: The student participates in the New York State Alternate Assessment The student is receiving instruction in both ELA and math that is at least three years below that of their non-disabled peers because of the student’s cognitive deficits or intellectual capacity. If the student is ungraded, the student should be administered the assessments that are two years below those typically taken by their non-disabled peers. It is anticipated that only a small percentage of students will be reported as ungraded.

20. Scheduled Changes to NCLB Accountability Workbook Attendance Rate becomes third academic indicator for elementary and middle grades in 2007-2008. Beginning with 2002 accountability cohort, ELA and math cohort defined as students who were first enrolled in ninth grade four years previously and were enrolled in a school on BEDS day of year four. (Used to determine whether school made AYP in 2005-2006.) Beginning with 2003 graduation cohort (used to determine AYP in 2007-2008), a student is included in the cohort based on the year they first enter grade 9. A student who has spent at least five months in a district/school in that year or in year 2, 3, or 4 is part of the district/school cohort unless they transfer to another diploma-granting program.

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

22. 2005-06 School Year

23. 2002 Accountability Cohort Definition Current This cohort will be used to determine AYP in English and mathematics at the secondary level for the 2005–06 school year. The 2002 accountability cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade status, who were enrolled in the school on October 6, 2004 (BEDS day) and met one of the following conditions: first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2002–03 school year (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003); or in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2002–03 school year.

24. 2002 Accountability Cohort Definition Revised This cohort will be used to determine AYP in English and mathematics at the secondary level for the 2005–06 school year. The 2002 accountability cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade status, who were enrolled in the school on October 5, 2005 (BEDS day) and met one of the following conditions: first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2002–03 school year (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003); or in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2002–03 school year.

25. Students will be removed from the cohort for the school and district from which they transferred to an approved GED program if the final enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2006 the student a) has earned a high school equivalency diploma; or b) is enrolled in an approved GED 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 high school in a different district and is working toward or has earned a high school diploma. 2002 Accountability Cohort (Transfers to GED)

26. Accountability Cohort Examples Current rules: A student who entered grade 9 in September 2001 and dropped out prior to October 2003 is not part of the ELA and math accountability cohort. Revised rules: A student who entered grade 9 in September 2002 and dropped out prior to October 2005 is not part of the ELA and math accountability cohort.

27. Accountability Cohort Examples Current rules: A student who entered grade 9 in September 2001 and transferred to a school prior to October 2003 is part of the ELA and math accountability cohort. Revised rules: A student who entered grade 9 in September 2002 and transferred to a school prior to October 2005 is part of the ELA and math accountability cohort.

28. Graduation Rate Cohort Examples Students included in the West High School cohort: –OLD: A student who entered grade 9 in September 2002, was enrolled in the school in October 2004, and dropped out of the school after October 2004 and did not reenter a degree-granting program. –NEW: A student who entered grade 9 in September 2003, enrolled in the school for five months and dropped out prior to June 2007 and did not reenter a degree-granting program.

29. Graduation Rate Cohort Examples Students not included in the West High School cohort: –OLD: A student who entered grade 9 at the school in September 2002 and dropped out prior to October 2004 – NEW: A student who entered grade 9 in September 2003 and enrolled in the school less than five months prior to dropping out.

30. Implications of Changes Graduation Rate and ELA and math accountability cohort will become more independent. Accountability cohort will include more students who transfer into a school but will exclude more dropouts. Graduation cohort will include more students who drop out. There will be a need to recalibrate the Graduation cohort standard, which may include raising the standard from the current 55%.

31. 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 student’s graduation requirement in that subject. In 2005–06, if the participation rate of an accountability group falls below 95 percent, the Department will calculate a weighted average of the 2004– 05 and 2005–06 participation rates. If the average participation rate equals or exceeds 95 percent, the group will meet the participation requirement. *Seniors are students whose STEP record for the district or school reports them as enrolled in grade 12 on June 30, 2006 or as enrolled in grade 12 during the 2005–06 school year and graduated on June 30, 2006. All students meeting these criteria will be counted as seniors, including students who are not included in the district or school accountability cohort.

32. Secondary-Level Accountability Assessments At the secondary level, the assessments that are used when determining performance indices for an accountability group are shown below.

33. Under Consideration for Submission to USDOE Seek permission to make AYP determinations after the start of the 2006-2007 school year. Transition from science to attendance in 2007- 2008 and use both for one year during transition. Revise definition of LEP and SWD subgroup once student data repository is in place to include former LEP students. Eliminate use of first test score for high school cohort.

34. The Reauthorization Accountability Battle Lines: Uninformed Speculation More testing or less? More consequences or fewer? More choice or less? More emphasis on growth or more emphasis on proficiency? More funding or more rhetoric?

35. More Information Ira Schwartz, Coordinator Accountability, Policy, and Administration New York State Education Department Office of School Improvement and Community Services ischwart@mail.nysed.gov 718 722-2796