1. School and District Accountability Rules Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2006

2. 2 Measuring Performance

3. 3 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. 4 Calculation of the Performance Index (PI) 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 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:

5. 5 Calculating the Grades 3-8 Performance Index for Schools with Grades 3-5 Test Number Levels Grade of Students 1 2 3 4 335 12 710 6 443 3 62014 530 61010 4 TOTAL 10821234024 Index = ((23+40+24+40+24)/108) * 100=140 Note: The methodology is the same regardless of how many grade levels (3-8) a school serves.

6. 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. 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. 8 Participation Rate

9. 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 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. Sample calculation for group below 95 percent participation in 2005– 06: YearEnrollmentTestedRate 2005–06504794% 2004–05504998% Average1009696%

10. 10 Participation Rule for Grades 4 and 8 Science Beginning in 2005-06, to make AYP in science, a district or school with at least 40 students in the “all student” group (composed of grade 4 and/or grade 8 students) must have valid science scores for at least 80 percent of those enrolled students.

11. 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 or mathematics, 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. 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 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. ** Student working toward an IEP may take the NYSAA.

13. 13 High School Accountability Cohorts for 2005-06

14. 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 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. (See Section on Future Cohorts for 2003 Cohort definition.)

15. 15 2005-06 High School Accountability

16. 16 2002 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 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, 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.

17. 17 The State will exclude the following students when reporting data on the 2002 accountability cohort:  students who transferred to another high school 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  students who died after BEDS day 2005. 2002 Accountability Cohort Definition (cont’d)

18. 18 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 a high school in a different district and is working toward or has earned a high school diploma. 2002 Accountability Cohort (Transfers to GED Removed from Cohort)

19. 19 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, 2006 the student a) has not earned a high school equivalency diploma; b) is not enrolled in an approved GED 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 approved GED program without first entering another high school will remain in the district and school cohort. 2002 Accountability Cohort (Transfers to GED Remaining in Cohort)

20. 20 On the 2006 STEP file, districts must provide the following information for students who transfer to approved GED programs during the 2004-05 or 2005- 06 school years (as defined in CR 100.7):  The ending reason on the enrollment record for the high school must be transferred to approved GED program.  The GED enrollment record must provide a service provider code for an approved GED program. Transfers to GED

21. 21  If the student is not enrolled in the GED program on June 30, 2006, 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. Transfers to GED (continued)

22. 22 Graduation Rate 2001 Cohort for 2005–06 2001 Graduation-Rate Cohort = Members of the 2001 school accountability cohort + students eliminated from that cohort solely because they transferred to a GED program. 2001 Graduation Rate = Number of graduation-rate cohort members who earned a Regents or local diploma on or before August 31, 2005 ÷ number of graduation-rate cohort members. Example: 2001 school accountability cohort count = 153 Students eliminated from this cohort because they transferred to a GED program = 7 Graduation-rate cohort = (2001 school accountability cohort count) 153 + (students eliminated from the cohort because they transferred to a GED program) 7 = 160 2001 graduation-rate cohort members who earned a Regents or local diploma on or before August 31, 2005 = 129 Graduation Rate (Percent of 2001 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by August 31, 2005) = 129 ÷ (153 + 7) = 80.6%

23. 23 2001 Accountability Cohort Definition This cohort is used to determine AYP in English and mathematics at the secondary level for the 2004–05 school year. The 2001 accountability cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade status, who were enrolled in the school on October 8, 2003 (BEDS day) and met one of the following conditions: first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2001–02 school year (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002); or in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2001–02 school year.

24. 24 The State will exclude the following students when reporting data on the 2001 accountability cohort: students who transferred to another high school, criminal justice facility, or alternative high school equivalency preparation program after BEDS day 2003; students who left the U.S. and its territories after BEDS day 2003; and students who died after BEDS day 2003. 2001 Accountability Cohort Definition

25. 25 Accountability Standards

26. 26 Elementary-Middle Level English Language Arts AMO = PI TBD Mathematics AMO= PI TBD Science State Standard= 100 Secondary Level English Language Arts AMO= PI of 154 Mathematics AMO = PI of 146 Graduation-Rate State Standard= 55% (may be raised by the Commissioner) Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and State Standards for 2005–06 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 State’s learning standards in ELA and math by 2013–14. The State Standards are the PI values that signify minimally satisfactory performance in science or graduation rate.

27. 27 School YearElementary-LevelMiddle-LevelSecondary-Level ELAMathELAMathELAMath 2004–0513114211693148139 2005–06154146 2006–07159152 2007–08165159 2008–09171166 2009–10177173 2010–11183180 2011–12188186 2012–13194193 2013–14200200200200200200 Annual Measurable Objectives for 2004–05 to 2013–14

28. 28 Confidence Intervals Were Used to Determine Effective AMOs Annual Measurable Objective 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.

29. 29 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. Effective AMOs Grades 3-8 Effective AMOs for 2005–06 will be determined after operational test data are available in late summer.

30. 30 Making Safe Harbor

31. 31 2005–06 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 unadjusted Safe Harbor Target calculation for ELA and math for 2005–06 using the 2004–05 PI is: Safe Harbor Target = {2004-05PI} + [(200 – {2004-05PI})  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 and middle levels) or graduation rate (at the secondary level) qualification for safe harbor. To qualify at the elementary and middle level, the group must make the State Standard or its Progress Target in science in grades 4 and 8 (if both are included in the school). At the secondary level, it must make the State Standard or its Progress Target for graduation rate. *Safe harbor will be adjusted in relation to the new AMOs for 2005-06.

32. 32 2004–05 ELA Effective AMO = 116 (group size = 42) 2004–05 elementary-level ELA PI = 107 2005–06 unadjusted Safe Harbor Target: 107 + [(200 – 107)  0.10] = 116 In 2004-05 this group did not make its Effective AMO. It was assigned a safe harbor target for 2005-06 based on the PI it achieved. This PI will be adjusted based on the AMO established for grades 3-8 ELA for 2005-06. Sample Safe Harbor Calculation based on 2004-05 PI

33. 33 Adjustment Strategy for Safe Harbor for 2004-05 grade 4 or 8 PIs Proportional: –OLD AMO in Grade 4 ELA in 2005-06 = 138 –OLD Safe Harbor Target for 2005-06 = 116* –Safe Harbor Target (116) = 0.84 of AMO (138) –Assume NEW AMO for Grades 3-8 in 2005-06 = 118 –Adjusted Safe Harbor in 2005-06 = 118 X.84 = 99 Tip:You can find the unadjusted safe harbor target on the district or school accountability report available at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts. Only accountability groups that either did not make AYP in 2004-05 or made AYP using safe harbor will have safe harbor targets for 2005-06.www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts

34. 34 Safe Harbor Adjustment Strategy for Schools with Grades 4 and 8 (1) 1.Calculate adjusted 2005-06 safe harbor targets based on 2004-05 PIs at grades 4 and 8 (use procedure in Slide 33). –Grade 4 adjusted safe harbor target = 99 –Grade 8 adjusted safe harbor target = 92 2.If a group met or exceeded its Effective AMO in 2004- 05, the safe harbor target for 2005-06 will be its 2005- 06 Effective AMO. –2004-05 Effective AMO: 116 –2004-05 PI: 117 –2005-06 target: 2005-06 Effective AMO

35. 35 Grade 2004-05 Group Size (a) Safe Harbor Target (b) Product (a x b) 2005-06 Adjusted Safe Harbor Target 442994,158 850924,600 3-8928,75895.2 Safe Harbor Adjustment Strategy for Schools with Grades 4 and 8 (2) 3.Calculate the weighted average of the adjusted safe harbor targets.

36. 36 2005–06 ELA PI = 102 2005–06 ELA Effective AMO = 103 (assumed) 2005–06 adjusted Safe Harbor Target = 99 Though this group’s PI for 2005–06 (102) was less than its Effective AMO (103), the PI was greater than its Safe Harbor Target (99). 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 8 science. If a school includes grades 4 and 8, scores on both science tests will be used to calculate the science PI. Sample Calculation To Determine if Group make AYP in 2005-06

37. 37 Science and Graduation Rate: Qualifying for Safe Harbor in ELA and Math in 2005–06 To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math at the elementary and middle level, the PI for elementary- and middle-level science combined 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 2001 graduation-rate cohort earning a local diploma by August 31, 2005 must equal or exceed the State Standard (55 percent) or the group’s Progress Target for secondary-level graduation rate.

38. 38 Special Notes About Safe Harbor Targets  If an accountability group did not test 30 or more students in ELA or mathematics at the elementary or middle level in 2004–05, then results for 2003–04 and 2004–05 were combined to calculate the target. If there were still not 30 or more tested students in the group, the group was assigned a Safe Harbor Target of 20.  If an accountability group in the 2001 cohort had fewer than 30 members, then results for the 2000 and 2001 cohorts were combined to calculate the ELA and mathematics targets at the secondary level. If the combined cohorts had fewer than 30 members in the group, the group was assigned a Safe Harbor Target of 20.  If an accountability group’s Safe Harbor Target for 2005–06 exceeds its Effective AMO, the Safe Harbor Target on the Accountability Status Report will be printed as the Effective AMO.

39. 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 Status 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. 40 Elementary-Middle Level Science Progress Targets Progress Targets are calculated in science at the elementary and middle levels 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 and middle levels, the Science Progress Target is the value that the PI for the “All Students” group must equal or exceed. For 2005–06, this target is determined by adding one point to the 2004–05 PI. Example: 2005–06 State Science Standard = 100 2004–05 PI = 97 2005–06 Science Progress Target = 97 + 1 = 98

41. 41 2004–05 Middle-Level Science PI = 97 2005–06 Science Progress Target = 97 + 1 = 98 2005–06 Science PI = 99 2005–06 Science State Standard = 100 Though this group’s PI for 2005–06 (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 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. Sample Qualification for ELA Safe Harbor for Group in School with Grades 6-8

42. 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 2005–06 Graduation-Rate Progress Target is the value that the Percent of the 2001 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by August 31, 2005 for the “All Students” group must equal or exceed. For 2005–06, this target is determined by adding one point to the Percent of the 2000 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by August 31, 2004. Example: Graduation-Rate Standard = 55 Percent of the 2000 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by August 31, 2004 = 53 2005–06 Graduation-Rate Progress Target = 53 + 1 = 54

43. 43 Percent of 2000 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by August 31, 2004 = 46 2005–06 Graduation-Rate Progress Target = 46 + 1 = 47 Percent of 2001 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by August 31, 2005 = 47 2005–06 Graduation-Rate Standard = 55 Though this group’s percent of the 2001 graduation-rate cohort earning a local diploma by August 31, 2005 (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. Sample Qualification for Safe Harbor for Graduation-Rate Cohort

44. 44 Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

45. 45 Schools with 40 or more students enrolled on test day Check the Performance Index for each group with 30 or more students Every group’s PI is NOT equal to or greater than the Effective AMO Every group’s PI is 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 A group whose PI is below its Effective AMO did NOT make safe harbor School did not test 95 percent of every group of 40 or more School tested 95 percent of every group of 40 or more Each group whose PI is below its Effective AMO made safe harbor NO AYP AYP Determining AYP in Elementary- and Middle-Level ELA or Math for Schools with 30 or More Continuously Enrolled Students Compute weighted average of 2004–05 and 2005–06 participation rate for groups below 95% Above 95% Below 95% Schools with 30 to 39 students enrolled on test day Schools with 30 or more students continuous ly enrolled on test day

46. 46 Participation Rate for schools with 40 or more seniors enrolled or graduated on June 30, 2005 Check the Performance Index for each group with 30 or more students Every group’s PI is NOT equal to or greater than the Effective AMO Every group’s PI is equal to or greater than the Effective AMO 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 School did not test 95 percent of every group of 40 or more School tested 95 percent of every group of 40 or more Each group below its Effective AMO made safe harbor NO AYP AYP Determining AYP in Secondary-Level ELA or Math for Schools with 30 or More Cohort Members Schools with 30 to 39 students in the Cohort School did not test a weighted average of 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

47. 47 School with 30 or more continuously enrolled students School with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled students Combine results with previous year Evaluate Performance 30 or more continuously enrolled students in combined group Fewer than 30 continuously enrolled students in combined group Calculate the PI for each group with 30 or more students The “All Students” group is above the State Standard or the Progress Target A group is above the State Standard or Progress Target NO AYP Special Evaluation Process AYP Determining AYP in Elementary- and Middle-Level Science YesNo The group is qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math The group is NOT qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math YesNo If the “All Students” group includes 40 or more students, is the participation rate at least 80 percent? NO AYP No Yes 1st2nd

48. 48 School with 30 or more graduation-rate cohort members School with fewer than 30 graduation-rate cohort members Evaluate Performance 30 or more graduation-rate cohort members in combined group Fewer than 30 graduation-rate cohort members in combined group Calculate the % Earning a Local Diploma by August 31 of Year 4 in High School The “All Students” group is above the State Standard or the Progress Target A group is above the State Standard or Progress Target NO AYP Special Evaluation Process AYP Determining AYP in Graduation Rate YesNo The group is qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math Combine results with previous year’s cohort The group is NOT qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math YesNo 1st2nd

49. Determining State and Federal Accountability Status Transition Rules for 2005-06 To Be Determined

50. Determining State and Federal Accountability Status General Rules

51. 51 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.

52. 52 Sample Identifications of Schools for Improvement Status School A fails to make AYP in the following groups: –Grade 8 ELA for White Students in 2004–05 –Elementary-middle level Math for Economically Disadvantaged Students in 2005–06 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: –Grade 4 ELA for Asian Students in 2004–05 –Elementary-middle level ELA for LEP Students in 2005–06 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).

53. 53  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 grade levels (elementary-middle and secondary) or in science or in graduation rate.  If a previously identified district fails to make AYP at each applicable grade level in the accountability area for which it was identified, it moves to the next highest status on the continuum. District-Level Accountability

54. 54 District-Level Accountability (cont.) The first year that an identified district makes AYP at one or both grade levels, it remains in the same status on the continuum. To be removed from improvement status in a accountability area, the district must make AYP at one or both grade 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.

55. 55 Sample Identifications of Districts for Improvement Status District A results in 2004–05: –fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels District A results in 2005–06: – 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 grade level in one of the two last years. District B results in 2004–05: –fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels District B results in 2005–06: – 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 grade levels.

56. 56 Determining State Status Years of Failure to Make AYP in a Subject and Grade Status 1Good Standing 2*School Requiring Academic Progress (SRAP) — Year 1 3SRAP — Year 2 4SRAP — Year 3 5SRAP — Year 4 6SRAP — Year 5 *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.

57. 57 School was not in improvement status in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2004–05 The school did not make AYP in 2004–05 Determining 2006–07 State School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 1 The school made AYP 2005–06 The school did not make AYP 2005–06 The school made AYP 2005–06 The school did not make AYP 2005–06 Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)

58. 58 School was a School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2004–05 The school did not make AYP in 2004–05 Determining 2006–07 State School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 2 The school made AYP in 2005–06 The school did not make AYP in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2005–06 The school did not make AYP in 2005–06 Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)

59. 59 School was a School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2004–05 The school did not make AYP in 2003–04 Determining 2006–07 State School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 3 The school made AYP in 2004–05 The school did not make AYP in 2004–05 The school made AYP in 2004–05 The school did not make AYP in 2004–05 Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 3) School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2)

60. 60 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.

61. 61 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.

62. 62 Determining Federal Status (cont.) Years of Failure Under Title I to Make AYP in a Subject and Grade Status 1Good Standing 2*School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 1 3School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 2 4Corrective Action 5Planning for Restructuring 6Restructuring *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.

63. 63 School was not in federal improvement status in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2004–05 Determining 2006–07 Federal School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 1 The school made AYP in 2005–06 The school did not make AYP in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2005–06 The school did not make AYP in 2005–06 Good Standing School in Need of Improve- ment (Year 1) The school did not make AYP in 2004–05 The School received Title I Funding in 2005–06 and 2006–07 only 2004–05, 2005–06, and 2006–07 Good Standing Good Stand-ing

64. 64 School was a School in Need of Improvement (Year 2) in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2004–05 The school did not make AYP in 2004–05 Determining 2006–07 Federal School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 2 The school made AYP in 2005–06 The school did not make AYP in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2005–06 The school did not make AYP in 2005–06 Good Standing Corrective Action (Year 3) School received or will receive Title I funding in 2004–05, 2005–06, and 2006–07 School in Need of Improvement (Year 2) Corrective Action (Year 3)

65. 65 School was a School in Need of Improvement (Year 2) in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2004–05 The school did not make AYP in 2004–05 Determining 2006–07 Federal School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 3 The school made AYP in 2005–06 The school did not make AYP in 2005–06 The school made AYP in 2005–06 The school did not make AYP in 2005–06 Good Standing Corrective Action (Year 3)* School received Title I funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06, but will not in 2006–07 School in Need of Improvement (Year 2)* Corrective Action (Year 3)* Status in 2006–07 Status in Next Year Title I Funding is Received No Federal Status *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.

66. 66 High School Accountability Cohorts for 2006-07 and 2007-08

67. 67 2006-07 High School Accountability

68. 68 2007-08 High School Accountability

69. 69 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.

70. 70 Inclusion Rules for the 2003 Graduation-Rate Cohort A student will be included in the district/school cohort if the student’s 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.  less than five month’s enrollment and an ending reason indicating that the student dropped out or transferred to a GED program and the student’s 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.

71. 71 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).

72. 72 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).

73. 73 Accountability for Limited English Proficient Students

74. 74 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 grades 3 through 8 enrolled in U.S. schools (not including Puerto Rico) for less than three years (in selected cases, less than five years) who did not take the NYSTP ELA assessment are used in calculating the PI for ELA.  Performance levels are based on a conversion chart using L, R, and W raw scores in conjunction with the number of years the student has received English instruction.  Districts receiving Title III funding must identify each participating student in the State Repository System and STEP.

75. 75 Accountability for Students with Disabilities

76. 76 New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA)  NYSAA performance levels are counted the same as general assessment (NYSTP) 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 proficient and advanced proficient scores on the NYSAA.  In 2005 – 06, to meet this requirement, districts that have more than one percent of their continuously enrolled students performing at Levels 3 and 4 on the NYSAA have to count some of these students at Level 2 when determining PIs.

77. 77 Testing Ungraded Students with Disabilities  CSE must determine that the student meets criteria specified in November 2005 Kadamus-Cort memo.  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.

78. 78 Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities  Background Information—Slides 82—83  School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 84  Application of Flexibility—Slide 85 —86  Examples—Slides 87—90

79. 79 Background  The U. S. Department of Education (USDOE) has offered states that meet certain criteria flexibility to judge 2 percent of students against modified achievement standards.  We believe USDOE will deem New York State eligible to adjust the AYP determination for the students with disabilities subgroup for the 2005-06 school year, as an interim measure until measures of modified achievement standards are developed.  This interim AYP adjustment is for the 2005-06 school year.

80. 80 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 2004-05.  In 2004-05 New York State met this criterion on four accountability measures: elementary- and middle-level English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. NY did not met the criterion in high school ELA or mathematics and is not approved to use this flexibility with these criteria.  NY’s plan was approved even though NY indicated that the earliest alternate assessments will be in place would be 2007-2008.

81. 81 Determining New York State’s 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 NY, 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, USDOE allows us to deem an additional 17% of students with disabilities proficient in 2005-06.  In NY, students who score at Level 3 are considered proficient. An adjustment of 17% would equal adding 34 points to the Performance Index.

82. 82 Criteria for Schools To 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.

83. 83 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.  AMOs for 2005-06 have not been determined.

84. 84 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 is lower than the AMO for elementary- middle level ELA (Assume the AMO = 142).  Therefore, East is judged to have not made AYP in elementary-middle level ELA.

85. 85 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 disability group:  Effective AMO = 114  safe harbor target =110  Performance Index = 108 (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:  108 + 34 = 142  The adjusted Performance Index exceeds the AMO for elementary- middle level mathematics (Assume the AMO = 141).  Therefore, West is judged to have made AYP in elementary-middle level mathematics.

86. 86 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.

87. 87 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.

88. 88 Accountability for Schools with Special Circumstances

89. 89  If an elementary or middle school does not test 30 continuously enrolled students in ELA or mathematics in 2005–06, the scores of continuously enrolled students tested in 2004–05 and 2005–06 will be combined to determine the PI.  If a high school does not have 30 students in its 2002 cohort, the 2001 and 2002 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 2005– 06, results for 2004–05 and 2005–06 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. Small Districts and Schools

90. 90  For accountability groups that include 30 students in 2005– 06 but did not include 30 students in 2004–05, the scores of continuously enrolled tested students in that group in 2003– 04 and 2004–05 will be combined to determine the safe harbor and progress targets.  For accountability groups that do not include 30 2002 cohort members, the 2001 and 2002 cohorts will be combined to determine the 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. Small Districts and Schools (cont.)

91. 91  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 1)on the performance of schools with grade 3 in the same district, or 2)on a procedure called “backmapping.” Accountability for Schools That Serve Only Students Below Grade 3

92. 92 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). That is, as long as the data have been submitted. See Slide 96. Accountability for Feeder Schools in Districts Where All Elementary Schools Make AYP

93. 93 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. Accountability for Feeder Schools That Do Not Submit Data for Backmapping

94. 94  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 school’s 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. Accountability for Feeder Schools in Districts Where Some Elementary Schools Do Not Make AYP: Backmapping

95. 95 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 make adequate yearly progress must be made using special procedures. Accountability for Schools with Enrollments Only in Grades 9, 10, and/or 11 1)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. 2)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.

96. 96  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.emsc.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 Whom to Contact for Further Information