Office of Accountability

Differentiated Accountability Regulations 100.2p

(6)  Differentiated Accountability for Schools. 
the commissioner shall designate the school's accountability phase and phase category for the 2009-2010 school year, based upon the school's accountability status for the 2008-2009 school year and the school's adequate yearly progress (AYP) status for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years;

            (i)  Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, beginning with the 2009-2010 school year and thereafter, public schools, and charter schools that receive funds under title I, that failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) pursuant to this subparagraph shall be designated into accountability phases and phase categories as follows: 
(a)  Accountability phases.
(1)  Improvement phase.
(i)  A school that fails to make AYP for two consecutive years on the same accountability performance criterion in paragraph (14) of this subdivision or the same accountability indicator in paragraph (15) of this subdivision shall be designated in the next school year as a school in Improvement (year 1) for that accountability performance criterion/accountability indicator.

(b)  Phase categories. 
(1)  Improvement phase.  Schools designated in Improvement shall be assigned to a category upon entry into the phase as follows:
(i)  Basic:
(a)  schools that fail to make AYP for one accountability group within one accountability performance criterion, but not the all students group; or
(b)  schools that fail to make AYP for one of the accountability indicators, but met the accountability performance criterion.
(ii)  Focused:
(a)  schools that fail to make AYP for more than one accountability performance criterion, but not the all students group; or
(b)  schools that fail to make AYP for more than one accountability student group within an accountability performance criterion, but not the all students group;
(iii)  Comprehensive:
(a) schools that fail to make AYP for the all students group on any accountability performance criterion; or
(b)  schools that fail to make AYP for every accountability group, except the all students group, within an accountability criterion for which there are at least two accountability groups other than the all students group; or
(c)  schools that fail to make AYP for an accountability performance criterion and for an indicator.

(iv)  Interventions.
(a)  Improvement phase schools. 
(1)  School quality review.  Each school upon initial designation for the Improvement phase shall participate in a school quality review, to include at a minimum a self-assessment of the educational program, using quality indicators in a form and content prescribed by the commissioner.   The school quality review shall focus on the accountability group(s) for each accountability performance criterion and/or accountability indicator for which the school has been identified.  
(2)  School improvement plan.  A school improvement plan, in such format as may be prescribed by the commissioner, shall be developed based on the school quality review and cover a two year period.  The plan shall: 
(i)  be formally approved by the board of education (in New York City, both the New York City Board of Education and the community school board for schools under the jurisdiction of the community school district) no later than three months following the designation of the school in the Improvement phase and shall be subject to the approval of the commissioner, upon request; 
(ii)  be implemented no later than the beginning of the next school year after the school year in which the school was identified or immediately upon approval of the board of education if such approval occurs after the first day of regular school attendance;   

(3)  On-site review.   Except as provided in paragraph (9) of this subdivision, in addition to the school quality review and prior to the development of the school improvement plan required under clause (a) of this subparagraph:
(i)  for a school designated as Improvement/Focused, the school shall be required to participate in an on-site review that shall be conducted by a school quality review team, with district representation, appointed by the commissioner.  The review shall focus on the accountability group(s), accountability performance criterion and/or indicator for which the school was identified.  The district shall be responsible for oversight and support of the plan;   
(ii)  for a school designated as Improvement/Comprehensive, the school shall be required to participate in an intensive on-site review that shall be conducted by a school quality review team, with district representation, appointed by the commissioner.  The review shall focus on the systemic issues at the school that have caused the school to be designated for Improvement.  The district shall be responsible for oversight and support of the plan.

(d)  Each improvement, corrective action and restructuring plan, and each updated plan, shall be developed, to the extent appropriate, consistent with section 100.11 of this Title.
(e)  The commissioner may require that any plan, or subsequent modification of a plan, be submitted for prior approval.

(g)  School in school improvement status means a title I school that has been identified for school improvement under section 1116(b) of the NCLB, 20 U.S.C. section 6316 (b), and subdivision 100.2(p) of this Title, or was previously identified for improvement and continues in school improvement status pursuant to section 1116(f)(1)(A) of the NCLB, 20 U.S.C. section 6316(f)(1)(A), and has not been removed from such status (Public Law, section 107-110, sections 1116(b) and 1116(f)(1)(A), 115 STAT. 1479-1487 and 115 STAT. 1494-1495; Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9328; 2002; available at the Office of Counsel, State Education Building, Room 148, Albany, NY 12234).

 

 

Last Updated: December 1, 2010