IRS

Information and Reporting Services

Methodology for Identification of Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools in 2008–09

Step 1: The State determined that there are 433 Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and therefore the State must identify 22 as lowest achieving. The State further determined that since there are fewer than 100 schools that are among the lowest achieving secondary schools that are eligible for but do not receive Title I funds, the State must identify five of these schools as lowest achieving.

Step 2: The State determined its method for calculating combined English/language arts and mathematics proficiency rates for each school will be to sum the 2008-2009 All Students Performance Index for each ELA and math measure for which a school is accountable (i.e. elementary and middle level ELA, elementary and middle level math, high school ELA and high school math) and divide the sum by the number of measures for which the school is accountable. 

Step 3: The State determined that its method for determining “lack of progress” by the “all students” group on the State’s assessments would be to define lack of progress as a school having been designated to be in the restructuring phase of New York’s differentiated accountability system and for a school to have failed to make at least a 25 point gain for the all students group between 05-06 and 08-09 for each ELA and math measure for which the school is accountable.

Step 4: Using the process identified in Step 2, the State ranked Title I schools from highest to lowest based on the academic achievement of the “all students” group.

Step 5: Using the process identified in Step 3, the State removed from consideration those schools that were not designating as lacking progress.

Step 6:  On a case by case basis, the State removed from consideration transfer high schools as permitted by USED guidance.

Step 7: Starting with the school at the bottom of the list and counting up to the 22nd school on the list, the State obtained the list of the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.

Step 8:  The State identified the Title I high schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have had a graduation rate of less than 60 percent on the 2002, 2003, and 2004 total cohort that were not captured in the list of schools identified in Step 7.

Step 9:  The State added the high schools identified in Step 8 to the list of schools identified in Step 7.

Step 10:  Using the process identified in Step 2, the State ranked the secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds from highest to lowest based on the academic achievement of the “all students” group.

Step 11:  Using the process identified in Step 3, the State removed from consideration those schools that were not designating as lacking progress.

Step 12:  On a case by case basis, the State removed from consideration transfer high schools as permitted by USED guidance.

Step 13: Starting with the school at the bottom of the list and counting up to the fifth school on the list, the State obtained the list of the lowest-achieving five secondary schools that are eligible for but do not receive Title I schools.

Step 14:  The State identified the high schools that are eligible for but do not receive Title I funds that have had a graduation rate of less than 60 percent on the 2002, 2003, and 2004 total cohort that were not captured in the list of schools identified in Step 7.

Step 15:  The State added the high schools identified in Step 14 to the list of schools identified in Step 13.

Last Updated: January 26, 2010