Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development

See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development preceding Indicator #1.
 

Indicator 3:  Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:

1. Percent of districts meeting the State’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

2. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.

3. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.

 (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

 Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

 NYS’ accountability system for all students that is approved by the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) under NCLB is characterized as follows:

• The accountability system applies to all public school districts (including Special Act School Districts) and public schools (including charter schools) and includes all students educated in these institutions or students placed in out-of-district placements by school districts.
   

•  Schools must make AYP in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics at the elementary, middle and secondary levels; in science at the elementary and middle levels; and in graduation rate at the secondary level.
   

• Districts and schools are responsible for AYP of students in the following accountability groups, assuming sufficient enrollment in the group:

• all students,
• students with disabilities,
• limited English proficient students,
• economically disadvantaged students,
• American Indian students,
• Asian students,
• Black students,
• Hispanic students, and
• White students.

•  The failure of one group to make AYP in ELA or mathematics means that the district or school does not make AYP in that subject.

• Districts and schools must meet two requirements to make AYP in ELA and mathematics:

• the school district must test 95 percent of students in each accountability group with 40 or more students; and

• the performance of each group with 30 or more continuously enrolled students must meet or exceed its Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) or the group must make “safe harbor.

• To make AYP in science, only the “all students” group is required to meet the performance requirement; there is no participation requirement.
   

• To make AYP on graduation rate, the “all students” group must achieve a graduation rate of at least 55 percent or improve by one percentage point over its previous year’s performance.
   

•  Assessment performance is defined at four level:

• Level 1 = Basic
• Level 2 = Basic Proficiency
• Level 3 = Proficient
• Level 4 = Advanced Proficiency

• A 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 ELA, mathematics, or science. PIs are determined using the following equations:

• For elementary and middle level assessments, the 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 

• For high school assessments, the 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 

• The State has established Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for ELA and mathematics at each grade level. The AMOs increase annually, beginning in 2004–05, in equal increments until reaching the goal of 100 percent student proficiency in 2013–14.

• Recognizing that the annual performance data for relatively small groups of students are not statistically reliable, the State has established Effective AMOs based on the number of students in a measured group. The 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. If an accountability group achieves its Effective AMO, it is considered to have made AYP, as long as the participation requirement, if applicable, has been met.
   

• The State has established standards on the third indicators, elementary- and middle-level science and high school graduation rate, that districts and schools must meet to make AYP.

• An accountability group whose performance in ELA and mathematics does not equal or exceed its Effective AMO in a subject can make “safe harbor” if its performance improves by a specified amount over its previous year’s performance and if its performance on the third indicator equals or exceeds the State standard or improves by 1.0 percentage point on graduation rate and one point on science over the previous year.

 The following table identifies the State’s AMOs for 2004-05 through 2013-14:

The following sources provide additional detailed information about New York State’s Accountability system for all students, including students with disabilities, which are approved under NCLB:

• http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html

• http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/655report/2004/Volume1/combined_report.pdf  (pages 12-25)

• http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/school-and-district-accountability-rules-april-2005.ppt

• http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/accountability-rules_files/flexibility-ayp-swd.ppt

• http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/leap/2005-06/05-leap-manual.pdf (Definitions of many of the terms used in this document are provided in this manual, e.g., AYP, Safe-Harbor Target, Annual Measurable Objective (AMO), Performance Index, Alternate Assessment, etc.)

• http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/STEP/home.shtml , click on 2004-05 STEP Manual.  (Definitions of many of the terms used in this document are provided in this manual, e.g., AYP, Safe-Harbor Target, AMO, Performance Index, Alternate Assessment).

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005)

NYS will provide 2004-05 school year data by December 2005 and will revise the SPP at that time.

Baseline for School Years 2003-04

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Measure

In the 2003-04 school year, 75 school districts made AYP for students with disabilities in the grades and subjects in which they had sufficient enrollment. This represents 10.5 percent of all 712 school districts in the State, and 25.1 percent of the 299 school districts with the required minimum number of students with disabilities for accountability.

Participation Rate in State Assessments

In the 2003-04 school year, the participation rates of students with disabilities in State assessments exceeded 95 percent at the elementary level, were between 92 and 94 percent for the grade 8 assessments and were at the 86 percent rate for secondary-level assessments.

Proficiency Rate

In 2003-04, the students with disabilities accountability group did not achieve a PI score sufficient to make safe harbor for any of the grade 4, grade 8 or secondary level State assessments.  As the table below indicates, the students with disabilities accountability group achieved the following a PI of:

• 97 on the Grade 4 ELA examination, eight points short of the required safe-harbor target of 105 and twenty-six points short of the 2003-04 effective AMO for all students of 123. 

• 133 on the Grade 4 mathematics examination, just two points short of the required safe-harbor target of 135 and just three points short of the 2003-04 effective AMO for all students of 136.
• 80 on the Grade 8 ELA examination, three points short of the required safe-harbor target of 83 and twenty-seven points short of the 2003-04 effective AMO for all students of 107.

• 79 on the Grade 8 mathematics examination, just one point short of the required safe-harbor target of 80 and just two points short of the 2003-04 effective AMO for all students of 81.

• 99 on the high school English examination, six points short of the required safe-harbor target of 105 and 42 points short of 2003-04 effective AMO for all students of 141.

• 97 on the high school mathematics examination, nine points short of the required safe-harbor target of 106 and 34 points short of 2003-04 effective AMO for all students of 131.

Discussion of Baseline Data

The baseline data for each of these measures is expected to change for the 2004-05 and subsequent years as the grade 3-8 testing is implemented.  NYS is not able to provide data disaggregated for students with disabilities who received testing accommodations and those who did not.  We expect to be able to report this disaggregation once the individual student record system includes all State assessment data.

NYS will implement State testing in ELA and mathematics in Grades 3-8 during the 2005-06 school year.  The State plans to develop two new State Performance Indices to replace the four indices that currently exist for elementary and middle level assessments; one new index is planned for Grades 3-8 ELA and the other for Grades 3-8 mathematics.  Creation of the two new indices will require the State to establish new AMOs.

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

Targets established for the three measures relating to the participation and performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments will be the same targets as established in the State’s approved plan under NCLB.  Targets will be revised, as appropriate, when changes to the State’s NCLB plan are made.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources