1
|
|
2
|
|
3
|
|
4
|
|
5
|
- Test Number  =
;
Levels
- Grade of Students 1=
2 3 4
- 3 35 12 7 10 6
- 4 43 3 6 20 14
- 5 30 6 10 10 4
- TOTAL  =
;
108 21 23 40 24
- Index =3D ((23+40+24+40+24)/108)*100=3D140
|
6
|
|
7
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
|
10
|
- Beginning in 2005-06, to make AYP in science, a district or school w=
ith
at least 40 students in the “all student” group (compose=
d of
grade 4 and/or grade 8 students) must have valid science scores for =
at
least 80 percent of those enrolled students.
|
11
|
|
12
|
|
13
|
|
14
|
- 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 begin=
ning
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
|
|
16
|
|
17
|
|
18
|
|
19
|
|
20
|
|
21
|
|
22
|
|
23
|
|
24
|
|
25
|
|
26
|
- Elementary-Middle Level
- English Language Arts AMO =3D PI TBD
- Mathematics AMO =3D PI TBD
- Science State Standard =3D 100
- Secondary Level
- English Language Arts AMO =3D PI of 154
- Mathematics AMO =3D PI of 146
- Graduation-Rate State Standard=3D 55% (may be raised by the Commissi=
oner)
|
27
|
- School Year Elementary-Level Middle-Level Secondary-Level
- ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
- 2004–05 131 142 116 93 148 139
- 2005–06 154 146
- 2006–07 159 152
- 2007–08 165 159
- 2008–09 171 166
- 2009–10 177 173
- 2010–11 183 180
- 2011–12 188 186
- 2012–13 194 193
- 2013–14 200 200 200 200 200 200
|
28
|
|
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 g=
roup
is considered to have made AYP.
|
30
|
|
31
|
- Safe Harbor is an alternate means to demonstrate AYP for accountabi=
lity
groups whose PI is less than their Effective AMO. The unadjusted Safe
Harbor Target calculation for ELA and math for 2005–06 using t=
he
2004–05 PI is:
- Safe Harbor Target =3D {2004-05PI} + [(200 – {2004-05PI}) ´ 0.10]*
|
32
|
|
33
|
- Proportional:
- OLD AMO in Grade 4 ELA in 2005-06 =3D 138
- OLD Safe Harbor Target for 2005-06 =3D 116*
- Safe Harbor Target (116) =3D
0.84 of AMO (138)
- Assume NEW AMO for Grades 3-8 in 2005-06 =3D 118
- Adjusted Safe Harbor in 2005-06 =3D 118 X .84 =3D 99
- Tip: You can find the unadjusted safe harbor target on the district =
or
school accountability report available at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts. O=
nly
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.
|
34
|
- 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 =3D 99
- Grade 8 adjusted safe harbor target =3D 92
- If a group met or exceeded its Effective AMO in 2004-05, the safe ha=
rbor
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
|
|
36
|
|
37
|
- To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math at the elementary and
middle level, the PI for elementary- and middle-level science combin=
ed
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 lev=
el,
the percent of the 2001 graduation-rate cohort earning a local diplo=
ma
by August 31, 2005 must equal or exceed the State Standard (55 perce=
nt)
or the group’s Progress Target for secondary-level graduation
rate.
|
38
|
- 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 calcula=
te
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 memb=
ers,
then results for the 2000 and 2001 cohorts were combined to calculate
the ELA and mathematics targets at the secondary level. If the combi=
ned
cohorts had fewer than 30 members in the group, the group was assign=
ed 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 Accountabil=
ity
Status Report will be printed as the Effective AMO.
|
39
|
|
40
|
|
41
|
|
42
|
|
43
|
|
44
|
|
45
|
|
46
|
|
47
|
|
48
|
|
49
|
|
50
|
|
51
|
- 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 f=
or
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
|
- 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 Student=
s in
2005–06
- School A is not identified for improvement because it has not faile=
d 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
|
- The district results are aggregated for all students attending schoo=
l in
the district as well as continuously enrolled students the district
places outside of the school district (e.g., in BOCES, approved priv=
ate
placements).
- There are four accountability areas: English language arts, mathemat=
ics,
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) o=
r in
science or in graduation rate.
- If a previously identified district fails to make AYP at each applic=
able
grade level in the accountability area for which it was identified, =
it
moves to the next highest status on the continuum.
|
54
|
- 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
|
- 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 secon=
dary
levels
- District B is identified for improvement because it has failed to m=
ake
AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject at all grade leve=
ls.
|
56
|
|
57
|
|
58
|
|
59
|
|
60
|
- 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.<=
/li>
- 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
|
- When funding resumes, the school assumes the status it would have ha=
d 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
|
|
63
|
|
64
|
|
65
|
|
66
|
|
67
|
|
68
|
|
69
|
- Beginning with the 2003 graduation-rate cohort (used for accountabil=
ity
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 du=
ring
year 1, 2, 3, or 4 of high school are part of the district/school co=
hort
unless they transfer to another diploma-granting program.
|
70
|
- A student will be included in the district/school cohort if the
student’s last enrollment record in the district or school sho=
ws:
- 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 sch=
ool,
died, transferred by court order, or left the U.S.
- less than five month’s enrollment and an ending reason indicat=
ing
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 prog=
ram,
and
- that the student was enrolled in the district/school for at least f=
ive
months.
|
71
|
- 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 a=
nd
transferred to West in September 2006 and remained enrolled until
February 2007 (enrolled for five months).
|
72
|
- 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 a=
nd
transferred to West in September 2006 and dropped out in December 2=
006
(not enrolled for five months).
|
73
|
|
74
|
- 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 recei=
ved
English instruction.
- Districts receiving Title III funding must identify each participati=
ng
student in the State Repository System and STEP.
|
75
|
|
76
|
- 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
|
- CSE must determine that the student meets criteria specified in Nove=
mber
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
|
- Background Information—Slides 82—83
- School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 84
- Application of Flexibility—Slide 85 —86
- Examples—Slides 87—90
|
79
|
- The U. S. Department of Education (USDOE) has offered states that me=
et
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
|
- To be eligible, New York State also had to meet certain criteria,
including
- demonstrating the improved performance of students with disabilitie=
s 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 test=
ed
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) a=
nd
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 earli=
est
alternate assessments will be in place would be 2007-2008.
|
81
|
- The adjustment is to be made by dividing 2% by the statewide percent=
age
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% divi=
ded
by 12%).
- Under the rules, USDOE allows us to deem an additional 17% of studen=
ts
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 In=
dex.
|
82
|
- A school or district is eligible to use this flexibility on the
elementary- middle level English language arts (ELA) and/or mathemat=
ics
accountability measures, if it meets the following criteria:
- The only accountability group that does not make AYP on that measur=
e is
the students with disability group.
- 95 percent of enrolled students with disabilities were tested on th=
at
measure.
|
83
|
- 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 m=
ade
AYP and the school will make AYP on that measure.
- AMOs for 2005-06 have not been determined.
|
84
|
- 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 disabil=
ity
group exceeded its Effective AMO; therefore, each group except the
students with disabilities group made AYP.
- The students with disability group:
- Effective AMO =3D 114
- safe harbor target =3D110
- Performance Index =3D 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 In=
dex:
- The adjusted Performance Index is lower than the AMO for
elementary-middle level ELA (Assume the AMO =3D 142).
- Therefore, East is judged to have not made AYP in elementary-middle
level ELA.
|
85
|
- 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 disabil=
ity
group exceeded its Effective AMO; therefore, each group except the
students with disabilities group made AYP.
- The students with disability group:
- Effective AMO =3D 114
- safe harbor target =3D110
- Performance Index =3D 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 In=
dex:
- The adjusted Performance Index exceeds the AMO for elementary-middle
level mathematics (Assume the AMO =3D 141).
- Therefore, West is judged to have made AYP in elementary-middle level
mathematics.
|
86
|
- In elementary- middle level ELA, South Middle School is accountable =
for
four groups: all stude=
nts,
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 gr=
oups
exceeded their Effective AMOs; therefore, they made AYP.
- The Performance Index of the LEP group was below its Effective AMO a=
nd
it did not make safe harbor; therefore, the group did not made AYP.<=
/li>
- Because the LEP group did not make AYP, the school is not eligible f=
or
flexibility for the students with disabilities group.
- Therefore, South is judged to have not made AYP in elementary- middle
level ELA.
|
87
|
- In elementary- middle level ELA, North Middle School is accountable =
for
four groups: all stude=
nts,
students with disabilities, White students, and Hispanic students.=
li>
- 95 percent of enrolled students in each group except the students wi=
th
disabilities group were tested.
- The Performance Index of each group except the students with disabil=
ity
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 stud=
ents
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
|
|
89
|
- If an elementary or middle school does not test 30 continuously enro=
lled
students in ELA or mathematics in 2005–06, the scores of
continuously enrolled students tested in 2004–05 and 2005̵=
1;06
will be combined to determine the PI.
- If a high school does not have 30 students in its 2002 cohort, the 2=
001
and 2002 cohorts will be combined to determine the PI.
- If a school still does not have 30 students on which to base a decis=
ion,
the school is subject to special procedures for determining AYP.
- If the “All Students” group includes at least 30 student=
s in
2005–06, results for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will NOT =
be
combined for the other accountability groups. This is true even if t=
here
are fewer than 30 tested students in the other accountability groups=
.
|
90
|
- For accountability groups that include 30 students in 2005–06 =
but
did not include 30 students in 2004–05, the scores of continuo=
usly
enrolled tested students in that group in 2003–04 and 2004R=
11;05
will be combined to determine the safe harbor and progress targets.<=
/li>
- For accountability groups that do not include 30 2002 cohort members,
the 2001 and 2002 cohorts will be combined to determine the safe har=
bor
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.
|
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
- on the performance of schools with grade 3 in the same district, o=
r
- on a procedure called “backmapping.”
|
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.
|
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.
|
94
|
- Feeder schools with grades 1 and/or 2 are accountable for the
performance of their former students when these students take the gr=
ade
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 w=
ith
the Effective AMOs and/or Safe Harbor Targets. The PI in science is
determined and compared with the Science Standard and/or Progress Ta=
rget.
- For schools serving only kindergarten, special evaluation processes =
are
used to determine AYP.
|
95
|
- Since these schools do not have a grade 12, assessment and
graduation-rate data for cohort members after four years of high sch=
ool
cannot be collected. As such, judgments as to whether the school make
adequate yearly progress must be made using special procedures.
|
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 Informat=
ion
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
|