Transcript No Slide Title

The New York State
Accountability System:
Simplified
Emma Klimek
April 16, 2009
Agenda
 8:30-9:30: Participation and Performance
 9:30-10:30: Effective Measureable
Objective, State Standards, Safe Harbor
 10:30-10:45: Break
 10:45-11:30-Secondary School Accountability
Emma Kimek 2009
2
Why Learn About Accountability?

You are the mentor for the high school,
middle school and elementary schools which
have not made AYP for participation,
performance and graduation rate. What would
you do next to help the principals?
Emma Kimek 2009
3
Adequate Yearly Progress
•Participation
ELA, Math, Third Indicator
•Performance
•ELA, Math, Third Indicator
•2 Year Rule
Emma Kimek 2009
4
Participation Criterion
Emma Kimek 2009
5
Participation Criterion
Elementary/Middle Level
•40 or more students
•95% participation
•80% for science
Emma Kimek 2009
6
Participation Criterion
Secondary Level
•40 or more 12th grade students with valid
Regents score or alternative, RCT or
NYSAA
Emma Kimek 2009
7
“Safety Net” for Participation
•If less than 40 students in one year, weighted
calculation for 2 years
•If less than 95%, then weighted calculation for
2 years
Year
Enrollment
Tested
Rate
Current
60
56
93%
Previous
75
73
97%
Weighted Average Calculation
135
129
96%
Emma Kimek 2009
8
Medically Excused
•3-8 students
•Absent entire testing period
•Documentation required
Emma Kimek 2009
9
Activity
Calculating participation for small groups
Or
Didn’t make 95%
Emma Kimek 2009
10
Performance Criterion:
Performance Indices
Emma Kimek 2009
11
Levels of Student Achievement
Performance Index (PI)
Level 1 = Basic
Level 2 = Basic Proficient
Level 3 = Proficient
Level 4 = Advanced
Emma Kimek 2009
12
Calculation of the
Performance Index (PI) 3-8
•Value from 0-200
•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  100
PI = [(Level 2+Level 3+Level
4+Level 3+Level 4) ÷ number of
cont. enrolled]  100
Emma Kimek 2009
13
Activity
Calculating Performance Index in Grades 3-8
Emma Kimek 2009
14
Test
Grade
3
4
5
Number of
Number
Students at Levels
of Students
1
2
3
35
12
7
10
43
3
6
20
30
6
10
10
Emma Kimek 2009
4
6
14
4
15
Answer
PI = [(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.
Emma Kimek 2009
16
Assessments for Performance 3-8
Assessment
Students Eligible
NYSTP
ELA, Math, Science
All Students
NYSAA
Severely disabled students
Emma Kimek 2009
17
Assessments at the Secondary Level
Assessment
Regents
Exams
RCT
Eligible
Score ranges Performance
Levels
All students 0-54
1
55-64
2
65-84
3
85-100
4
Students with Fail
1
Disabilities
Pass
2
Emma Kimek 2009
18
Assessment
Eligible
Score
Ranges
Performance
Levels
Approved
Alternatives
All Students
Pass
3
NYSAA
Students with
Severe
Disabilities
1-4
Highest score is counted; if no score then counted as level 1
Emma Kimek 2009
19
Performance Criteria
Effective AMOs
State Standards
Safe Harbor
Progress Targets
Emma Kimek 2009
20
Performance Criterion
ELA MATH SCIENCE
For ELA and Math:
Performance Index of group =>Effective Annual Measurable
Objective
OR
Make Safe Harbor (group must qualify on third indicator)
For Science and Graduation:
Performance Index of group => State Standard
OR
Meet Progress Target
Emma Kimek 2009
21
Effective AMOs
An Effective AMO is the lowest PI not to be
considered significantly different from the AMO
Refer to chart
Emma Kimek 2009
22
Confidence Intervals Were Used to
Determine Effective AMOs
Annual
Measurable
Objective
30
50
70
90
Number Tested
Emma Kimek 2009
23
Safe Harbor for ELA and Math
Safe Harbor Target = {Previous Year’s PI} +
[(200 – {Previous Year’s PI})  0.10]
Emma Kimek 2009
24
Activity
 In the green section, enter “previous year’s
PI”
Emma Kimek 2009
25
Qualifying for Safe Harbor
in ELA and Math (for the group)
 Grades 3-8

Must equal or exceed the state standard in
Science or the progress target
 Secondary

Must equal or exceed state standard for
graduation rate or progress target

Local or Regents diploma by August 31 of the 4th
year after entering grade nine
Emma Kimek 2009
26
34-Point Rule for
Students with Disabilities
All schools: if only SWD, then 34
points added and must equal AMO
not the Effective AMO
Emma Kimek 2009
27
Former Limited English Proficient
(LEP) Students
LEP <= 30 then former LEP
Emma Kimek 2009
28
Graduation Rate Calculation
Number of graduation-rate cohort members who
graduated with a local or Regents diploma
_________________________________________
Number of graduation-rate cohort members
Then, multiplying the result by 100.
For example:
Graduation-rate cohort members = 178
Graduation-rate cohort members with local or Regents
diplomas = 146
Graduation rate = (146  178)  100 = 82.02247 or 82%
Emma Kimek 2009
29
Making Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP)
Emma Kimek 2009
30
Participation
Rate
Didn’t make
Participation
Rate
but average with
Previous year
qualifies
Made Participation
Rate
Emma Kimek 2009
31
Performance
Must Make AYP for ELA or Math
For each NCLB group
Must Make AYP for Science or
Graduation Rate (all students only)
Emma Kimek 2009
32
Safe Harbor
Must qualify for
the specific group
on the science or
graduation rate
measure
PI must be equal to
Or greater than
The Safe Harbor Target
Emma Kimek 2009
33
Determining State and
Federal Accountability
Status
General Rules
School-Level Accountability
 Fail to make AYP for two years
 Third year failure to make AYP, move to next
level
 If achieving AYP for one year, then remains at
present status
 To be removed from status the school must
make AYP for two consecutive years
Emma Kimek 2009
35
District-Level Accountability
 All students
 Two year rule
 District can be identified even if no school is
identified
Emma Kimek 2009
36
Determining School State Status
Years of Failure to
Make AYP in a
Subject and Grade
Status
1
Good Standing
2*
School Requiring Academic
Progress (SRAP) — Year 1
3
SRAP — Year 2
4
SRAP — Year 3
5
SRAP — Year 4
6
SRAP — 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 removedEmma
from
improvement
status for the
Kimek
2009
subject and grade in which it was identified.
37
Determining District State Status
Years of Failure to
Make AYP in a
Subject and Grade
Status
1
Good Standing
2*
District Requiring Academic
Progress (DRAP) — Year 1
3
DRAP — Year 2
4
DRAP — Year 3
5
DRAP — Year 4
6
DRAP — Year 5
*A district must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years to be
placed in improvement status. A district that makes AYP for two
consecutive years is removedEmma
from
improvement
status for the
Kimek
2009
measure in which it was identified.
38
Determining School Federal Status
Years of Failure
Under Title I to Make
AYP in a Subject and
Grade
Status
1
Good Standing
2*
School in Need of Improvement
(SINI) — Year 1
3
School in Need of Improvement
(SINI) — Year 2
4
Corrective Action
5
Planning for Restructuring
6
Restructuring
*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 removedEmma
from
improvement
status for the
Kimek
2009
subject and grade in which it was identified.
39
Determining District Federal Status
Years of Failure
Under Title I to Make
AYP in a Subject and
Grade
Status
1
Good Standing
2*
District in Need of Improvement
(DINI) — Year 1
3
DINI — Year 2
4
DINI — Year 3
5
DINI — Year 4
6
DINI — Year 4
*A district must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years to be
placed in improvement status. A district that makes AYP for two
consecutive years is removedEmma
from
improvement
status for the
Kimek
2009
measure in which it was identified.
40
Secondary-Level
Accountability and
Graduation-Rate (Total)
Cohorts
Emma Kimek 2009
41
Guide to Accountability Cohorts
High schools are accountable for three areas:



English and mathematics performance;
English and mathematics participation; and
graduation rate.
A different group of students is measured in each of these
areas. The cohort used to measure English and mathematics
performance was redefined beginning with the 2002 cohort
(class of 2006); the cohort used to measure graduation rate
was redefined beginning with the 2003 (class of 2007) cohort.
Emma Kimek 2009
42
2007-08 High School Accountability
English &
Math
Participation
English &
Math
Performance
Graduation
Rate
All students reported in the
repository as 12th graders* in 200708
2004 Accountability Cohort (oneyear continuous enrollment)
2003 Graduation-Rate Cohort
(Rate = 2003 Total Cohort as of
June 30, 2007  graduates as of
August 31, 2007)
*Twelfth graders are students whose last reported grade between July 1 and
June 30 of the academic reporting year (e.g., between July 1, 2007 and June
30, 2008 for the 2007-08 academic reporting year) in the Student Information
Emma Kimek 2009
Repository System is grade 12.
43
2004 Accountability
Cohort Definition
The 2004 accountability cohort consists of all students,
regardless of their current grade status, who were enrolled
in the school on October 3, 2007 (BEDS day) and met one
of the following conditions:
 first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2004–05
school year (July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005); or
 in the case of ungraded students with disabilities,
reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2004–05
school year.
Emma Kimek 2009
44
2004 Accountability
Cohort Definition (continued)
The State will exclude the following students
when reporting data on the 2004
accountability cohort:
• Left district
• Enrolled GED
Emma Kimek 2009
45
Transfers to GED
In the Student Information Repository System,
districts must provide the following information for
students who transfer to approved GED programs
during the 2005-06 and later school years (as defined
in CR 100.7):

The ending reason on the enrollment record for
the high school must be transferred to an AHSEP
or HSEP program.

There must be a subsequent ASEPP/HSEPP
enrollment that includes a service provider code
for an NYSED-approved AHSEP or HSEP
program.
Emma Kimek 2009
46
Transfers to GED (continued)

If the student is not enrolled in the AHSEP or HSEP
program on June 30, 2008, 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.
Emma Kimek 2009
47
2003 Graduation-Rate
(Total) Cohort Definition
The 2003 graduation-rate (total) cohort consists of all students as of
June 30, 2007, regardless of their current grade status, who:
 first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2003–04 school year
(July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004); or
 in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their
seventeenth birthday during the 2003–04 school year
AND
whose last enrollment in the school was 5 months or longer
(excluding July and August) or, whose last enrollment was less
than 5 months but who had a prior enrollment in this school or
district between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2007 that was 5 months
or more.
Emma Kimek 2009
48
2003 Graduation-Rate (Total)
Cohort Definition (continued)
When reporting data on the 2003 total cohort, the State will
exclude students whose last enrollment record indicated that they:
 transferred to another district or nonpublic school (excluded
from the district graduation-rate cohort) or criminal justice
facility; or
 left the U.S. and its territories; or
 died.
Emma Kimek 2009
49
2003 Graduation-Rate
Activity 1
Student 1
School
School A
Beginning
Enrollment
Date
Ending
Enrollment
Date
9/1/03
6/30/07
Is student 1 included in School A’s graduation
rate?
Emma Kimek 2009
50
2003 Graduation-Rate
Activity 2
Student 2
School
Beginning
Enrollment
Date
Ending
Enrollment
Date
School A
9/1/03
11/30/03
School B
12/1/03
6/30/07
Which school is this student a graduation
rate cohort member? Emma Kimek 2009
51
2003 Graduation-Rate
Activity 3
Student 3
School
Beginning
Enrollment
Date
Ending
Enrollment
Date
School A
9/1/03
6/30/04
School B
7/1/04
9/30/05
School A
10/1/05
5/30/07
School B
5/31/07
6/30/07
Which school is this student a member of
Kimek 2009
the graduation rateEmma
cohort?
52
2003 Graduation-Rate
Activity 4
School A and School B are in different districts.
Student 4
School
Beginning
Enrollment
Date
Ending
Enrollment
Date
School A
9/1/03
6/30/04
School B
7/1/04
9/30/04
School A
10/1/04
5/30/07
School B
5/31/07
6/30/07
Which cohort does this student belong to?
Emma Kimek 2009
53
Discuss
What is the implication of having students
attend GED for Performance and
Graduation rate?
Accountability for Limited
English Proficient Students
Emma Kimek 2009
55
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Students
 All LEP students :NYSESLAT
 LEP students in 3 - 8 enrolled in U.S.
schools (not including Puerto Rico) <
than 1 year use NYSESLAT for
participation.
 NYSESLAT not used for performance
 All students in US> 1 year, must take
NYSTP in ELA
Emma Kimek 2009
56
Accountability for Students with
Disabilities
Emma Kimek 2009
57
New York State Alternate
Assessment (NYSAA)
 NYSSA students’ performance same as
NYSTP
 Cannot exceed 1 percent; except by petition
Emma Kimek 2009
58
Accountability for Schools
with Special Circumstances
Emma Kimek 2009
59
Special Circumstances
 Small schools and districts
 Unusual grade configurations (9,10,11 and no 12)
 Schools with grades below grade 3
 Unique schools
Emma Kimek 2009
60
Activity

You are the mentor for the high school,
middle school and elementary schools which
have not made AYP for participation,
performance and graduation rate. What would
you do next to help the principals?
Emma Kimek 2009
61
What’s Next?
Proposed Phases and Categories of School Improvement
2009-2010
FOCUSED
One or more accountability measures OR
more than one student group within an
accountability measure but not the ALL
student group
COMPREHENSIVE
One or more accountability measures
AND the ALL student group
SURR
Improvement
BASIC
One accountability
measure and one student
group but not the ALL
student group
COMPREHENSIVE
One or more accountability measures
AND the ALL student group
FOCUSED
More than one
accountability measures
OR more than one student
group within an
accountability measure but
not the ALL student group
Identified based on
the ALL student
group
and farthest
from State
Standards
and most in
need of
improvement
Intensity of Interventions
Corrective
Action
FOCUSED
One or more accountability measures OR
more than one student group within an
accountability measure but not the ALL
student group
COMPREHENSIVE
One or more
accountability measures
AND the ALL student
group or all subgroups
The intensity of interventions increases as the categories progress through the phases.
Emma Kimek 2009
63
Differentiated Accountability Model
Phase
IMPROVEMENT
CORRECTIVE ACTION
FAILED
AYP 2
YEARS
Category
BASIC
FOCUSED
COMPREHENSIVE
RESTRUCTURING
FAILED
AYP 2
YEARS
FOCUSED
COMP
FOCUSED
COMP
SURR
Diagnostic
Plan/Intervention
SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEW
CURRICULUM AUDIT
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN &
IMPLEMENTATION OF
CURRICULUM AUDIT
CREATE AND IMPLEMENT
Oversight
& Support
SED empowers districts: gives them the support and
assistance necessary to take primary
responsibility for developing and implementing
improvement strategies
SED provides TA to districts:
sustaining greater latitude
and more responsibility for
addressing schools
ASSIGNMENT OF
Joint Intervention Team and
Distinguished Educator
External personnel to revise and
assist school implement the most
rigorous plan or, as necessary,
PHASE-OUT /CLOSURE
SED & its agents work in
direct partnership with the
district
Intensity of Intervention
Emma Kimek 2009
64
64
School Report Cards
Whom to Contact
for Further Information





The New York State Report Card, contact the School Report
Card Coordinator at [email protected]
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 the office at (518) 4747965
Accountability, contact Ira Schwartz at
[email protected] or (718) 722-2796
Emma Kimek 2009
66