Transcript School and District Accountability Under NCLB

Update on Data Reporting
April 2005
LEAP Changes
• LEAP software will be released shortly.
• Final LEAP software will not be
available before mid-July.
• We are sending reports to districts
whose STEP or LEAP files are due on
Aug. 5. The list of due dates has been
posted on our Web site.
NYSESLAT
• New vendor for NYSESLAT.
• Scaling and cutpoints will be set by vendor
using operational data. Conversion charts will
not be available before mid-July.
• Report four raw scores (speaking, listening,
reading, and writing) on LEAP.
• If you have Title III funding, the LEAP file
must identify the students served with those
funds.
Superintendent’s Certification
• The reports produced from the LEAP and
STEP software will allow you to
– see the data that will appear on your report card
– Determine whether each school made AYP.
• Set up a team to review the reports and make
sure that they are absolutely correct before
the Superintendent signs.
• More information about accountability rules
can be found at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.
Determining State and
Federal Accountability Status
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and
State Standards for 2004–05
The Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is the PI value that signifies that an
accountability group is making satisfactory progress toward the goal that 100% of
students will be proficient in the State’s learning standards in ELA and math by 2013–14.
The State Standards are the PI values that signify minimally satisfactory performance in
science or graduation rate.
Elementary Level
•
•
•
English Language Arts AMO
Mathematics AMO
Science State Standard
= PI of 131
= PI of 142
= PI of 100
Middle Level
•
•
•
English Language Arts AMO
Mathematics AMO
Science State Standard
= PI of 116
= PI of 93
= PI of 100
Secondary Level
•
•
•
English Language Arts AMO = PI of 148
Mathematics AMO
= PI of 139
Graduation-Rate State Standard
= 55%
Effective AMOs
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 group is considered to have made AYP.
Effective AMOs for 2004–05
Subject
AMO
Number of Students Participating
3034
3539
4044
4549
5059
6069
7089
90119
120149
150219
220279
280399
400589
590979
9801899
19005299
5300
+
131
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Math 4
142
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
ELA 8
116
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Math 8
93
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
HS ELA
148
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
HS Math
139
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
Further information about Confidence Intervals and Effective AMOs for 2004–05 is available at:
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/school-accountability/confidence-intervals.htm
Effective AMOs
ELA 4
District-Level Accountability
• The district results are aggregated for all students
attending school in the district as well as continuously
enrolled students the district places outside of the school
district (e.g., in BOCES, approved private placements).
• For a district to make AYP in a grade and subject, each
district accountability group must make AYP in that grade
and subject.
• To be identified for improvement status in a subject, a
district must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in
ELA or mathematics at all three grade levels (elementary,
middle, and secondary) or in science at both grade levels
or in graduation rate.
• If a previously identified district fails in a subject in which it
was identified, it moves to the next highest status on the
continuum.
District-Level Accountability (cont.)
• If an identified district makes AYP, it remains in the same
status on the continuum.
• To be removed from improvement status in a subject, the
district must make AYP in that subject for two consecutive
years. The district may remain or be placed in
improvement status in another subject for which it has not
made AYP.
• 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.
Sample Identifications of
Districts for Improvement Status
District A results in 2003–04:
–fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels
District A results in 2004–05:
– fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary and middle levels 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 at least one grade level in at least one of the two years.
District B results in 2003–04:
–fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels
District B results in 2004–05:
– fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels
District B is identified for improvement because it has failed to make AYP for
two consecutive years in the same subject at all grade levels.
2005-06
2002 Accountability
Cohort Definition
This cohort will be used to determine AYP in English and mathematics
at the secondary level for the 2005–06 school year. The 2002
accountability cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current
grade status, who were enrolled in the school on October 6, 2004
(BEDS day) and met one of the following conditions:
•
first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2002–03 school
year (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003); or
•
in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached
their seventeenth birthday during the 2002–03 school year.
2002 Accountability
Cohort Definition (cont’d)
The State will exclude the following students when reporting data
on the 2002 accountability cohort:
•
•
•
•
students who transferred to another high school or
criminal justice facility after BEDS day 2004;
students who transferred to an approved alternative high
school equivalency preparation or high school equivalency
preparation program (CR 100.7) after BEDS day 2004 and
met the conditions stated on the next slide;
students who left the U.S. and its territories after BEDS
day 2004; and
students who died after BEDS day 2004.
2002 Accountability Cohort
(Transfers to GED)
Students will be removed from the cohort for the school and district
from which they transferred to an approved GED program if the final
enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2006 the student
a) has earned a high school equivalency diploma; or
b) is enrolled in an approved GED program.
Students will be removed from the school cohort if the enrollment
records show that the student has transferred to a different high
school and is working toward or has earned a high school diploma.
Students will be removed from the district cohort if the enrollment
records show that the student has transferred to high school in a
different district and is working toward or has earned a high school
diploma.
2002 Accountability Cohort
(Transfers to GED)
Students will remain in the cohort of the school and district from
which they transferred to an approved GED program if the final
enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2006 the student
a) has not earned a high school equivalency diploma;
b) is not enrolled in an approved GED program; and
c) has not transferred to high school that provides instruction leading
to a high school diploma.
Students who transfer back to the high school from which they
transferred to an approved GED program without first entering
another high school will remain in the district and school cohort.
Transfers to GED
On the 2005 STEP file, districts must provide the following
information for students who transfer to approved GED
programs during the 2004-05 school year (as defined in CR
100.7):
•
The ending reason on the enrollment record for the high school
must be transferred to approved GED program.
•
The GED enrollment record must provide a service provider
code for an approved GED program.
•
If the student is not enrolled in the GED program on June 30,
2005, 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.
Grade 3-8 Testing
• Required by NCLB to begin in 2005-06.
• Will be used for accountability purposes.
• Elementary and middle schools will receive a
single Performance Index for ELA and a single
Performance Index for math.
• AMO’s and Safe Harbors will be adjusted to
reflect performance on new assessments.
Calculating the Grade 3-8
Performance Index
Grade
Number
Levels
of Students
1
2
3
30
7
7
4
40
3
6
5
30
6
10
TOTAL
100
16 23
Index = (23+40+21+40+21)=145
3
10
20
10
40
4
6
11
4
21
District/Schools That Have
Valid Scores for Fewer than
80% of Their Students
Beginning in 2005-06, if a district/school
does not have valid science scores for at
least 80 percent of its enrolled students, it
will not make AYP.
Repository System
• Level 1 Repository (regional)—data will be
moved from district student management
system to Level 1. After district verifies
accuracy data will be moved to
• Level 2 Repository (statewide) includes
student name and unique identified, source of
individual and summary performance reports
and verification reports.
Repository System
(continued)
• Level 3 Repository (State use)—data for
school report cards and accountability
decisions; to protect student privacy: no
student names and unique identifiers
are encrypted.
Reports from the Repository
Grade 3-8
Reports available to all public schools using
Web browser
– Individual Student
– School summary reports
– Item analyses
Analytical tool available through Web browser
will allow user to do custom reports based on
factors such as grade, age, disability, LEP
status, race-ethnicity
Responsibilities of District and School
Administrators in 2005-06
• Arrange to participate in a Level 1 Repository.
• Designate a chief information officer (CIO).
• Obtain unique identifiers for students. Student
records cannot be entered into the Level 2
Repository without unique statewide identifiers.
• Review the Data Standards manual.
• Determine whether each required data element is
present or missing on the local student management
system. Develop short- and long-term plans for
providing the missing data elements.
Responsibilities
• Identify the location of all required data in the district
and the person responsible for each data element.
• Create a process for transforming data in the local
student management system to the format specified
in the Data Standards Manual.
• Provide student records with data elements to the
Level 1 Repository on the required schedule.
• The CIO should coordinate the district’s verification
process to ensure that district report cards and
accountability status are correct.
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.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 Martha Musser at
[email protected] or (518) 474-7965
• Accountability, contact Ira Schwartz at
[email protected] or (718) 722-2796