Transcript Document 7210918

The New York State Education Department
School and District
Accountability Reports
Implementing No Child Left
Behind (NCLB)
March 2004
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Measuring Performance: pages 3-8
Accountability Standards: pages 9-13
Making Safe Harbor: pages 14-23
Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): pages 2429
Determining State and Federal Accountability Status:
pages 30-44
Accountability for Students with Disabilities and
Limited English Proficient Students: pages 45-47
Accountability for Schools with Special
Circumstances: pages 48-55
Whom to Contact for Further Information: pages 56
Measuring
Performance
3
Measuring Performance
At the elementary and middle levels, student
performance is measured using State assessments in
English language arts, mathematics, and science.
At the secondary level, student performance is
measured using State assessments in English
language arts and mathematics, and using graduation
rate.
Assessment Performance is defined at four levels:
Level 1 = Basic
Level 2 = Basic Proficiency
Level 3 = Proficient
Level 4 = Advanced Proficiency
4
Calculation of the
Performance Index (PI)
A Performance Index (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 English language arts, mathematics, or science. PIs are
determined using the following equations:
Elementary and Middle Levels:
PI = 100 X (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
Secondary Level:
PI = 100 X (number of cohort members scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the number
scoring at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ number of cohort members
5
Elementary- and Middle-Level
Accountability Assessments
At the elementary and middle levels, the assessments that were used
when determining performance indices for an accountability group are
shown below.
Assessment
Eligible Students
Performance
Levels
State Assessments in English All Students
Language Arts, Mathematics,
and Science
1–4
New York State Alternate
Assessment
Students with
Severe Disabilities
1–4
New York State English as a
Second Language
Achievement Test
Selected Limited
English Proficient
Students
1–4
Locally Selected Assessment
Selected Students
with Significant
Disabilities
1
6
Secondary-Level
Accountability Assessments
At the secondary level, the assessments that were used when
determining performance indices for an accountability group are shown
below.
Score Performance
Eligible
Assessment
Ranges
Students
Levels
Regents Examinations in
English and Mathematics
All Students
0–54
55–64
65–84
85–100
1
2
3
4
Component Retests in
English and Mathematics
Seniors Who
Previously Failed
the Regents
Examination
0–54
55–64
65+
1
2
3
Regents Competency
Students with
Tests in Reading, Writing, Disabilities
and Mathematics (and
Approved Alternatives)
Fail
Pass
1
2
Approved Alternatives to
Regents Examinations
Fail
Pass
1
3
All Students
7
Graduation Rate
(1998 Cohort for 2002–03)
1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort = Members of the 1998 school accountability cohort +
students eliminated from that cohort solely because they transferred to a GED program.
1998 Graduation Rate = number of graduation-rate cohort members who earned a
Regents or local diploma on or before August 31, 2002 ÷ number of graduation-rate
cohort members
Example:
1998 school accountability cohort count = 153
Students eliminated from the cohort because they transferred to a GED program = 7
Graduation-rate cohort = (1998 school accountability cohort count) 153 + (students
eliminated from the cohort because they transferred to a GED program) 7 = 160
1998 graduation-rate cohort members who earned a Regents or local diploma on or
before August 31, 2002 = 129
Graduation Rate (Percent of 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local
Diploma by August 31, 2002) = 129 ÷ (153 + 7) = 80.6%
8
Accountability
Standards
9
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and
State Standards for 2002–03 and 2003–04
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 123
= PI of 136
= 40% at or above SDL (2002–03)
= PI of 100 (2003–04)*
Middle Level
•
•
•
English Language Arts AMO
Mathematics AMO
Science State Standard
= PI of 107
= PI of 81
= PI of 100
Secondary Level
•
•
•
English Language Arts AMO
Mathematics AMO
Graduation Rate State Standard
= PI of 142
= PI of 132
= 55% (2002–03)
10
*In 2003–04, an elementary-level science test similar to the middle-level science test will be administered for the first time. This
accounts for the difference in the State Standard and Progress Targets for elementary-level science between 2002–03 and 2003–04.
Annual Measurable Objectives for
2002–03 to 2013–14
School Year
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
2013–14
Elementary-Level
ELA
Math
123
136
123
136
131
142
138
149
146
155
154
162
162
168
169
174
177
181
185
187
192
194
200
200
Middle-Level
ELA
Math
107
81
107
81
116
93
126
105
135
117
144
129
154
141
163
152
172
164
181
176
191
188
200
200
Secondary-Level
English Math
142
132
142
132
148
139
154
146
159
152
165
159
171
166
177
173
183
180
188
186
194
193
200
200
11
Confidence Intervals Were Used to
Determine Effective AMOs
A confidence interval is a range of points around an AMO for an accountability
group of a given size that is considered to be not significantly different than the
AMO. The four small squares below represent four schools with the same PI but
with different numbers of tested students. The vertical lines represent the
confidence interval for each school based on the number of students tested. The
more students tested, the smaller the confidence interval.
Annual
Measurable
Objective
30
50
70
Number Tested
90
12
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 2002–03
Subject
AMO
Number of Students Participating
3034
3539
4044
4549
5059
6069
7089
90119
120149
150219
220279
280399
400589
590979
9801899
19005299
5300
+
123
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
121
Math 4
136
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
ELA 8
107
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Math 8
81
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
HS ELA
142
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
HS Math
132
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
Further information about Confidence Intervals and Effective AMOs for 2002–03 is available at:
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/school-accountability/confidence-intervals.htm
13
Effective AMOs
ELA 4
Making Safe Harbor
14
2003–04 Safe Harbor
Calculation for ELA and Math
Safe Harbor is an alternative means to demonstrate AYP for
accountability groups whose PI is less than their Effective AMO. The
Safe Harbor Target calculation for ELA and math for 2003–04 is:
Safe Harbor Target = 2002–03PI + (200 – 2002–03PI)  0.10
For a group to make safe harbor in English or math, it must meet its
safe harbor target and also meet the science (at the elementary or
middle level) or graduation rate (at the secondary level) qualification
for safe harbor. To qualify at the elementary or middle level, the
group must make the State Standard or its Progress Target in
science at the same grade level. At the secondary level, it must
make the State Standard or its Progress Target for graduation rate.
15
Sample Safe Harbor
Calculation for Middle-Level
ELA Group
2002–03 middle-level ELA PI = 102
2002–03 middle-level ELA Effective AMO = 123
(2001–02 middle-level ELA PI = 90)
2002–03 Safe Harbor Target = 90 + (200 – 90)  0.10 = 101
Though this group’s PI for 2002–03 (102) was less than its
Effective AMO (123), the PI was greater than its Safe Harbor
Target (101). Therefore, this group made its Safe Harbor
Target. To make AYP, the group must also qualify to make safe
harbor. To qualify, the science PI for this group must equal or
exceed the State Standard or its Progress Target in middlelevel science.
16
Science and Graduation Rate:
Qualifying for Safe Harbor
in ELA and Math in 2002–03
To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math at the
elementary level, the percent scoring at or above the State
Designated Level in elementary-level science for a group must equal
or exceed the State Standard (40 percent) or the group’s Progress
Target.
To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math at the middle
level, the PI for middle-level science 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 level, the percent of the 1998 graduation-rate cohort
earning a local diploma by August 31, 2002 must equal or exceed the
State Standard (55 percent) or the group’s Progress Target for
secondary-level graduation rate.
17
Special Notes About
Safe Harbor Targets
• If an accountability group did not test 30 or more students in
2000–01 and 2001–02 combined, the group was assigned a
Safe Harbor Target of 20.
• If an accountability group’s Safe Harbor Target for 2002–03
exceeded its Effective AMO, the Safe Harbor Target on the
Accountability Status report was printed as the Effective
AMO.
18
Science and Graduation Rate
Progress Targets
Progress Targets are determined in science at the elementary and
middle levels and in graduation rate at the secondary level for
groups that do not meet the State Standard. To make AYP in
science or graduation rate, the “All Students” must meet the State
Standard or its Progress Target. To qualify for safe harbor in ELA
and math, an accountability group must meet the State Standard or
make its Progress Target.
(In 2003–04, an elementary-level science test similar to the middle-level
science test will be administered for the first time. This accounts for the
difference in the Progress Targets for elementary-level science between
2002–03 and 2003–04.)
19
Elementary- and Middle-Level
Science Progress Targets
Progress Targets are calculated in science at the elementary and middle levels for schools
whose performance is below State Standard. Schools that make their Progress Target are
considered to have made AYP in science and to qualify for safe harbor in ELA and math at
that grade level.
At the elementary level for 2002–03, the Science Progress Target is the value that the
Percent At or Above SDL for the “All Students” group must equal or exceed. This target is
determined by adding one point to the 2001–02 Percent At or Above SDL.
Example:
2002–03 Elementary-Level State Science Standard = 40
2001–02 Percent At or Above SDL = 38
2002–03 Elementary-Level Science Progress Target = 38 + 1 = 39
At the middle level, the Science Progress Target is the value that the PI for the “All
Students” group must equal or exceed. For 2002–03, this target is determined by adding one
point to the 2001–02 PI.
Example:
2002–03 Middle-Level State Science Standard = 100
2001–02 PI = 97
2002–03 Middle-Level Science Progress Target = 97 + 1 = 98
20
Sample Qualification for Safe
Harbor for Middle-Level ELA Group
2002–03 middle-level science PI = 99
2002–03 middle-level science State Standard = 100
2002–03 middle-level science Progress Target = 97 + 1 = 98
(2001–02 middle-level science PI = 97)
Though this group’s PI for 2002–03 (99) was less than the
State Standard (100), the PI was greater than its Progress
Target (98). Therefore, this group qualifies to make Safe Harbor
in middle-level ELA and math. To make Safe Harbor in ELA or
math, the group must also meet its Safe Harbor Target in that
subject.
21
Secondary-Level GraduationRate Progress Targets
Progress Targets are calculated in graduation rate at the secondary level for schools
whose performance is below State Standard. Schools that make their Progress Target
are considered to have made AYP in graduation rate and to qualify for safe harbor in
ELA and math at that the secondary level.
At the secondary level, the 2002–03 Graduation-Rate Progress Target is the value
that the Percent of the 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by
August 31, 2002 for the “All Students” group must equal or exceed. For 2002–03, this
target is determined by adding one point to the Percent of the 1998 Graduation-Rate
Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by June 30, 2002.
Example:
Graduation-Rate Standard = 55
2001–02 Percent of the 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by
June 30, 2002 = 53
2002–03 Graduation-Rate Progress Target = 53 + 1 = 54
22
Sample Qualification for Safe
Harbor for 1998 Graduation-Rate
Cohort Group
Percent of 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local
Diploma by August 31, 2002 = 47
2002–03 Graduation-Rate Standard = 55
Percent of 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local
Diploma by June 30, 2002 = 46
2002–03 Graduation-Rate Progress Target = 46 + 1 = 47
Though this group’s percent of the 1998 graduation-rate cohort
earning a local diploma by August 31, 2002 (47) was less than
the State Standard (55), the percent was equal to its Progress
Target (47). Therefore, this group qualifies to make Safe Harbor
in secondary-level ELA and math.
23
Making Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP)
24
Determining AYP in Elementary- and Middle-Level ELA or Math
School did not test 95
percent of every
group of 40 or more
Participation Rate for school
with 40 or more student
enrolled on test day
Schools with
fewer than 40 students
NO AYP
School tested 95 percent of
every group of 40 or more
Evaluate Performance
Combine results with
previous year
School with fewer than 30
continuously enrolled students
Fewer than 30 continuously enrolled
students in combined group
30 or more continuously enrolled
students in combined group
School with 30 or more
continuously enrolled students
Special Evaluation
Process
Calculate the Performance
Index for each group with 30
or more students
Every group’s PI is NOT
above the Effective AMO
Every group’s PI is above
the Effective AMO
Calculate safe harbor targets in ELA or
math & determine if the group met the
science qualification for safe harbor
AYP
A group below its Effective
AMO did NOT make
safe harbor
Each group below its
Effective AMO made
safe harbor
NO AYP
25
Determining AYP in Elementary- and Middle-Level Science
Evaluate Performance
Combine results with
previous year
School with fewer than 30
continuously enrolled students
Fewer than 30 continuously enrolled
students in combined group
30 or more continuously enrolled
students in combined group
Calculate the % Above SDL
(elementary level) or PI
(middle level) for each group
with 30 or more students
School with 30 or more
continuously enrolled students
The “All Students” group is
above the State Standard or
the Progress Target
Yes
No
NO AYP
AYP
Special Evaluation
Process
A group is above the State
Standard or Progress Target
Yes
The group is
qualified for
safe harbor in
ELA and math
No
The group is NOT qualified for
safe harbor in ELA and math
26
Determining AYP in Secondary-Level ELA or Math
Evaluate Performance
School with fewer than
30 accountability cohort members
Combine results with
previous year’s cohort
Fewer than 30 accountability cohort
members in combined group
30 or more accountability cohort
members in combined group
School with 30 or more
accountability cohort members
Special Evaluation
Process
Calculate the Performance Index
for each group with 30 or more
accountability cohort members
Every group’s PI is NOT
above the Effective AMO
Every group’s PI is above
the Effective AMO
Calculate safe harbor target in ELA or
math & determine if the group met the
graduation-rate qualification for safe harbor
AYP
A group below its Effective
AMO did NOT make
safe harbor
Each group below its
Effective AMO made
safe harbor
NO AYP
27
Determining AYP in Graduation Rate
Evaluate Performance
Combine results with
previous year’s cohort
School with fewer than 30
graduation-rate cohort members
Fewer than 30 graduation-rate cohort
members in combined group
30 or more graduation-rate cohort
members in combined group
School with 30 or more
graduation-rate cohort members
Calculate the % Earning a
Local Diploma by August 31
of Year 4 in High School
The “All Students” group is
above the State Standard or
the Progress Target
Yes
No
NO AYP
AYP
Special Evaluation
Process
A group is above the State
Standard or Progress Target
Yes
The group is
qualified for
safe harbor in
ELA and math
No
The group is NOT qualified for
safe harbor in ELA and math
28
AYP Determinations for
Schools with Administrative
Errors
Schools and districts that reported all of their
student test results as administrative errors or
that did not report results for their students
are considered NOT to have made AYP in the
subject and grade in which the administrative
error/reporting error was made.
29
Determining State and
Federal Accountability Status
Basic Rules for State and
Federal Accountability
Improvement Status Identification
• To be identified for improvement status, a school must
fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two
consecutive years in the same grade and subject.
• If a previously identified school fails to make AYP in the
grade and subject in 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 in a subject
and grade, the school must make AYP in that subject
and grade for two consecutive years. The school may
remain or be placed in improvement status in another
subject and/or grade for which it has not made AYP. 31
District Level Accountability
• Each district is treated as if it were “one big school.”
• 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 (i.e., 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.
• 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.
32
Sample Identifications of School
for Improvement Status
School A fails to make AYP in the following groups:
–Grade 4 ELA White Students in 2002–03
–Grade 8 Math Low-Income Students in 2003–04
School A is not identified for improvement because it has not failed
to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject and
grade.
School B fails to make AYP in the following groups:
–Grade 4 ELA Asian Students in 2002–03
–Grade 4 ELA LEP Students in 2003–04
School B is identified for improvement because it has failed to
make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject and
grade (grade 4 ELA).
33
Recognition for High
Performance
•
•
•
•
Schools and districts that for two consecutive years achieve
all AMOs and State Standards are recognized as “high
performing.”
Schools and districts that do not achieve all AMOs and State
Standards but make AYP for three consecutive years are
recognized as “rapidly improving.”
The first schools and districts to be considered “high
performing” will be identified using 2002–03 and 2003–04
school year results.
The first schools and districts to be considered “rapidly
improving” will be identified using 2002–03, 2003–04, and
2004–05 school year results.
34
Determining 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 removed from improvement status for the
subject and grade in which it was identified.
35
Determining 2004–05 State School Status in ELA,
Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 1
School was not in improvement
status in 2003-04
The school made AYP in
2002-03
The school made
AYP 2003-04
Good
Standing
The school did not
make AYP 2003-04
Good
Standing
The school did not make
AYP in 2002-03
The school made
AYP 2003-04
The school did not
make AYP 2003-04
Good
Standing
School
Requiring
Academic
Progress
(Year 1)
36
Determining 2004–05 State School Status in ELA,
Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 2
School was a School Requiring Academic
Progress (Year 1) in 2003-04
The school made AYP in
2002-03
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
Good
Standing
The school did
not make AYP in
2003-04
School
Requiring
Academic
Progress
(Year 2)
The school did not make
AYP in 2002-03
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
School
Requiring
Academic
Progress
(Year 1)
The school did not
make AYP in
2003-04
School
Requiring
Academic
Progress
(Year 2)
37
Determining 2004–05 State School Status in ELA,
Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 3
School was a School Requiring
Academic Progress (Year 2) in 2003-04
The school made AYP in
2002-03
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
Good
Standing
The school did
not make AYP in
2003-04
School
Requiring
Academic
Progress
(Year 3)
The school did not make
AYP in 2002-03
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
School
Requiring
Academic
Progress
(Year 2)
The school did not
make AYP in
2003-04
School
Requiring
Academic
Progress
(Year 3)
38
Determining Federal Status
• 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.
• 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.
39
Determining Federal Status (cont.)
• When funding resumes, the school assumes the
status it would have had 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.
40
Determining Federal Status (cont.)
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 removed from improvement status for the
subject and grade in which it was identified.
41
Determining Federal School Status for 2004–05 in
ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 1
School was not in federal
improvement status in 2003-04
The school made AYP in
2002-03
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
The school did not
make AYP in 2003-04
The school did not make
AYP in 2002-03
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
The school did not
make AYP in 2003-04
The School received Title I Funding in
2002-03,
2003-04,
and 200405
Good
Standing
Good
Standing
Good
Standing
School in
Need of
Improvement (Year
1)
2003-04
and 200405 only
Good
Stand-ing
42
Determining Federal School Status for 2004–05 in
ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 2
School received or will
receive Title I funding in
2002-03, 2003-04, and
2004-05
School was a School in Need of
Improvement (Year 2) in 2003-04
The school made AYP in
2002-03
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
Good
Standing
The school did not make
AYP in 2002-03
The school did not
make AYP in 2003-04
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
The school did not
make AYP in 2003-04
School in
Need of
Improvement
(Year 3)
School in
Need of
Improvement
(Year 2)
School in
Need of
Improvement
(Year 3)
43
Determining Federal School Status for 2004–05 in
ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 3
School received Title I
funding in 2002-03 and
2003-04, but will not in
2004-05
School was a School in Need of
Improvement (Year 2) in 2003-04
The school made AYP in
2002-03
Status in
2004-05
Status in
Next Year
Title I
Funding is
Received
The school did not make
AYP in 2002-03
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
The school did
not make AYP in
2003-04
The school made
AYP in 2003-04
The school did not
make AYP in
2003-04
No Federal
Status
No Federal
Status
No Federal
Status
No Federal
Status
Good
Standing
School in
Need of
Improvement
(Year 3)*
School in
Need of
Improvement
(Year 2)*
School in
Need of
Improvement
(Year 3)*
44
*School will be in good standing if it makes AYP for two consecutive years,
even if no Title I funding was received in those years.
Accountability for Students
with Disabilities and Limited
English Proficient Students
45
New York State Alternate
Assessment (NYSAA)
• NYSAA performance levels are counted the same as
general assessment 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 an
alternate assessment.
• In 2002–03, to meet this requirement, districts that had
more than one percent of their continuously enrolled
students performing at Levels 2, 3, and 4 on the NYSAA
had to count some of these students at Level 1 when
determining PIs.
46
Limited English Proficient
(LEP) Students
• 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 grade 4 and 8
enrolled in U.S. schools (not including Puerto Rico) for
less than three years (in selected cases, less than five
years) are used in calculating the PI for ELA.
47
Accountability for
Schools with Special
Circumstances
48
Small Districts and Schools
• If an elementary or middle school did not test 30 continuously
enrolled students in ELA or mathematics in 2002–03, the scores
of continuously enrolled students tested in 2001–02 and 2002–
03 were combined to determine the PI.
• If a high school did not have 30 students in its 1999 cohort, the
1998 and 1999 cohorts were combined to determine the PI.
• If a school still did not have 30 students on which to base a
decision, the school is subject to special procedures for
determining AYP.
• If the “All Students” group included at least 30 students in 2002–
03, results for 2001–02 and 2002–03 were NOT combined for
the other accountability groups. This was true even if there were
fewer than 30 tested students in the other accountability groups.
49
Small Districts and Schools (cont.)
• For accountability groups that included 30 students in
2002–03 but did not include 30 students in 2001–02,
the scores of continuously enrolled tested students in
that group in 2000–01 and 2001–02 were combined to
determine the safe harbor and progress targets.
• For accountability groups that did not include 30 1998
cohort members, the 1997 and 1998 cohorts were
combined to determine the safe harbor and progress
targets. (No 1997 cohort results were collected by
racial/ethnic group or poverty, so safe harbor targets
could not be calculated for those groups.)
• If, after combining two years of data, the group still did
not have 30 students on which to determine
qualification for safe harbor based on science or
graduation rate, the school or group was given credit
for having made safe harbor if it made its ELA or math
50
target.
Accountability for Schools That
Serve Only Students Below Grade 4
•
•
Schools that serve only students below grade 4
and, consequently, do not participate in State
assessments are called “feeder” schools.
Accountability decisions for feeder schools were
based either
1) on the performance of schools with grade 4
in the same district, or
2) on a procedure called “backmapping.”
51
Accountability for Feeder
Schools in Districts Where All
Elementary Schools Made AYP
If all district elementary schools with grade 4
enrollment made AYP in ELA, math, or science, the
feeder schools in the district, including K-1 schools,
were considered to have made AYP in that subject(s).
52
Accountability for Feeder
Schools in Districts Where
Some Elementary Schools Did
Not Make AYP: Backmapping
 Feeder schools with grades 2 and/or 3 are accountable for the
performance of their former students when these students take the grade
4 assessments in another district school. Feeder schools are responsible
for the performance of students who were continuously enrolled in the
feeder school’s highest grade (grade 2 or 3). The students’ grade 4 LEAP
records must identify the feeder school attended by the student. To
determine if the feeder school made AYP, the ELA and math PIs of
students enrolled in the feeder school were calculated and compared with
the Effective AMOs and/or Safe Harbor Targets. The Percent Above SDL
in science was determined and compared with the Science Standard
and/or Progress Target.
 For schools serving only grades K and 1, special evaluation processes are
used to determine AYP.
53
Accountability for Schools
with Enrollments Only in
Grades 5, 6, and/or 7
Since these schools do not include the grades in which State
assessments in ELA, math, and science are administered,
judgments as to whether the school made adequate yearly
progress must be made using special procedures.
1) If all schools in the district with grade 8 enrollment made AYP in
ELA, math, or science, the schools with enrollment only in grades
5, 6, and/or 7 are considered to have made AYP.
2) If one or more schools in the district with grade 8 enrollment did not
make AYP in ELA, math, or science, the schools with enrollment
only in grades 5, 6, and/or 7 are subject to special evaluation
procedures to determine AYP.
54
Accountability for Schools
with Enrollments Only in
Grades 9, 10, and/or 11
Since these schools do not have a grade 12, assessment and
graduation-rate data for cohort members after four years of
high school cannot be collected. As such, judgments as to
whether the school made adequate yearly progress must be
made using special procedures.
1) If all schools in the district with grade 12 enrollment made AYP in
ELA, math, or graduation rate, the schools with enrollment only in
grades 9, 10, and/or 11 are considered to have made AYP.
2) If one or more schools in the district with grade 12 enrollment did
not make AYP in ELA, math, or graduation rate, the schools with
enrollment only in grades 9, 10, and/or 11 are subject to special
evaluation procedures to determine AYP.
55
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
56