no child left behind (nclb) accountability in new york state using 2010–11 school year results to...

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Accountability in New York State

Using 2010–11 School Year ResultsTo Determine 2011–12 School Year Status

The New York State Education Department

January 17, 2012

2

Accountability Measures

The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires that states develop and report on student proficiency in 1) language arts/reading, in 2) mathematics, and on 3) a third accountability indicator. In New York State, the third indicator is science at the elementary/middle level and graduation rate at the secondary level.

3

Accountability GroupsFor each accountability measure, New York State must report data on the following accountability groups:• All Students• American Indian or Alaska Native Students• Black or African American Students• Hispanic or Latino Students• Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Students• White Students• Multiracial Students• Students with Disabilities*• Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students (also known as English Language Learners – ELLs)*• Economically Disadvantaged Students*

*Students are included in the Students with Disabilities, LEP Students, or Economically Disadvantaged Students group if they were reported to the Department in the Student Information Repository System (SIRS) as being a member of the group at any time during the reporting year.

4

Adequate Yearly Progress: Participation and PerformanceSchools and districts must meet pre-defined participation and performance criteria on New York State’s accountability measures to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Failure to make AYP for two consecutive years results in the school or district being identified as a school or district not in good standing, resulting in certain consequences for the school or district. For schools to be identified, they must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same measure. For districts to be identified in ELA or math, they must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in the subject at both the elementary/middle and secondary levels. For districts to be identified in science or graduation rate, they must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in the measure.

5

Grade Configurations for AYPElementary/Middle Level: Participation and performance at the elementary/middle level are determined for students in grades 3 through 8 combined for ELA and math and grades 4 and 8 combined for science based on the school’s or district’s grade configuration. For example, a middle school that has only grades 6 through 8 will have the participation and performance calculated for their grades 6 through 8 students combined.

Secondary Level: Participation for ELA and math at the secondary level is determined based on the school’s or district’s 2010–11 grade 12 enrollment. Performance for ELA and math at the secondary level is determined based on the school’s or district’s 2007 accountability cohort. Graduation rate at the secondary level is determined based on the school’s or district’s 2006 graduation-rate total cohort after 4 years. See the “Secondary-Level Accountability and Graduation-Rate Total Cohorts” section of this presentation for more details.

6

Participation Criterion

7

Participation CriterionElementary/Middle Level

For an accountability group with 40 or more students enrolled during the test administration period to meet the participation criterion in English language arts (ELA) or mathematics, 95 percent of these students must have valid scores on an appropriate assessment.

For an accountability group with 40 or more students enrolled during the test administration period to meet the participation criterion in science, 80 percent of these students must have valid scores on an appropriate assessment.

8

Elementary/Middle-Level Assessments That Can Be Used To Fulfill Participation Criterion

Assessments Eligible Students

Grades 3–8 New York State Testing Program (NYSTP) Assessments in ELA and Mathematics

All students (general education & students with disabilities)

New York State Grade 4 Elementary-Level Science and Grade 8 Middle-Level Science Tests


Regents Living Environment, Physical Setting/Earth Science, Physical Setting/Chemistry, and Physical Setting/Physics Tests in Lieu of Grade 8 Middle-Level Science Test


New York State Alternate Assessments in ELA (Grades 3–8 Equivalent), Mathematics (Grades 3–8 Equivalent), and Science (Grades 4 and 8 Equivalent)

Students with severe cognitive disabilities

New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Tests (NYSESLAT) in Lieu of NYSTP in ELA (Grades 3–8)

Students whose first language is NOT English and who have been in the United States (not including Puerto Rico) for less than one year

9

Participation CriterionSecondary Level

For an accountability group with 40 or more 12th graders to meet the participation criterion in English language arts (ELA) or mathematics, 95 percent of the 12th graders must have valid scores on Regents examinations (or approved alternatives), Regents competency tests (or approved alternatives), or New York State Alternate Assessments.

10

Secondary-Level Assessments That Can Be Used To Fulfill

Participation CriterionAssessments Eligible Students

Regents Examinations in Comprehensive English and Mathematics, and Approved Alternatives


Regents Competency Tests in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, and Approved Alternatives

Students with disabilities and students with a 504 plan that allows an RCT accommodation

New York State Alternate Assessments in ELA and Mathematics (Secondary Level)


11

“Safety Net” for Groups That Fail the Participation Criterion

If the participation rate of an accountability group with 40 or more students falls below the required rate, the Department calculates a weighted average of the current year’s and the previous year’s participation rates. If the average participation rate equals or exceeds the required rate, the group fulfills the participation criterion.

Sample calculation for group below 95 percent participation criterion:

Year Enrollment Tested Rate

Current 60 56 93%

Previous 75 73 97%

Weighted Average Calculation 135 129 96%

12

Medically Excused

If a student in grades 3 through 8 is incapacitated by illness or injury during the entire test administration and make-up period for elementary/middle-level English language arts, mathematics, or science, the student is not counted in the numerator or the denominator when participation rates are calculated. To use this flexibility, the district must have on file documentation from a medical practitioner that the student was too incapacitated to be tested. This option is not applicable at the secondary level.

13

Performance Criterion:Performance Indices

14

Levels of Student Achievement

Student performance in ELA, mathematics, and science is determined using a Performance Index (PI) calculation. This calculation uses four levels of student achievement:

Level 1 = BasicLevel 2 = Basic ProficientLevel 3 = ProficientLevel 4 = Advanced

15

Calculation of the Performance Index (PI)

Elementary/Middle Level:

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] 100

Secondary Level:

PI = [(number of cohort members scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the number scoring

at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ number of cohort members] 100

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:

16

Sample PI Calculation for a School with Grades 3, 4, and 5 Only

Number of Test Number Students at 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 4TOTAL 108 21 23 40 24

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.

17

Assessments That Can Be Used To Fulfill the Performance Criterion at the

Elementary/Middle LevelAssessment Eligible Students Scores

Grades 3–8 New York State Testing Program (NYSTP) Assessments in ELA and Mathematics


Level 4Level 3Level 2Level 1

New York State Grade 4 Elementary-Level Science and Grade 8 Middle-Level Science Tests



Regents Living Environment, Physical Setting/Earth Science, Physical Setting/Chemistry, and Physical Setting/Physics Tests in Lieu of Grade 8 Middle-Level Science Test


Level 4 (85–100)Level 3 (65–84)Level 2 (55–64)Level 1 (0–54)

New York State Alternate Assessments (NYSAA) in ELA (Grades 3–8 Equivalent), Mathematics (Grades 3–8 Equivalent), and Science (Grades 4 and 8 Equivalent)



18

Order of Precedence for Using Elementary/Middle-Level Assessment

Scores for Performance Index Determinations

• Grades 3–8 English Language Arts and Mathematics: If a student has more than one applicable ELA or math score, the order of precedence for selecting a performance level for use in the PI calculation is: 1) NYSTP, and 2) NYSAA.

• Grade 8 Science: If an eighth-grader has more than one applicable science score, the order of precedence for selecting a performance level for use in the PI calculation is: 1) New York State Grade 8 Intermediate-Level Science Test for the current year, 2) NYSAA Grade 8 Equivalent in Science, 3) Regents science examination, and 4) New York State Grade 8 Intermediate-Level Science Test taken by the student in 7th grade in the previous year.

• NYSESLAT: At the elementary/middle level, if a district chooses to give the NYSTP ELA assessment to a LEP student who is eligible to take the NYSESLAT in lieu of the NYSTP, NYSED will count the student’s NYSTP ELA scores when computing the school’s and district’s accountability PI.

19

Assessments That Can Be Used To Fulfill the Performance Criterion at the Secondary Level

The highest score a student receives on an assessment, regardless of when it is taken, is counted in the PI calculations. Students who do not take an assessment are counted as performing at Level 1.

Assessments Eligible StudentsScore/

Performance Level

Regents Examinations in Comprehensive English and Mathematics


85–100 = Level 465–84 = Level 355–64 = Level 20–54 = Level 1

Component Retests in Comprehensive English and Mathematics

Students who failed Regents examinations in the component retest subjects

65–100 = Level 355–64 = Level 20–54 = Level 1

Approved Alternatives to Regents Examinations in ELA and Mathematics


Pass = Level 3Fail = Level 1

Regents Competency Tests in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics (and Approved Alternatives)

Students with disabilitiesPass = Level 2Fail = Level 1

New York State Alternate Assessments in ELA and Mathematics (Secondary Level)



20

Order of Precedence for Using Secondary-Level Assessment Scores

for Accountability Determinations

• Highest passing (65 and above) Regents examination score• Regents credit for an approved alternative to the Regents examination (student earned minimum acceptable

score)• Component retest score range 65–100• Regents score between 55 and 64• Component retest score range 55–64• Passing score on RCTs• Competency credit for NYSED-approved alternative assessment• Component retest score range 0–54• Regents examination score between 0 and 54• Failing score on RCTs• New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) – Any Level**NYSAA counts toward secondary-level accountability ONLY if it was the only secondary-level assessment

taken.

If a student takes more than one assessment in a subject, regardless of when the assessments were taken, the assessment used to fulfill the graduation requirement will be chosen according to the precedence list below, with the top assessment on the list taking precedence over the next one, etc. For instance, if a student eligible for the safety net takes a Regents examination in mathematics (e.g., Integrated Algebra, etc.) and scores below 55 and takes a Regents Competency Test (RCT) in mathematics (if eligible) and receives a passing score, the RCT score will be used to fulfill the graduation requirement.

Note: Regents competency tests and approved alternatives to those tests can be used to fulfill graduation requirements only for students eligible for the RCT safety net.

21

Performance Criterion:Effective AMOs, State

Standards, Safe Harbor Targets, and Progress

Targets

22

Meeting the Performance Criterion Using Effective AMOs, State Standards,

Safe Harbor, and Progress Targets

To meet the performance criterion in ELA and math, the Performance Index of a group with 30 or more students must be equal to or greater than the Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) or the group must make Safe Harbor.

To meet the performance criterion in science, the Performance Index of a group with 30 or more students must be equal to or greater than the State Standard or the group must meet its Progress Target.

To meet the performance criterion in graduation rate, the graduation rate of a group with 30 or more students must be equal to or greater than the State Standard or the group must meet its Progress Target.

23

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and State Standards

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. These values increase from year to year and are different for ELA and mathematics. See slide 26 for the table of AMOs.

State Standards are the PI values that signify minimally satisfactory performance in science or graduation rate. The science state standard is currently 100. The graduation-rate state standard is currently 80%.

24

Confidence Intervals Were Used toDetermine Effective AMOs

30 50 70 90

Number Tested

Annual Measurable Objective

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.

25

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 and the group meets its participation requirement, the group is considered to have made AYP. See slide 26 for the table of Effective AMOs.

Effective AMOs

26

Effective Annual Measurable Objectives (Effective AMOs) for

2011-12 Status Based on 2010-11 School Year Results

Number of Students Participating (Valid Scores)

Subject AMO 30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-59

60-69

70-89

90-119

120-149

150-219

220-279

280-399

400-589

590-979

980-1899

1900-5299

5300+

ELA 3-8 122 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

Math 3-8 137 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

HS ELA 183 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182

HS Math 180 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

Effe

ctiv

e A

MO

s

27

Safe Harbor for ELA and Math

Safe Harbor is an alternate means to demonstrate AYP for accountability groups whose PI is less than their Effective AMO. The Safe Harbor Target calculation for ELA and math is:

Safe Harbor Target = {Previous Year’s PI} + [(200 – {Previous Year’s PI}) 0.10]

For a group to make safe harbor in English or math, it must meet its Safe Harbor Target and qualify for Safe Harbor (in science at the elementary/middle level; in graduation rate at the secondary level). To qualify for Safe Harbor at the elementary/middle level, the group must meet the participation and performance criteria in science in grades 4 and/or 8. At the secondary level, it must make the State Standard or its Progress Target for graduation rate.

28

Qualifying for Safe Harborin ELA and Math

To qualify for Safe Harbor in ELA and math at the elementary/middle level, the group must meet the participation and the performance criteria for science. To meet the participation criterion, the participation rate of a group with 40 or more students enrolled during the test administration period for elementary/middle-level science combined must be equal to or greater than 80%. To meet the performance criterion, the PI of a group with 30 or more continuously enrolled tested students for elementary/middle-level science combined 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 graduation-rate cohort (for a group with 30 or more students) earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31 of the fourth year after first entering Grade 9 must equal or exceed the State Standard (80 percent) or the group’s Progress Target for secondary-level graduation rate.

cbulson

How will Progress Targets work for 4-yr/5-yr cohorts?

29

Safe Harbor Target Calculations for Elementary/Middle-Level Groups With Fewer than 30

Students in the Previous Year

For elementary/middle-level ELA and mathematics, if in the current year a district or school has an accountability group with 30 or more students but did not have 30 or more students in the previous year, student scores for the previous two years are combined to calculate a Safe Harbor Target for the current year. If in the combined years, there are still not 30 or more students with valid test scores in the group, the group is assigned a Safe Harbor Target of 20.

30

Safe Harbor Target Calculations for Cohorts With

Fewer than 30 Members

For secondary-level ELA and mathematics, if in the current year a district or school has an accountability group with 30 or more cohort members but did not have 30 or more cohort members in the previous year, student scores for the previous two cohorts are combined to calculate a Safe Harbor Target for the current year. If in the combined years, there are still not 30 or more cohort members in the group, the group is assigned a Safe Harbor Target of 20.

31

Safe Harbor and Progress Targets for Groups Whose Target Exceeds Effective AMOs or State Standards

If an accountability group’s Safe Harbor Target for the current year exceeds its Effective AMO, the Safe Harbor Target on the Accountability and Overview Report of the New York State Report Card will be printed as the Effective AMO.

If an accountability group’s Progress Target for the current year exceeds the State Standard, the Progress Target on the Accountability and Overview Report will be printed as the State Standard.

32

Science and Graduation-Rate Progress Targets

Progress Targets are determined in science at the elementary/middle level* and in graduation rate at the secondary level for groups that do not meet the State Standard. To make AYP in science, the “All Students” group must meet the State Standard or its Progress Target and meet the participation criterion. To make AYP in graduation rate, the “All Students” group must meet the State Standard or its Progress Target.

*If a school includes only grade 4 or grade 8, the science PI and Progress Target will be based on that grade.

33

Elementary/Middle-Level Science Progress Targets

Progress Targets are calculated in science at the elementary/middle level for schools whose performance is below the State Standard. Groups that make their Progress Target and meet the participation criterion are considered to have made AYP in science and to qualify for safe harbor in ELA and math in grades 3-8 in that group. For the current year, the target is determined by adding one point to the previous year’s PI.

34

Progress Target Calculations for Elementary/Middle-Level Groups With Fewer than 30 Students in

the Previous Year

For elementary/middle-level science, if in the current year a district or school has an accountability group with 30 or more students but did not have 30 or more students in the previous year, student scores for the previous two years are combined to calculate a Progress Target for the current year. If in the combined years, there are still not 30 or more students with valid test scores in the group, the group is assigned a Progress Target of 1.

35

Secondary-Level Graduation-Rate Progress Targets

Progress Targets are calculated in graduation rate at the secondary level for schools whose performance is below the State Standard. Groups that make their Progress Target are considered to have made AYP in graduation rate and to qualify for safe harbor in that group in ELA and math at the secondary level. For the 2006 graduation-rate total cohort, the target is a 20% gap reduction (one percentage point minimum) over the previous year’s graduation rate.

2006 Graduation-Rate Cohort Progress Target = ((80 – 2005 Graduation-Rate Total Cohort Graduation Rate) 0.20) + 2005 Graduation-Rate Total Cohort Graduation Rate

36

Progress Target Calculations for Cohorts With Fewer than 30

Members

For secondary-level graduation rate, if in the current year a district or school has an accountability group with 30 or more cohort members but did not have 30 or more cohort members in the previous year, student scores for the previous two cohorts are combined to calculate a Progress Target for the current year. If in the combined years, there are still not 30 or more cohort members in the group, the group is assigned a Progress Target of 16.

37

Performance for Schools/Districts with Fewer Than 30 Students

If a school or district has more than 0 but fewer than 30 students in the All Students group for performance for elementary/middle- and secondary-level ELA and mathematics and elementary/middle-level science, the Department combines the current year’s and the previous year’s data for all student groups with more than 0 students in the current year to determine new Performance Indices. If the new performance indices equal or exceed the EAMO, Safe Harbor Target, or Progress Target for the two-year combined group size (and the group qualifies for Safe Harbor, if necessary), the group fulfills the performance criterion. Sample calculation:

Year Enrollment Levels 2 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 4 PI

Current 28 7 + 9 + 8 + 9 + 8 = 41 N/A

Previous 27 5 + 7 + 10 + 7 + 10 = 39 N/A

Combined 55 100 ((41 + 39) 55) 145

38

Graduation Rate for Schools/Districts with Fewer Than 30 Graduation-Rate

Total Cohort Members If a school or district has more than 0 but fewer than 30 graduation-rate total cohort members in the current year, the Department combines the data for the current year’s and the previous year’s graduation-rate total cohorts for all student groups with more than 0 students in the current year’s graduation-rate total cohort to determine new graduation rates. Sample calculation:

Year Cohort Enrollment

Cohort Members with Local or Regents

Diploma

Graduation Rate

Current 20 18 N/A

Previous 25 21 N/A

Combined 45 39 87%

39

Former Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

If the count of LEP students for performance is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included in the performance calculations.

A former LEP student is one who was previously identified as LEP but reached proficiency in English by achieving a Level 3 or 4 on both the Listening and Speaking and the Reading and Writing portions of the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) during one of the previous two school years.

40

Former Students with Disabilities

If the count of students with disabilities for performance is equal to or greater than 30, former students with disabilities are also included in the performance calculations.

A former student with disabilities is one who is not identified in the current school year as a student with disabilities but was previously identified as a student with disabilities in at least one of the previous two school years.

41

Graduation Rate Calculation

The graduation rate for a group is determined by dividing the number of graduation-rate total cohort members who graduated with a local or Regents diploma by the number of graduation-rate total cohort members, and multiplying the result by 100.

For example:Graduation-rate total cohort members = 178Graduation-rate total cohort members with local or Regents diplomas = 146Graduation rate = (146 178) 100 = 82.02247 or 82%

42

Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

43

Order of Precedence for Determining AYP

To determine AYP for an accountable group, calculations are made in the following order:1. The participation rate for the group based on the current year’s data is determined.2. If the participation rate for the group based on the current year’s data is below the

required rate, the current and previous year’s data are combined to determine a participation rate.

3. If the participation rate criterion is not met, the group fails to make AYP, regardless of the performance.

4. If the participation rate criterion is met, the PI is compared to the Effective AMO (ELA and math) or the State Standard (science). For graduation rate, the graduation rate is compared with the State Standard.

5. If the PI is equal to or greater than the Effective AMO (ELA and math), the PI is equal to or greater than the State Standard (science), or the graduation rate is equal to or greater than the State Standard (graduation rate), the group makes AYP.

6. If the criteria in #5 are not met, the PI is compared to the Safe Harbor Target (ELA and math) or Progress Target (science), or the graduation rate is compared to the Progress Target (graduation rate).

7. For ELA and math, if the Safe Harbor Target is met and the group qualifies for Safe Harbor based on the third measure (science or graduation rate), the group makes AYP. If the Safe Harbor Target is not met or the group does not qualify for Safe Harbor, the group does not make AYP.

44

Order of Precedence for Determining AYP (continued)

8. For science and graduation rate, if the Progress Target is met, the group makes AYP. If it is not met, the group does not make AYP and the group does not qualify for Safe Harbor in ELA or math.

9. For elementary/middle-level and secondary-level ELA and mathematics, all accountable groups must make AYP for the school/district to make AYP in the measure.

10. For elementary/middle-level science and graduation rate, only the All Students group must make AYP for the school/district to make AYP in the measure.

45

Secondary-Level Cohorts Used for

Accountability

46

Guide to Accountability Cohorts

High schools are accountable for three areas:

English and mathematics participation; English and mathematics performance; and graduation rate.

A different group of students is measured in each of these areas.

47

2010–11 High School Accountability

English & Math Participation

All students reported in the repository as 12th graders* in 2010–11

English & Math Performance

2007 Accountability Cohort (one-year continuous enrollment)

Graduation Rate

2006 Graduation-Rate Total Cohort (Rate = graduates of the 2006 Total Cohort as of August 31, 2010 2006 Total Cohort members as of June 30, 2010)

*Twelfth graders are students whose last reported grade between July 1 and June 30 of the academic reporting year (e.g., between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011 for the 2010–11 academic reporting year) in the Student Information Repository System is grade 12.

48

2007 Accountability Cohort Definition

The 2007 accountability cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade status, who were enrolled in the school or district on October 6, 2010 (BEDS day) and met one of the following conditions:

first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2007–08 school year (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008); or

in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2007–08 school year.

49

The State will exclude the following students when reporting data on the 2007 accountability cohort*:

Students who transferred to another high school or out-of-district placement within the same district will be removed from the school cohort. Students who transferred to another district, nonpublic school or another state will be removed from the cohort of the school and district from which they transferred. Students who transferred to a criminal justice facility outside the district between BEDS day 2010 and June 30, 2011 will be removed from the school and district cohorts.

Students who transferred to an approved alternative high school equivalency preparation (AHSEP) or high school equivalency preparation (HSEP) program (CR 100.7) between BEDS day 2010 and June 30, 2011 and met the conditions stated on the next slide will be removed from the school and district cohorts.

Students who left the U.S. and its territories between BEDS day 2010 and June 30, 2011 will be removed from the school and district cohorts.

Students who died between BEDS day 2010 and June 30, 2011 will be removed from the school and district cohorts.

*See 2010–11 SIRS Manual at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/sirs/archive/2010-11SIRSManual6-2.pdf for more details on the inclusion and exclusion of transfers in the cohort.

2007 Accountability Cohort Definition (continued)

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/sirs/archive/2010-11SIRSManual6-2.pdf

50

Students will be removed from the cohort of the school and district from which they transferred to an AHSEP or HSEP program if the final enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2011 the student

a) has earned a high school equivalency diploma; or

b) is enrolled in an AHSEP or HSEP 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 a high school in a different district and is working toward or has earned a high school diploma.

2007 Accountability Cohort(Transfers to GED Removed

from Cohort)

51

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, 2011 the student

a) has not earned a high school equivalency diploma; and

b) is not enrolled in an AHSEP or HSEP program; and

c) has not transferred to a 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 AHSEP or HSEP program without first entering another high school will remain in the district and school cohort.

2007 Accountability Cohort(Transfers to GED Remaining

in Cohort)

52

In the Student Information Repository System, districts must provide the following information for students who transfer to approved GED programs during the 2008–09 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.

Transfers to GED

53

If the student is not enrolled in the AHSEP or HSEP program on June 30, 2011, 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.

Transfers to GED (continued)

54

2006 Graduation-Rate(Total) Cohort Definition

The 2006 graduation-rate (total) cohort consists of all students (general education and students with disabilities) as of June 30, 2010, regardless of their current grade status, who first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2006–07 school year (July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007).

55

When reporting data on the 2006 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 a criminal justice facility outside the district; or

left the U.S. and its territories; or died.

2006 Graduation-Rate (Total) Cohort Definition (continued)

56

Accountability for Limited English Proficient Students

57

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

All LEP students in grades K–12 must take the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) annually.

LEP students in grades 3 through 8 enrolled in U.S. schools (not including Puerto Rico) for less than one year may take the NYSESLAT in lieu of the NYSTP in ELA to fulfill the testing requirement for accountability. The one-year window does not have to be 12 consecutive months. In addition, students enrolled anytime during a month, including July and August, are considered enrolled for that month.

Eligible students may be exempt from taking the NYSTP in ELA for the first year in which they are enrolled during the NYSTP ELA test administration period. Such students may not be exempt in subsequent years, even if they have been enrolled in a United States school for less than 12 months.

LEP students in grades 3 through 8 who did not take the ELA assessment, were enrolled in U.S. schools (not including Puerto Rico) for less than one year, have valid scores on both the NYSESLAT Reading/Writing and Speaking/Listening components, and were reported in the Student Information Repository System (SIRS) with a Program Service code of 0242 (NYSESLAT-eligible) will meet the ELA participation requirement.

NYSESLAT performance levels will not be used in calculating the Performance Index. LEP students meeting the criteria to use the NYSESLAT in lieu of the ELA will not be included in the Performance Index calculation.

Districts receiving Title III funding must identify each participating student in the SIRS.

58

Accountability for Students with Disabilities

59

New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA)

NYSAA performance levels are counted the same as general assessment (NYSTP, Regents, etc.) levels when determining PIs for English, mathematics, and science.

NCLB regulations allow a maximum of one percent of scores used in calculating the PI for each accountability measure for a district to be based on proficient and advanced proficient scores on the NYSAA, unless the district has a waiver to exceed the one percent.

To meet this requirement, districts that have more than one percent of their continuously enrolled tested students performing at Levels 3 and 4 on the NYSAA must have some of these students counted at Level 2 when determining PIs. If these students attend schools within the district, this reduction may impact the schools as well. Districts must report the performance levels as received by the students. NYSED will make the adjustments for PI calculations only.

60

Testing UngradedStudents with Disabilities

The CSE must determine that a student meets the criteria specified by the office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID).

Students must be administered the correct test for their age, as specified in the 2010–11 SIRS Manual at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/sirs/archive/2010-11SIRSManual6-2.pdf.



DeterminingAccountability Status

General Rules

62

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).

There are four accountability measures: English language arts, mathematics, elementary/middle-level 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 instructional levels (elementary/middle and secondary) or in science or in graduation rate.

If a previously identified district fails to make AYP at each applicable instructional level in the accountability area for which it was identified, it moves to the next highest status on the continuum.

District-Level Accountability

63

District-Level Accountability (continued)

• The first year that an identified district makes AYP at one or both instructional levels, it remains in the same status on the continuum.

• To be removed from improvement status in an accountability area, the district must make AYP at one or both instructional 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.

64

Determining District Federal StatusYears 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 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 removed from improvement status for the measure in which it was identified.

65

Good Standing in 2010–11

Determining 2011–12 Federal District Status in ELA and Mathematics

Example 1

Good Stand-ing

In Need of

Improve-ment

(Year 1)

Made AYP at Both Levels in

2009–10

Made AYP at Either Level in 2009–10

Failed AYP at Both Levels in 2009–10

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Good Stand-ing

Good Stand-ing

66

In Need of Improvementin 2010–11

Determining 2011–12 Federal District Status in ELA and Mathematic

Example 2

Good

Stand-ing

In Need of Improvement (Next Highest

Status on Continuum)


2009–10



Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Good

Stand-ing

Same Status as in 2010–11





67

Good Standing in

2010–11

Made AYP in 2009–10

Failed AYP in 2009–10

Determining 2011–12 Federal District Status in Science and Graduation Rate

Made AYP

2010–11

Failed AYP

2010–11

Made AYP

2010–11

Failed AYP

2010–11

Good

Stand-ing

In Need of Improvement

(Year 1)

In Need of Improvement in 2010–11



Made AYP

2010–11

Failed AYP

2010–11

Made AYP

2010–11

Failed AYP

2010–11

Good

Stand-ing




68

Determining District State StatusYears 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 removed from improvement status for the measure in which it was identified.

69

Good Standing in 2010–11

Determining 2011–12 State District Status in ELA and Mathematics

Example 1

Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)


2009–10



Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Good Stand-ing

Good Stand-ing

Good Stand-ing

70

Requiring Academic Progress in 2010–11

Determining 2011–12 State District Status in ELA and Mathematics

Example 2

Good

Stand-ing

Requiring Academic Progress

(Next Highest



2009–10



Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Made AYP at Either

Level in 2010–11

Failed AYP at Both

Levels in 2010–11

Good

Stand-ing


(Next Highest



(Next Highest



71

Good Standing in

2010–11



Determining 2011–12 State District Statusin Science and Graduation Rate

Made AYP

2010–11

Failed AYP

2010–11

Made AYP

2010–11

Failed AYP

2010–11

Good

Stand-ing

Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)

Requiring Academic

Progress in 2010–11



Made AYP

2010–11

Failed AYP

2010–11

Made AYP

2010–11

Failed AYP

2010–11

Good

Stand-ing


(Next Highest



72

School-Level Differentiated Accountability

New York State participates in the Differentiated Accountability pilot program, as approved by the United States Department of Education in January 2009. Under this program, each public school in the State is assigned an accountability “phase” (Good Standing, Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring) and, for schools not in Good Standing, a “category” (Basic, Focused, or Comprehensive) for each measure for which the school is accountable. Generally, the school’s overall accountability status is its most advanced accountability phase and its highest category within that phase. A school in any year of the phase (that is not Good Standing) that makes AYP for the measure remains in the same phase/category the following year. An identified school that makes AYP in the identified measure for two consecutive years returns to Good Standing. Once a school is identified with a category within a phase, it cannot move to a less intensive category in the following school year within that phase.

73

School-LevelDifferentiated Accountability

InterventionsEach school district with one or more Title I schools and each Title I charter school designated as Improvement (year 1 and year 2), Corrective Action, or Restructuring must make Supplemental Educational Services available for eligible students in the identified Title I school(s). A school district with one or more Title I schools designated as Improvement (year 2), Corrective Action, or Restructuring must also provide Public School Choice to students in those identified Title I school(s).

For more information on the Differentiated Accountability program and a list of interventions for schools not in Good Standing, see http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/APA/Differentiated_Accountability/DA_home.html.

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/APA/Differentiated_Accountability/DA_home.html

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/APA/Differentiated_Accountability/DA_home.html

74

Differentiated Accountabilityby Measure

Each school is assigned a differentiated accountability status (phase/category) for each measure for which it has enrollment. Accountability measures for schools at the elementary/middle level are English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science; at the secondary level, they are ELA, mathematics, and graduation rate.

75

School-Level Accountability Phases by Measure: “Good Standing”

A school is in “Good Standing” in a measure if it makes AYP in the measure for at least two consecutive years. New schools begin in Good Standing, unless otherwise determined by the Commissioner. Schools must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same measure to lose their Good Standing status in that measure. Schools not in Good Standing must make AYP for two consecutive years in the measure to regain their Good Standing status in the measure.

76

School-Level Accountability Phases by Measure: “Improvement”

• Improvement (year 1): A school is “Improvement (year 1)” in a measure if it failed to make AYP for two consecutive years on that measure or if it was Improvement (year 1) in the previous year and made AYP in the current year.

• Improvement (year 2): A school is “Improvement (year 2)” in a measure if it was Improvement (year 1) in the measure in the previous year and failed to make AYP on that measure in the current year or if it was Improvement (year 2) in the previous year and made AYP in the current year.

77

School-Level Accountability Phases by Measure: “Corrective Action”

• Corrective Action (year 1): A school is “Corrective Action (year 1)” in a measure if it was Improvement (year 2) in the measure in the previous year and failed to make AYP on that measure in the current year or if it was Corrective Action (year 1) in the previous year and made AYP in the current year.

• Corrective Action (year 2): A school is “Corrective Action (year 2)” in a measure if it was Corrective Action (year 1) in the measure in the previous year and failed to make AYP on that measure in the current year or if it was Corrective Action (year 2) in the previous year and made AYP in the current year.

78

School-Level Accountability Phases by Measure: “Restructuring”

• Restructuring (year 1): A school is “Restructuring (year 1)” in a measure if it was Corrective Action (year 2) in the measure in the previous year and failed to make AYP on that measure in the current year or if it was Restructuring (year 1) in the previous year and made AYP in the current year.

• Restructuring (year 2): A school is “Restructuring (year 2)” in a measure if it was Restructuring (year 1) in the measure in the previous year and failed to make AYP on that measure in the current year or if it was Restructuring (year 2) in the previous year and made AYP in the current year.

• Restructuring (Advanced): A school is “Restructuring (Advanced)” in a measure if it was Restructuring (year 2) in the measure in the previous year and failed to make AYP on that measure in the current year or if it was Restructuring (Advanced) in the previous year and made AYP in the current year.Note: A school once identified as Restructuring (Advanced) in a measure remains in that phase until it makes AYP for two consecutive years or becomes a SURR school. See slide 91.

79

School-Level Accountability Categories by Measure:

ImprovementA school is initially placed in the category as follows:• Basic: A school’s Improvement category in ELA or math is

“Basic” if it failed to make AYP for only one accountability subgroup, not including the All Students group. A school’s Improvement category in science or graduation rate is “Basic” if it failed to make AYP for the All Students group.

• Focused: A school’s Improvement category in ELA or math is “Focused” if it failed to make AYP for more than one accountability subgroup, but made AYP for the All Students group and at least one other subgroup for which it was accountable.

• Comprehensive: A school’s Improvement category in ELA or math is “Comprehensive” if it failed to make AYP for the All Students group or if it failed to make AYP for all subgroups where there were at least two for which it was accountable.

80

School-Level Accountability Categories by Measure: Corrective

Action or RestructuringA school is initially placed in the category as follows:• Focused: A school’s Corrective Action or Restructuring

category in ELA or math is “Focused” if it failed to make AYP for one or more accountability subgroups but made AYP for the All Students group and at least one other subgroup. A school’s Corrective Action or Restructuring category in science or graduation rate is “Focused” if it failed to make AYP for the All Students group.

• Comprehensive: A school’s Corrective Action or Restructuring category in ELA or math is “Comprehensive” if it failed to make AYP for the All Students group or if it failed to make AYP for all subgroups where there were at least two for which it was accountable.

81

Overall School Differentiated Accountability Status

The general rule for determining a school’s overall accountability status is that it is the school’s most advanced designation on an accountability measure. For example, a school that is Corrective Action (year 1)/Focused for elementary/middle-level ELA; Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive for elementary/middle-level math; and Good Standing for science will have an overall school accountability status of Corrective Action (year 1)/Focused.

82

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in All Students group only in 2009–10

3-8 ELA Status in 2010–11: Good StandingOverall School 2010–11 Status: Good Standing

Determination of 2011–12 Overall School Differentiated Accountability:

One Identified Measure Example

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA for White Students and Students with Disabilities groups but made AYP for all other groups and in all

other measures in 2010–11

Made AYP in all measures in 2010–11

3-8 ELA Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 1)/ FocusedOverall School Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 1)/

Focused

Good

Stand-ing

Made AYP in all measures in 2008–09Overall School 2009–10 Status: Good

Standing

83


Failed AYP in 3-8 Math in White group only in 2009–103-8 ELA Status in 2010–11: Good Standing3-8 Math Status in 2010–11: Good Standing

Overall School 2010–11 Status: Good Standing

Determination of 2011–12 Overall School Differentiated Accountability: Multiple

Identified Measures Example

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA for White Students and Students with Disabilities groups; Failed AYP in 3-8 Math for White group only in 2010–11


3-8 ELA Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 1)/Focused3-8 Math Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 1)/Basic

Overall School Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 1)/Focused

Good

Stand-ing

Made AYP in all measures in 2008–09Overall School 2009–10 Status: Good

Standing

84

Overall School Differentiated Accountability Status: Special

Situations1) If a school’s most advanced accountability status is

Improvement/Basic for ELA and mathematics but not science or graduation rate, the overall school status is Improvement/Focused. For example, if an elementary/middle school is Improvement (year 2)/Basic for ELA and Improvement (year 1)/Basic for mathematics and Good Standing for science, the overall school status is Improvement (year 2)/Focused.

85

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in White students group only in 2009–10

Failed AYP in 3-8 Math in All Students group only in 2009–10

3-8 ELA Status in 2010–11: Improvement (year 1)/Basic3-8 Math Status in 2010–11: Good Standing

Overall School 2010–11 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Basic


Special Situation 1 Example

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA for Students with Disabilities group only; Failed AYP in 3-8 Math

for White group only in 2010–11


3-8 ELA Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 2)/Basic3-8 Math Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 1)/Basic

Overall School Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 2)/Focused

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in White students group only in 2008–09

3-8 ELA 2009–10 Status: Good StandingOverall School 2009–10 Status: Good Standing

3-8 ELA Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 1)/Basic3-8 Math Status in 2011–12: Good Standing

Overall School Status in 2011–12: Improvement (year 1)/Basic

86


Situations (cont)2) If a school is not in Good Standing in ELA and/or

math and not in Good Standing in the third indicator, the phase is the worst phase and the category is Comprehensive, regardless of the categories for the individually identified measures. For example, if an elementary/middle school is Corrective Action (year 1)/Basic for ELA and Improvement (year 1)/Basic for graduation rate, the overall school status is Corrective Action (year 1)/Comprehensive.

87

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in LEP group only and in science (1st year) in 2009–10

3-8 ELA 2010–11 Status: Improvement (year 2)/Basic

Science 2010–11 Status: Good Standing

Overall School 2010–11 Status: Improvement (year 2)/Basic


Special Situation 2 Example

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in LEP group only and in science in 2010–11

3-8 ELA 2011–12Status: Improvement (year 2)/BasicScience 2011–12 Status: Good Standing

Overall 2011–12 Status: Improvement (year 2)/Basic


3-8 ELA 2011–11Status: Corrective Action (year 1)/BasicScience 2011–11 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Basic

Overall 2011–12 Status: Corrective Action (year 1)/Comprehensive

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in LEP group only in 2008–093-8 ELA 2009–10 Status: Improvement (year 1)/BasicOverall School 2009–10 Status: Improvement (year

1)/Basic

88


Situations (cont)3) In general, the current year overall school status category cannot

be “lesser” than the previous year’s category if the school remains in the same phase (Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring) as the previous year. For instance, a school that was Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive in the previous year generally cannot move to Improvement (year 2)/Basic or Focused in the current year. The category will remain Comprehensive. The exception to this rule occurs when the measure for which the school is identified changes. For example, a school that was identified as Improvement (year 1)/Basic for 3-8 ELA and Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive for 3-8 Math in the previous year was Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive overall. If the school is Improvement (year 2)/Basic for 3-8 ELA and Good Standing for 3-8 Math in the current year, the overall status can

“lessen” to Improvement (year 2)/Basic.

89


3-8 ELA 2009–10 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive

Overall School 2009–10 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive


Special Situation 3 Example A

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in LEP group only in 2009–10

3-8 ELA 2011–12 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive

Overall 2011–12 Status: Improvement (year

1)/Comprehensive


3-8 ELA 2011–12 Status: Improvement (year 2)/Comprehensive*

Overall 2011–12 Status: Improvement (year 2)/Comprehensive*

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in LEP group only (1st year) in 2008–093-8 ELA 2009–10 Status: Good Standing

Overall School 2009–10 Status: Good Standing

*Note that the school would have been Improvement (year 2)/Basic as it only failed for one subgroup, not including the All Students group. However, the category cannot be “lesser” than the previous year’s if the school is within the same phase grouping (in this case, Improvement).

90

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in LEP group only and made AYP in 3-8 Math in 2009–10

3-8 ELA 2010–11 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Basic3-8 Math 2010–11 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive

Overall School 2010–11 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Comprehensive


Special Situation 3 Example B

Failed AYP in 3-8 ELA in LEP group only and made AYP in 3-8 Math in 2010–11

3-8 ELA 2011–12 Status: Improvement (year 1)/Basic3-8 Math 2011–12 Status: Good Standing



3-8 ELA 2011–12 Status: Improvement (year 2)/Basic3-8 Math 2011–12 Status: Good Standing


91

Schools Under Registration Review & Persistently Lowest-

Achieving Schools• A school that is identified for registration review (SURR) during a school

year in which it is designated as a school in Improvement or Corrective Action shall, in the next school year, be designated as a school in Restructuring (year 1)/Comprehensive and shall be subject to the requirements of the Restructuring phase.

• A SURR school that has also been designated as Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA) must implement one of the following intervention models to receive school improvement grant (1003.g) funding: Turnaround, Restart, School Closure, or Transformation. For more details on PLA and the various models, please visit:

http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/PersistentlyLowAchiev2010.html

• A SURR school that is designated as a PLA must implement the restructuring plan and include at least one of the actions of a transformation or turnaround model.

http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/PersistentlyLowAchiev2010.html

92

Accountability for Schools with Special

Circumstances

93

If an elementary or middle school does not test 30 continuously enrolled students in ELA or mathematics in the current year, the scores of continuously enrolled students tested in the current and the prior year in all accountability groups are combined to determine the PI.

If a high school does not have 30 students in its current year accountability cohort, the current year’s and previous year’s accountability cohorts in all accountability groups are combined to determine the PI.

If a school still does 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 includes at least 30 students in the current year, results for the current year and the previous year will NOT be combined for the other accountability groups. This is true even if there are fewer than 30 tested students in the other accountability groups.

Small Districts and Schools

94

For accountability groups that include 30 students in the current year but did not include 30 students in the previous year, the scores of continuously enrolled tested students in that group in the previous two years are combined to determine the current year’s safe harbor and progress targets.

For accountability groups that do not include 30 current year cohort members, the cohorts for the previous two years are combined to determine the current year’s safe harbor 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.

Small Districts and Schools (continued)

95

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

1) the performance of schools with grade 3 in the same district, or

2) a procedure called “backmapping.”

Accountability for Schools That Serve Only Students Below Grade 3

96

Feeder schools that are required to do backmapping are those whose highest grade is grade 1 or grade 2 (schools with grades 1, 2, 1–2, K–1, or K–2 only).

These schools are required to submit data to the Department through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS). If they do not submit data to the Department through SIRS, they are considered not to have made AYP.

Accountability for Feeder Schools That Do Not Submit Data

for Backmapping

97

If all district elementary schools with grade 3 enrollment make AYP in ELA or math, the feeder schools in the district are considered to have made AYP in the measure(s).

This only applies if the feeder schools submit data to the Department through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS). If feeder schools do not submit data to the Department, they are considered not to have made AYP.

Accountability for FeederSchools in Districts Where All Elementary Schools Make AYP

98

Feeder schools with grades 1 and/or 2 are accountable for the performance of their former students when these students take the grade 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 with the Effective AMOs and/or Safe Harbor Targets.

For schools serving only kindergarten, special evaluation processes are used to determine AYP.

Accountability for FeederSchools in Districts Where

Some Elementary Schools DoNot Make AYP: Backmapping

99

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 AYP must be made using special procedures.

Accountability for Schools with Enrollments Only in Grades 9, 10, and/or 11

1) If all district secondary schools with grade 12 enrollment make AYP in ELA or math, the schools with enrollment only in grades 9, 10, and/or 11 in the district are considered to have made AYP in the measure(s).

2) If one or more district schools with grade 12 enrollment do not make AYP in ELA or math, the schools with enrollment only in grades 9, 10, and/or 11 are subject to special evaluation procedures to determine AYP.

100

Accountability for Alternative High School Cohorts

Section 100.2(p)(16)(iii) of Commissioner’s Regulations allows schools in which more than half the students enrolled have previously been enrolled in another high school or in which more than half the enrollment is receiving special education services to voluntarily submit the performance of an alternative high school cohort. The alternative cohort in any given year consists of those students enrolled in the high school on the first Wednesday of October three years previously who were still enrolled in the school on the first Wednesday of October two years previously. For the alternate cohort AYP results to be considered, the school needs to make alternate cohort AYP for all groups in both ELA and mathematics.

101

Most new schools begin in Good Standing. Exceptions include those that reconfigure but maintain much of the same student population or those that merged with other schools that were previously identified. The Department reviews these schools on an individual basis. The Commissioner determines what the schools’ starting status should be based on these Department evaluations.

Accountability for New Schools

102

The New York State Report Card, contact Information and Reporting Services at [email protected]

New York State assessments, go to the Office of Assessment Policy, Development and Administration web site at www.p12.nysed.gov/apda

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.p12.nysed.gov/irs or contact the office at (518) 474-7965

Accountability, contact Lisa Long at [email protected] or (718) 722-4553

Whom to Contactfor Further Information

no child left behind (nclb) accountability in new york state using 2010–11 school year results to...

Documents

secondarylevel accountability

disadvantaged students

students american indian

ayp elementarymiddle

latino students asian

nclb accountability

accountability cohort

accountability indicator