Update on Data ReportingApril 2005

LEAP Changes

• LEAP software will be released shortly.

• Final LEAP software will not be available before mid-July.

• We are sending reports to districts whose STEP or LEAP files are due on Aug. 5. The list of due dates has been posted on our Web site.

NYSESLAT

• New vendor for NYSESLAT.• Scaling and cutpoints will be set by vendor

using operational data. Conversion charts will not be available before mid-July.

• Report four raw scores (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) on LEAP.

• If you have Title III funding, the LEAP file must identify the students served with those funds.

Superintendent’s Certification

• The reports produced from the LEAP and STEP software will allow you to – see the data that will appear on your report card– Determine whether each school made AYP.

• Set up a team to review the reports and make sure that they are absolutely correct before the Superintendent signs.

• More information about accountability rules can be found at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.

Determining State and Federal Accountability Status

Elementary Level• English Language Arts AMO = PI of 131• Mathematics AMO = PI of 142• Science State Standard = PI of 100

Middle Level• English Language Arts AMO = PI of 116• Mathematics AMO = PI of 93• Science State Standard = PI of 100

Secondary Level• English Language Arts AMO = PI of 148• Mathematics AMO = PI of 139• Graduation-Rate State Standard = 55%

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and State Standards for 2004–05

The Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is the PI value that signifies that an accountability group is making satisfactory progress toward the goal that 100% of students will be proficient in the State’s learning standards in ELA and math by 2013–14. The State Standards are the PI values that signify minimally satisfactory performance in science or graduation rate.

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

Further information about Confidence Intervals and Effective AMOs for 2004–05 is available at: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/school-accountability/confidence-intervals.htm

Subject AMO Number of Students Participating

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 4 131 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

Effective A

MO

s

Math 4 142 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141

ELA 8 116 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

Math 8 93 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

HS ELA 148 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

HS Math 139 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

Effective AMOs for 2004–05

• The district results are aggregated for all students attending school in the district as well as continuously enrolled students the district places outside of the school district (e.g., in BOCES, approved private placements).

• For a district to make AYP in a grade and subject, each district accountability group must make AYP in that grade and subject.

• To be identified for improvement status in a subject, a district must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in ELA or mathematics at all three grade levels (elementary, middle, and secondary) or in science at both grade levels or in graduation rate.

• If a previously identified district fails in a subject in which it was identified, it moves to the next highest status on the continuum.

District-Level Accountability

District-Level Accountability (cont.)

• If an identified district makes AYP, it remains in the same status on the continuum.

• To be removed from improvement status in a subject, the district must make AYP in that subject for two consecutive years. The district may remain or be placed in improvement status in another subject for which it has not made AYP.

• A district may be identified for improvement even if no school in the district is identified for improvement.

• In a district with only one school, the district and school can have a different accountability status, because the district accountability groups include students placed outside the district.

Sample Identifications of Districts for Improvement Status

District A results in 2003–04:–fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels District A results in 2004–05:– fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary and middle levels but makes AYP in ELA at the secondary level

District A is not identified for improvement in ELA because it has made AYP in the subject in at least one grade level in at least one of the two years.

District B results in 2003–04:–fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels District B results in 2004–05:– fails to make AYP in ELA at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels

District B is identified for improvement because it has failed to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject at all grade levels.

2005-06

2002 Accountability Cohort Definition

This cohort will be used to determine AYP in English and mathematics at the secondary level for the 2005–06 school year. The 2002 accountability cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade status, who were enrolled in the school on October 6, 2004 (BEDS day) and met one of the following conditions:

• first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2002–03 school year (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003); or

• in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2002–03 school year.

The State will exclude the following students when reporting data on the 2002 accountability cohort:

• students who transferred to another high school or criminal justice facility after BEDS day 2004;

• students who transferred to an approved alternative high school equivalency preparation or high school equivalency preparation program (CR 100.7) after BEDS day 2004 and met the conditions stated on the next slide;

• students who left the U.S. and its territories after BEDS day 2004; and

• students who died after BEDS day 2004.

2002 Accountability Cohort Definition (cont’d)

Students will be removed from the cohort for the school and district from which they transferred to an approved GED program if the final enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2006 the student

a) has earned a high school equivalency diploma; or

b) is enrolled in an approved GED program.

Students will be removed from the school cohort if the enrollment records show that the student has transferred to a different high school and is working toward or has earned a high school diploma.

Students will be removed from the district cohort if the enrollment records show that the student has transferred to high school in a different district and is working toward or has earned a high school diploma.

2002 Accountability Cohort(Transfers to GED)

Students will remain in the cohort of the school and district from which they transferred to an approved GED program if the final enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2006 the student

a) has not earned a high school equivalency diploma;

b) is not enrolled in an approved GED program; and

c) has not transferred to high school that provides instruction leading to a high school diploma.

Students who transfer back to the high school from which they transferred to an approved GED program without first entering another high school will remain in the district and school cohort.

2002 Accountability Cohort(Transfers to GED)

On the 2005 STEP file, districts must provide the following information for students who transfer to approved GED programs during the 2004-05 school year (as defined in CR 100.7):

• The ending reason on the enrollment record for the high school must be transferred to approved GED program.

• The GED enrollment record must provide a service provider code for an approved GED program.

• If the student is not enrolled in the GED program on June 30, 2005, the ending date and reason must be provided.

• To be considered still enrolled, the student must have been in attendance at least once during the last 20 days of the program or have excused absences.

Transfers to GED

Grade 3-8 Testing

• Required by NCLB to begin in 2005-06.• Will be used for accountability purposes.• Elementary and middle schools will receive a

single Performance Index for ELA and a single Performance Index for math.

• AMO’s and Safe Harbors will be adjusted to reflect performance on new assessments.

Calculating the Grade 3-8 Performance Index

Grade Number Levels of Students 1 2 3 4

3 30 7 7 10 64 40 3 6 20

115 30 6 10 10 4TOTAL 100 16 23 40 21Index = (23+40+21+40+21)=145

District/Schools That Have Valid Scores for Fewer than

80% of Their Students

Beginning in 2005-06, if a district/school does not have valid science scores for at least 80 percent of its enrolled students, it will not make AYP.

Repository System

• Level 1 Repository (regional)—data will be moved from district student management system to Level 1. After district verifies accuracy data will be moved to

• Level 2 Repository (statewide) includes student name and unique identified, source of individual and summary performance reports and verification reports.

Repository System (continued)

• Level 3 Repository (State use)—data for school report cards and accountability decisions; to protect student privacy: no student names and unique identifiers are encrypted.

Reports from the RepositoryGrade 3-8

Reports available to all public schools using Web browser

– Individual Student – School summary reports– Item analyses

Analytical tool available through Web browser will allow user to do custom reports based on factors such as grade, age, disability, LEP status, race-ethnicity

Responsibilities of District and School Administrators in 2005-06

• Arrange to participate in a Level 1 Repository. • Designate a chief information officer (CIO). • Obtain unique identifiers for students. Student

records cannot be entered into the Level 2 Repository without unique statewide identifiers.

• Review the Data Standards manual. • Determine whether each required data element is

present or missing on the local student management system. Develop short- and long-term plans for providing the missing data elements.

Responsibilities

• Identify the location of all required data in the district and the person responsible for each data element.

• Create a process for transforming data in the local student management system to the format specified in the Data Standards Manual.

• Provide student records with data elements to the Level 1 Repository on the required schedule.

• The CIO should coordinate the district’s verification process to ensure that district report cards and accountability status are correct.

• The New York State Report Card, contact the School Report Card Coordinator at rptcard@mail.nysed.gov

• New York State assessments, go to the Office of State Assessment web site at www.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 mmusser@mail.nysed.gov or (518) 474-7965

• Accountability, contact Ira Schwartz at ischwart@mail.nysed.gov or (718) 722-2796

Whom to Contactfor Further Information