Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities

1. Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities • Background Information—Slides 2—4 • School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 • Calculation of the Performance Index—Slide 6 • Application of Flexibility—Slide 7 • Examples—Slides 8—11

2. Background • The U. S. Department of Education (USDOE) has offered states that meet certain criteria flexibility to judge 2 percent of students against modified achievement standards. • As an interim measure until measures of modified achievement standards are developed, USDOE has deemed New York State eligible to adjust the AYP determination for the students with disabilities subgroup for the 2004-05 school year. • This interim AYP adjustment is for the 2004-05 school year only and only for eligible States. These issues will be revisited while USDOE is developing a regulation related to modified achievement standards for a limited group of students with disabilities. USDOE has not announced how this process will work for 2005-2006. • To be eligible, the “State must commit to have in place no later than 2006-07 reliable and valid alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards for a limited group of students with disabilities.”

3. Criteria for Flexibility • To be eligible, New York State also had to meet certain criteria, including • demonstrating the improved performance of students with disabilities in English and mathematics, • the availability of an Alternate Assessment (based on alternate achievement standards), • appropriate accommodations on all State assessments, and • sound education policies related to students with disabilities. • An additional criterion was that 95 percent of students with disabilities statewide at each applicable grade level had to be tested in English and mathematics in 2003-04. • New York State met this criterion on three accountability measures: Elementary-level English Language arts (ELA) and mathematics, and middle-level ELA. NY did not met the criterion in middle-level mathematics or high school ELA or mathematics and is not approved to use this flexibility with these criteria. • NY’s plan was approved even though NY indicated that the earliest alternate assessments will be in place would be 2007-2008.

4. Determining New York State’s Adjustment • The adjustment is to be made by dividing 2% by the statewide percentage of students with disabilities (SWD) and adding that percentage to the percent proficient in the SWD group. • In NY, the percentage of SWDs statewide is 12%. Therefore, the presumed percentage of SWDs to which the 2% cap is applicable is 17% (2% divided by 12%). • Under the rules, USDOE allows us to deem an additional 17% of students with disabilities proficient in 2004-05. • In NY, students who score at Level 3 are considered proficient. An adjustment of 17% would equal adding 34 points to the Performance Index.

5. 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 = [(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] X 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] X 100

6. Criteria for Schools To Use Flexibility • A school or district is eligible to use this flexibility on one or more of these accountability measures -- Elementary-level English Language arts (ELA) and/or mathematics, and/or middle-level ELA if it meets the following criteria: • The only accountability group that does not make AYP on that measure is the students with disability group. • 95 percent of enrolled students with disabilities were tested on that measure.

7. Application of Flexibility for Eligible Schools • If a school meets the criteria, the Department will add 34 points to the Performance Index of the students with disability group. • If the adjusted Performance Index equals or exceeds the AMO for the measure, the students with disability group will be judged to have made AYP and the school will make AYP on that measure. • AMOs for 2004-05: • Elementary-Level ELA: 131 • Elementary-Level Math: 142 • Middle-Level ELA: 116

8. Example 1 • In elementary-level mathematics, East Elementary School is accountable for four groups: all students, students with disabilities, White students, and economically disadvantaged students. • 95 percent of enrolled students in each group were tested. • The Performance Index of each group except the students with disability group exceeded its Effective AMO; therefore, each group except the students with disabilities group made AYP. • The students with disability group: • Effective AMO = 125 • safe harbor target =112 • Performance Index = 109 (did not make AYP) • Because East Elementary School meets the criteria to use the flexibility, the Department will add 34 points to its Performance Index: • 109 + 34 = 143 • The adjusted Performance Index exceeds the AMO for elementary-level math (142). • Therefore, East is judged to have made AYP in elementary-level math.

9. Example 2 • In elementary-level ELA, West Elementary School is accountable for four groups: all students, students with disabilities, White students, and Black students. • 95 percent of enrolled students in each group were tested. • The Performance Index of each group except the students with disability group exceeded its Effective AMO; therefore, each group except the students with disabilities group made AYP. • The students with disability group: • Effective AMO = 116 • safe harbor target =110 • Performance Index = 96 (did not make AYP) • Because West Elementary School meets the criteria to use the flexibility, the Department will add 34 points to its Performance Index: • 96 + 34 = 130 • The adjusted Performance Index is lower than the AMO for elementary-level ELA (131). • Therefore, West is judged to have not made AYP in elementary-level ELA.

10. Example 3 • In middle-level ELA, South Middle School is accountable for four groups: all students, students with disabilities, White students, and limited English proficient students. • 95 percent of enrolled students in each group were tested. • The Performance Index of the “all students” and White groups exceeded their Effective AMOs; therefore, they made AYP. • The Performance Index of the LEP group was below its Effective AMO and it did not make safe harbor; therefore, the group did not made AYP. • Because the LEP group did not make AYP, the school is not eligible for flexibility for the students with disabilities group. • Therefore, South is judged to have not made AYP in middle-level ELA.

11. Example 4 • In middle-level ELA, North Middle School is accountable for four groups: all students, students with disabilities, White students, and Hispanic students. • 95 percent of enrolled students in each group except the students with disabilities group were tested. • The Performance Index of each group except the students with disability group exceeded its Effective AMO; therefore, each group except the students with disabilities group made AYP. • Because the school failed to test 95 percent of students in the students with disabilities group, the school is not eligible for flexibility for the students with disabilities group. • Therefore, North Middle School is judged to have not made AYP in middle-level ELA.