1 / 56

School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

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

khuong
Download Presentation

School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The New York State Education Department School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) March 2004

  2. Contents Measuring Performance: pages 3-8 Accountability Standards: pages 9-13 Making Safe Harbor: pages 14-23 Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): pages 24-29 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

  3. Measuring Performance

  4. 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

  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 = 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

  6. 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.

  7. Secondary-Level Accountability Assessments At the secondary level, the assessments that were used when determining performance indices for an accountability group are shown below.

  8. 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%

  9. Accountability Standards

  10. 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 = PI of 123 • Mathematics AMO = PI of 136 • Science State Standard = 40% at or above SDL (2002–03) = PI of 100 (2003–04)* Middle Level • English Language Arts AMO = PI of 107 • Mathematics AMO = PI of 81 • Science State Standard = PI of 100 Secondary Level • English Language Arts AMO = PI of 142 • Mathematics AMO = PI of 132 • Graduation Rate State Standard = 55% (2002–03) *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 and2003–04.

  11. Annual Measurable Objectives for2002–03 to 2013–14 School Year Elementary-Level Middle-Level Secondary-Level ELA Math ELA Math English Math 2002–03 123 136 107 81 142 132 2003–04 123 136 107 81 142 132 2004–05 131 142 116 93 148 139 2005–06 138 149 126 105 154 146 2006–07 146 155 135 117 159 152 2007–08 154 162 144 129 165 159 2008–09 162 168 154 141 171 166 2009–10 169 174 163 152 177 173 2010–11 177 181 172 164 183 180 2011–12 185 187 181 176 188 186 2012–13 192 194 191 188 194 193 2013–14 200 200 200 200 200 200

  12. Confidence Intervals Were Used toDetermine 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

  13. 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 • 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

  14. Making Safe Harbor

  15. 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.

  16. 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 middle-level science.

  17. Science and Graduation Rate:Qualifying for Safe Harborin 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.

  18. Special Notes AboutSafe 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.

  19. 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.)

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. Secondary-Level Graduation-Rate 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

  23. 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.

  24. Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

  25. 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 NO AYP School tested 95 percent of every group of 40 or more Schools with fewer than 40 students 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 Special Evaluation Process Calculate the Performance Index for each group with 30 or more students School with 30 or more continuously enrolled 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

  26. 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 Special Evaluation Process 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 A group is above the State Standard or Progress Target Yes No Yes No The group is qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math The group is NOT qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math AYP NO AYP

  27. Determining AYP in Secondary-Level ELA or Math Evaluate Performance Combine results with previous year’s cohort School with fewer than 30 accountability cohort members Fewer than 30 accountability cohort members in combined group 30 or more accountability cohort members in combined group Special Evaluation Process Calculate the Performance Index for each group with 30 or more accountability cohort members School 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

  28. 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 Special Evaluation Process 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 A group is above the State Standard or Progress Target Yes No Yes No The group is qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math The group is NOT qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math AYP NO AYP

  29. 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.

  30. Determining State and Federal Accountability Status

  31. Basic Rules for State andFederal AccountabilityImprovement 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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).

  34. 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.

  35. Determining State Status *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.

  36. 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 did not make AYP in 2002-03 The school made AYP 2003-04 The school did not make AYP 2003-04 The school made AYP 2003-04 The school did not make AYP 2003-04 Good Standing Good Standing Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)

  37. 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 did not make AYP in 2002-03 The school did not make AYP in 2003-04 The school did not make AYP in 2003-04 The school made AYP in 2003-04 The school made AYP in 2003-04 Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2)

  38. 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 did not make AYP in 2002-03 The school did not make AYP in 2003-04 The school did not make AYP in 2003-04 The school made AYP in 2003-04 The school made AYP in 2003-04 Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 3) School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 3)

  39. 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.

  40. Determining FederalStatus(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.

  41. Determining Federal Status (cont.) *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.

  42. 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 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 The School received Title I Funding in 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 2003-04 and 2004-05 only Good Standing Good Standing Good Standing Good Stand-ing School in Need of Improve-ment (Year 1)

  43. 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 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 Good Standing School in Need of Improvement (Year 3) School in Need of Improvement (Year 2) School in Need of Improvement (Year 3)

  44. 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 The school did not make AYP in 2002-03 The school did not make AYP in 2003-04 The school did not make AYP in 2003-04 The school made AYP in 2003-04 The school made AYP in 2003-04 No Federal Status No Federal Status No Federal Status Status in 2004-05 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)* Status in Next Year Title I Funding is Received *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.

  45. Accountability for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. Accountability for Schools with Special Circumstances

  49. 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.

  50. 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 target.

More Related