Modifying New York’s System of Accountability for Student Success (SASS) to Comply with NCLB

1. The New York State Education Department Modifying New York’s System of Accountability for Student Success (SASS) to Comply with NCLB .

2. Purpose of No Child Left Behind “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments”

3. To accomplish purpose, NCLB requires... • Challenging academic content and student achievement standards • High quality assessments aligned with these standards • A single accountability system for all public schools and LEAs based on these standards and assessments

4. Designing NY’s NCLB Accountability Plan • Held Series of Meetings With USDOE Staff beginning in January 2002. • Developed Draft Conceptual Framework in July. • Presented Conceptual Framework to Regents in September. • Conducted a dozen Regional forums to gain feedback on Conceptual Framework. • Posted materials and survey on SED Website. • Submitted Draft Framework to USDOE for peer review. • Regents approve Final Conceptual Framework in December.

5. Key Elements of New York’s NCLB Accountability Plan .

6. Definition of Proficiency • Define proficiency as at or above Level 3 on the Grade 4 and 8 language arts and mathematics (Item 1) • Define proficiency for language arts and mathematics at the high school level as a a score of 65 or higher on the Regents examination in English or math (Item 2). • Review original standard setting in conjunction with implementation of Grade 3-8 assessments (Item 1)

7. Performance Level 4th & 8th Grade High School Cohort Advanced 4 85+ on Regents Proficient 3 65-84 on Regents Basic Proficiency 2 55-64 on Regents Basic 1 Below 55 on Regents Definition of Elementary, Middle, and High School Proficiency (Items 1-2)

8. Measurement of Adequate Yearly Progress (Item 3-4) • Use Performance Indices to Measure Adequate Yearly Progress and Attainment of Safe Harbor (Items 3-4). • Establish separate Indices for Grade 4 and 8 and for language arts and math based on continuously enrolled students (Item 3) • Establish separate Indices for high school language arts and math based on annual high school cohort (Item 4) • Have indices range from 0 to 200. Zero means all students are at basic level; 200 means all students are at proficient or advanced levels - the ultimate goal of NCLB (Items 3-4).

9. 200 180 160 Performance 140 120 Index 100 80 60 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 103 117 School Performance 109 116 122 128 School AYP Target 140 140 145 150 State Standard 103 110 School Baseline School Report Card: Example Elementary-Level School Performance in English Language Arts This school did not achieve the State standard, but shows Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

10. Sample School Elementary-Level English Language Arts PI Performance Level Tested Students Advanced (Level 4) 102 34% Proficient (Level 3) 85 28% Basic Proficiency (Level 2) 72 24% Basic (Level 1)* 41 14% Total 300 100% Measure of Elementary and Middle Level Performance (Item 3) PI = % Basic Proficiency or Above + % Proficient or Above = 24 + 28 + 34 + 28 + 34 = 86 + 62 = 148 *Includes Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities

11. Example Calculation Performance Level Students with Valid Scores Proficient or Above (Regents 65+) 68 45% Basic Proficiency (Regents 55-64/RCT 65+) 48 32% Basic (Regents <55/ RCT<65/Alt. Assess.) 34 23% Total 150 100% Measure of High School Performance (Item 4) PI = % Basic Proficiency or Above + % Proficient or Above = 32 + 45 + 45 = 77 + 45 = 122

12. Additional Elementary & Middle School Indicator (Item 5) • Grade 4 and 8 Science Assessments: • Grade 4 Test Based on Percent Passing • Grade 8 Test Based on Performance Index • By 2007-2008, average daily attendance will replace science as the State indicator. • Elementary and Middle School Indicator can be fixed; does not have to be 100% proficient by 2013-2104. • No disaggregation required unless group seeking to make AYP through “Safe Harbor.” • Can be meet through level of or growth in performance.

13. High School Completion Rate (Item 6) • Completion rate based on graduation within four years of first entry into grade 9, except in special circumstances • Completion for next four years based upon annual high school cohort definition. • Revise completion rate cohort, beginning with students first entering Grade 9 in 2003, to capture students who transfer into a high school or who dropout out in first two years of high school • In very limited circumstances, include in graduation rate students who take longer than the standard number of years to complete high school.

14. High School Completion Rate:Continued (Item 6) • Indicator can be fixed; does not have to be 100% proficient by 2013-2014. • No disaggregation required unless group seeking to make AYP through “Safe Harbor.” • Standard can be meet through level of or growth of performance

15. High School Completion Rate(1998) (Item 6) Denominator 1998 School Accountability Cohort Count 153 + Students eliminated from the cohort because they transferred to GED Programs 7 = 160 Numerator 1998 Cohort members who earned a Regents or local diploma before June 30, 2002 129 Graduation Rate = 129/160 = 80.6%

16. High School Completion Rate(2003) (Item 6) Denominator Students first enrolled in grade nine (anywhere) in 2003 or ungraded students who attained age 17 who: were enrolled in the school on BEDS days of 2003 180 Transferred to the school before between BEDS day 2003 and BEDS day 2006 and were continuously enrolled for five months 50 Students who subsequently transferred to another high school, left the country, became incarcerated or died 70 180+50=230-70=160 Numerator 2003 Cohort members who earned a Regents or local diploma before June 30, 2007 129 Graduation Rate = 129/160 = 80.6%

17. Intermediate Goals for Annual Yearly Progress • Starting point for Grade 4 and 8 language arts and math are results from the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years. • Starting point for high school language arts and math are results from 2001-2002 school year. • Baseline is the school at the 20th percentile in the State based on enrollment ranked by Performance Index. • Intermediate Goals set as equal as to baseline for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. • Intermediate Goals for 2004-2005 to 2013-2014 to rise in equal increments until goal of 200 is reached.

18. Intermediate Goals for Annual Yearly Progress (Item 7) Sample Annual Goals Using Performance Index

19. Preliminary Baselines (Item 7) • Grade 4 language arts: 123 • Grade 4 math: 136 • Grade 8 language arts: 107 • Grade 8 math: 81 • High School ELA: 134 (very preliminary) • High School Math: 138 (very preliminary)

20. Combining Results Across Grades (Item 8) Elementary and Middle School Accountability Measures 2002-2003, 2003-2004, & 2004-2005 • Grade 4 ELA • Grade 4 Math • Grade 8 ELA • Grade 8 Math Elementary and Middle School Accountability Measures 2005-2006 to 2013-2014 • Grade 3-8 ELA • Grade 3-8 Math

21. Determining the Baseline for the Annual Measurable Objective (Item 7) All New York State Schools: For the purposes of this example, there will be 12 NYS Schools Schools and their Performance Index (Level 3 and Above) A = 30 B = 76 C = 102 D = 101 E = 177 F = 189 G = 163 H = 150 I = 135 J = 130 K = 117 L = 42

22. School Performance Index School Enrollment Cumulative Enrollment Total F 189 30 827 E 177 140 797 G 163 92 657 H 150 73 565 I 135 35 492 J 130 120 457 K 117 100 337 C 102 72 237 D 101 60 165 165 – 20th percentile B 76 30 105 124 – 15th percentile L 42 45 75 83 – 10th percentile A 30 30 30 41 –5th percentile Schools in Rank Order by Performance Index The baseline for the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is 101

23. Combining Results Across Years (Item 9) • If school or district has at least 40 students for whom it can be held accountable on any criteria, only current year results used. • If school or district cannot be held accountable using current year results, then current year and prior year results will be combined.

24. Example of Combining Groups Across Years Group N 2002-2003 N-2003-2004 Black 5 3 White 25 26 Hispanic 1 2 Native American 0 0 Asian 0 1 Low Income 26 22 Special Education 2 3 LEP 1 1 All Students 31 32 Size of Disaggregated Groups for AYP (Item 9)* Assuming Size of Groups Set at 40

25. Size of Disaggregated Groups for AYP (Item 10) • Disaggregated groups for accountability are: • Five Major Racial/Ethnic Groups (Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White) • Limited English Proficient • Low-Income • Special Education • The minimum size for a group, school, or district to be held accountable for performance is 40. • SED continuing to consider use of confidence interval.

26. Example of Which Groups Have to Make AYP Group Size Accountable? White 5 No Black 50 Yes Hispanic 30 No Native American 3 No Asian 2 No Low Income 45 Yes Special Education 12 No LEP 7 No All Students 90 Yes Size of Disaggregated Groups for AYP (Item 10)* Assuming Size of Groups Set at 40

27. Elementary and Middle School Language Arts If LEP student takes  NYSESLAT Only Regular Assessment Include student in  Performance Index based on an annual growth measure Performance Index based on Level attained Accountability for LEP Students (Item 11)

28. Elementary and Middle School If student takes  Alternate Assessment Local Assessment Regular Assessment Include student in  Performance Index as Level 1 Performance, until USDOE Regulations Issued Performance Index as Level 1 performance Performance Index based on level attained Accountability for Students with Disabilities (Item 12) Local Assessment Available Only in 2002-2003

29. High School If student takes  Alternate Assessment RCT Regents Include student in  Performance Index as Level 1 performance, until USDOE final regulations issued. Performance Index as Level 1 or 2 performance. Performance Index based on level attained Accountability for Students with Disabilities (Item 12)

30. Early Childhood Program Accountability (Item 13) • Backmapping to be used to hold schools accountability that do not participate in State assessments (schools serving only students below grade 4). • No backmapping required required if all elementary schools in districts making AYP. • Feeder schools responsible for subsequent performance of students who were continuously enrolled in their highest grade.

31. District Level Accountability (Item 14) • District treated as if it were “one big school.” • Results aggregated for all students attending school in the district as well as students the districts places outside of the school district (i.e., BOCES, approved private placements). • District must make AYP with all subgroups for which it is accountable. • District may be identified for improvement even if no schools in district are identified for improvement. • In a school district with only one school, the district and school can have different accountability status.

32. Rewards and Sanctions (Items 15-16) • Maintain the State standard and require Local Assistance Plans for schools below the Standard. • Recognize schools and LEAs that for two consecutive years achieve the State standard and make AYP as “high performing.” • Recognize schools and LEAs that do not achieve State standard but make AYP for three consecutive years as “rapidly improving.” • Require improvement plans but do not impose Section 1116 sanctions on Non-Title I schools that fail to make AYP. • Have schools that move in and out of Title I status maintain their Title I accountability status unless they improved during the time they were Non-Title I schools.

33. Identification of Schools and Districts for Improvement (Item 17) • Identification for improvement based on two years of not meeting AYP in the same subject and grade: School A fails to make AYP with the following groups: • Grade 4 ELA White Students in 2002-2003 • Grade 8 Math low-Income Students in 2003-2004 School B fails to make AYP with the following groups: • Grade 4 ELA Asian Students in 2002-2003 • Grade 4 ELA LEP Students in 2003-2004 School A is not identified for improvement because it has not failed for two consecutive years in the same subject and grade. School B is identified because it has failed for two consecutive years in Grade 4 ELA (same subject and grade.)

34. Next steps • Continue to Communicate with field • Adopt conforming Regulations in Spring 2002. • Apply new accountability standards to 2002-2003 results for schools and LEAs. • Notify schools and LEAs of new accountability status for 2003-2004.