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

Contents Measuring Performance: pages 3-8 Accountability Standards: pages 9-13 Making Safe Harbor: pages Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): pages Determining State and Federal Accountability Status: pages Accountability for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students: pages Accountability for Schools with Special Circumstances: pages Whom to Contact for Further Information: pages 56

3 Measuring Performance

4 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) 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 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:

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 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) (students eliminated from the cohort because they transferred to a GED program) 7 = 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 ÷ ( ) = 80.6%

9 Accountability Standards

10 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) 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. *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 and 2003–04.

11 School YearElementary-LevelMiddle-LevelSecondary-Level ELAMathELAMathEnglishMath 2002– – – – – – – – – – – – Annual Measurable Objectives for 2002–03 to 2013–14

12 Confidence Intervals Were Used to Determine Effective AMOs 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.

13 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 2002–03 is available at: SubjectAMONumber of Students Participating ELA Effective AMOs Math ELA Math HS ELA HS Math Effective AMOs for 2002–03

14 Making Safe Harbor

–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.

–03 middle-level ELA PI = –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. Sample Safe Harbor Calculation for Middle-Level ELA Group

17 Science and Graduation Rate: Qualifying for Safe Harbor in 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 About Safe 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 = –02 Percent At or Above SDL = –03 Elementary-Level Science Progress Target = = 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 = –02 PI = –03 Middle-Level Science Progress Target = = 98

–03 middle-level science PI = –03 middle-level science State Standard = –03 middle-level science Progress Target = = 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. Sample Qualification for Safe Harbor for Middle-Level ELA Group

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, Example: Graduation-Rate Standard = –02 Percent of the 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by June 30, 2002 = –03 Graduation-Rate Progress Target = = 54

23 Percent of 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by August 31, 2002 = –03 Graduation-Rate Standard = 55 Percent of 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by June 30, 2002 = –03 Graduation-Rate Progress Target = = 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. Sample Qualification for Safe Harbor for 1998 Graduation-Rate Cohort Group

24 Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

25 Participation Rate for school with 40 or more student enrolled on test day School with 30 or more continuously enrolled students School with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled students Combine results with previous year Evaluate Performance 30 or more continuously enrolled students in combined group Fewer than 30 continuously enrolled students in combined group Calculate the Performance Index for each group with 30 or more 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 A group below its Effective AMO did NOT make safe harbor School did not test 95 percent of every group of 40 or more School tested 95 percent of every group of 40 or more Each group below its Effective AMO made safe harbor NO AYP Special Evaluation Process AYP Determining AYP in Elementary- and Middle-Level ELA or Math Schools with fewer than 40 students

26 School with 30 or more continuously enrolled students School with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled students Combine results with previous year Evaluate Performance 30 or more continuously enrolled students in combined group Fewer than 30 continuously enrolled students in combined group Calculate the % Above SDL (elementary level) or PI (middle level) for each group with 30 or more students The “All Students” group is above the State Standard or the Progress Target A group is above the State Standard or Progress Target NO AYP Special Evaluation Process AYP Determining AYP in Elementary- and Middle-Level Science YesNo The group is qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math The group is NOT qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math YesNo

27 School with 30 or more accountability cohort members School with fewer than 30 accountability cohort members Combine results with previous year’s cohort Evaluate Performance 30 or more accountability cohort members in combined group Fewer than 30 accountability cohort members in combined group Calculate the Performance Index for each group 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 A group below its Effective AMO did NOT make safe harbor Each group below its Effective AMO made safe harbor NO AYP Special Evaluation Process AYP Determining AYP in Secondary-Level ELA or Math

28 School with 30 or more graduation-rate cohort members School with fewer than 30 graduation-rate cohort members Evaluate Performance 30 or more graduation-rate cohort members in combined group Fewer than 30 graduation-rate cohort members in combined group 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 NO AYP Special Evaluation Process AYP Determining AYP in Graduation Rate YesNo The group is qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math Combine results with previous year’s cohort The group is NOT qualified for safe harbor in ELA and math YesNo

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.

Determining State and Federal Accountability Status

31 Basic Rules for State and Federal Accountability Improvement 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 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. District Level Accountability

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 Years of Failure to Make AYP in a Subject and Grade Status 1Good Standing 2*School Requiring Academic Progress (SRAP) — Year 1 3SRAP — Year 2 4SRAP — Year 3 5SRAP — Year 4 6SRAP — Year 5 *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 School was not in improvement status in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Determining 2004–05 State School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 1 The school made AYP The school did not make AYP The school made AYP The school did not make AYP Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)

37 School was a School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Determining 2004–05 State School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 2 The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)

38 School was a School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Determining 2004–05 State School Status in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 3 The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Good Standing School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 3) School Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2)

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 Federal Status (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.) Years of Failure Under Title I to Make AYP in a Subject and Grade Status 1Good Standing 2*School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 1 3School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 2 4Corrective Action 5Planning for Restructuring 6Restructuring *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 School was not in federal improvement status in The school made AYP in Determining Federal School Status for 2004–05 in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 1 The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Good Standing School in Need of Improve- ment (Year 1) The school did not make AYP in The School received Title I Funding in and only , , and Good Standing Good Stand-ing

43 School was a School in Need of Improvement (Year 2) in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Determining Federal School Status for 2004–05 in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 2 The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Good Standing School in Need of Improvement (Year 3) School received or will receive Title I funding in , , and School in Need of Improvement (Year 2) School in Need of Improvement (Year 3)

44 School was a School in Need of Improvement (Year 2) in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Determining Federal School Status for 2004–05 in ELA, Math, Science, or Graduation Rate — Part 3 The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in The school made AYP in The school did not make AYP in Good Standing School in Need of Improvement (Year 3)* School received Title I funding in and , but will not in School in Need of Improvement (Year 2)* School in Need of Improvement (Year 3)* Status in Status in Next Year Title I Funding is Received No Federal Status *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 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. Small Districts and Schools

50 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 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. Small Districts and Schools (cont.)

51 Schools that serve only students below grade 4 and, consequently, do not participate in State assessments are called “feeder” schools. Accountability decisions for feeder schools were based either 1)on the performance of schools with grade 4 in the same district, or 2)on a procedure called “backmapping.” Accountability for Schools That Serve Only Students Below Grade 4

52 If all district elementary schools with grade 4 enrollment made AYP in ELA, math, or science, the feeder schools in the district, including K-1 schools, were considered to have made AYP in that subject(s). Accountability for Feeder Schools in Districts Where All Elementary Schools Made AYP

53  Feeder schools with grades 2 and/or 3 are accountable for the performance of their former students when these students take the grade 4 assessments in another district school. Feeder schools are responsible for the performance of students who were continuously enrolled in the feeder school’s highest grade (grade 2 or 3). The students’ grade 4 LEAP records must identify the feeder school attended by the student. To determine if the feeder school made AYP, the ELA and math PIs of students enrolled in the feeder school were calculated and compared with the Effective AMOs and/or Safe Harbor Targets. The Percent Above SDL in science was determined and compared with the Science Standard and/or Progress Target.  For schools serving only grades K and 1, special evaluation processes are used to determine AYP. Accountability for Feeder Schools in Districts Where Some Elementary Schools Did Not Make AYP: Backmapping

54 Since these schools do not include the grades in which State assessments in ELA, math, and science are administered, judgments as to whether the school made adequate yearly progress must be made using special procedures. Accountability for Schools with Enrollments Only in Grades 5, 6, and/or 7 1)If all schools in the district with grade 8 enrollment made AYP in ELA, math, or science, the schools with enrollment only in grades 5, 6, and/or 7 are considered to have made AYP. 2)If one or more schools in the district with grade 8 enrollment did not make AYP in ELA, math, or science, the schools with enrollment only in grades 5, 6, and/or 7 are subject to special evaluation procedures to determine AYP.

55 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 adequate yearly progress must be made using special procedures. Accountability for Schools with Enrollments Only in Grades 9, 10, and/or 11 1)If all schools in the district with grade 12 enrollment made AYP in ELA, math, or graduation rate, the schools with enrollment only in grades 9, 10, and/or 11 are considered to have made AYP. 2)If one or more schools in the district with grade 12 enrollment did not make AYP in ELA, math, or graduation rate, the schools with enrollment only in grades 9, 10, and/or 11 are subject to special evaluation procedures to determine AYP.

56 the New York State Report Card, contact the School Report Card Coordinator at New York State assessments, go to the Office of State Assessment web site at federal No Child Left Behind legislation, go to the United States Department of Education web site at data collection and reporting for New York State, go to the Information and Reporting Services web site at or contact Martha Musser at or (518) accountability, contact Ira Schwartz at or (718) Whom to Contact for Further Information