The New York State Accountability System:Simplified

Emma Klimek

April 16, 2009

Emma Kimek 2009 2

Agenda

8:30-9:30: Participation and Performance

9:30-10:30: Effective Measureable Objective, State Standards, Safe

Harbor

10:30-10:45: Break

10:45-11:30-Secondary School Accountability

Emma Kimek 2009 3

Why Learn About Accountability?

You are the mentor for the high school, middle school and elementary schools which have not made AYP for participation, performance and graduation rate. What would you do next to help the principals?

Emma Kimek 2009 4

Adequate Yearly Progress

•Participation

ELA, Math, Third Indicator

•Performance

•ELA, Math, Third Indicator

•2 Year Rule

Emma Kimek 2009 5

Participation Criterion

Emma Kimek 2009 6

Participation CriterionElementary/Middle Level

•40 or more students

•95% participation

•80% for science

Emma Kimek 2009 7

Participation CriterionSecondary Level

•40 or more 12th grade students with valid Regents score or alternative, RCT or NYSAA

Emma Kimek 2009 8

“Safety Net” for Participation

Year Enrollment Tested Rate

Current 60 56 93%

Previous 75 73 97%

Weighted Average Calculation 135 129 96%

•If less than 40 students in one year, weighted calculation for 2 years

•If less than 95%, then weighted calculation for 2 years

Emma Kimek 2009 9

Medically Excused

•3-8 students•Absent entire testing period•Documentation required

Emma Kimek 2009 10

Activity

Calculating participation for small groups

Or

Didn’t make 95%

Emma Kimek 2009 11

Performance Criterion:Performance Indices

Emma Kimek 2009 12

Levels of Student Achievement

Performance Index (PI)Level 1 = BasicLevel 2 = Basic ProficientLevel 3 = ProficientLevel 4 = Advanced

Emma Kimek 2009 13

Calculation of the Performance Index (PI) 3-8

•Value from 0-200

•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 100 PI = [(Level 2+Level 3+Level

4+Level 3+Level 4) ÷ number of cont. enrolled] 100

Emma Kimek 2009 14

Activity

Calculating Performance Index in Grades 3-8

Emma Kimek 2009 15

Number of

Test Number Students at Levels

Grade of Students 1 2 3 4

3 35 12 7 10 6

4 43 3 6 20 14

5 30 6 10 10 4

Emma Kimek 2009 16

Answer

PI = [(23+40+24+40+24) ÷ 108] 100 = 140

Note: The methodology is the same regardless of how many grade levels (3-8) a school serves.

Emma Kimek 2009 17

Assessments for Performance 3-8

Assessment Students Eligible

NYSTP

ELA, Math, Science

All Students

NYSAA Severely disabled students

Emma Kimek 2009 18

Assessments at the Secondary Level

Assessment Eligible Score ranges Performance

Levels

Regents Exams

All students 0-54

55-64

65-84

85-100

1

2

3

4

RCT Students with Disabilities

Fail

Pass

1

2

Emma Kimek 2009 19

Assessment Eligible Score Ranges

Performance Levels

Approved Alternatives

All Students Pass 3

NYSAA Students with Severe Disabilities

1-4

Highest score is counted; if no score then counted as level 1

Emma Kimek 2009 20

Effective AMOs

State Standards

Safe Harbor

Progress Targets

Performance Criteria

Emma Kimek 2009 21

Performance CriterionELA MATH SCIENCE

For ELA and Math:

Performance Index of group =>Effective Annual Measurable Objective

OR

Make Safe Harbor (group must qualify on third indicator)

For Science and Graduation:

Performance Index of group => State Standard

OR

Meet Progress Target

Emma Kimek 2009 22

An Effective AMO is the lowest PI not to be considered significantly different from the AMO

Effective AMOs

Refer to chart

Emma Kimek 2009 23

Confidence Intervals Were Used toDetermine Effective AMOs

30 50 70 90

Number Tested

Annual Measurable Objective

Emma Kimek 2009 24

Safe Harbor for ELA and Math

Safe Harbor Target = {Previous Year’s PI} + [(200 – {Previous Year’s PI}) 0.10]

Emma Kimek 2009 25

Activity

In the green section, enter “previous year’s PI”

Emma Kimek 2009 26

Qualifying for Safe Harborin ELA and Math (for the group)

Grades 3-8 Must equal or exceed the state standard in

Science or the progress target Secondary

Must equal or exceed state standard for graduation rate or progress target

Local or Regents diploma by August 31 of the 4th year after entering grade nine

Emma Kimek 2009 27

34-Point Rule forStudents with Disabilities

All schools: if only SWD, then 34 points added and must equal AMO not the Effective AMO

Emma Kimek 2009 28

Former Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

LEP <= 30 then former LEP

Emma Kimek 2009 29

Graduation Rate Calculation

Number of graduation-rate cohort members who graduated with a local or Regents diploma_________________________________________Number of graduation-rate cohort members

Then, multiplying the result by 100.

For example:Graduation-rate cohort members = 178Graduation-rate cohort members with local or Regents diplomas = 146Graduation rate = (146 178) 100 = 82.02247 or 82%

Emma Kimek 2009 30

Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Emma Kimek 2009 31

Participation Rate

Made ParticipationRate

Didn’t makeParticipation

Ratebut average with

Previous yearqualifies

Emma Kimek 2009 32

Performance

Must Make AYP for ELA or Math For each NCLB group

Must Make AYP for Science or Graduation Rate (all students only)

Emma Kimek 2009 33

Safe Harbor

PI must be equal to Or greater than

The Safe Harbor Target

Must qualify for the specific group on the science or

graduation ratemeasure

Determining State and Federal Accountability Status

General Rules

Emma Kimek 2009 35

School-Level Accountability

Fail to make AYP for two years Third year failure to make AYP, move to next

level If achieving AYP for one year, then remains

at present status To be removed from status the school must

make AYP for two consecutive years

Emma Kimek 2009 36

All students Two year rule District can be identified even if no school is

identified

District-Level Accountability

Emma Kimek 2009 37

Determining School State Status

Years of Failure to Make AYP in a

Subject and Grade

Status

1 Good Standing

2* School Requiring Academic Progress (SRAP) — Year 1

3 SRAP — Year 2

4 SRAP — Year 3

5 SRAP — Year 4

6 SRAP — 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.

Emma Kimek 2009 38

Determining District State StatusYears of Failure to

Make AYP in a Subject and Grade

Status

1 Good Standing

2* District Requiring Academic Progress (DRAP) — Year 1

3 DRAP — Year 2

4 DRAP — Year 3

5 DRAP — Year 4

6 DRAP — Year 5

*A district must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years to be placed in improvement status. A district that makes AYP for two consecutive years is removed from improvement status for the measure in which it was identified.

Emma Kimek 2009 39

Determining School Federal StatusYears of Failure

Under Title I to Make AYP in a Subject and

Grade

Status

1 Good Standing

2* School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 1

3 School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 2

4 Corrective Action

5 Planning for Restructuring

6 Restructuring

*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.

Emma Kimek 2009 40

Determining District Federal StatusYears of Failure

Under Title I to Make AYP in a Subject and

Grade

Status

1 Good Standing

2* District in Need of Improvement (DINI) — Year 1

3 DINI — Year 2

4 DINI — Year 3

5 DINI — Year 4

6 DINI — Year 4

*A district must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years to be placed in improvement status. A district that makes AYP for two consecutive years is removed from improvement status for the measure in which it was identified.

Emma Kimek 2009 41

Secondary-Level Accountability and Graduation-Rate (Total) Cohorts

Emma Kimek 2009 42

Guide to Accountability Cohorts

High schools are accountable for three areas:

English and mathematics performance; English and mathematics participation; and graduation rate.

A different group of students is measured in each of these areas. The cohort used to measure English and mathematics performance was redefined beginning with the 2002 cohort (class of 2006); the cohort used to measure graduation rate was redefined beginning with the 2003 (class of 2007) cohort.

Emma Kimek 2009 43

2007-08 High School Accountability

English & Math Participation

All students reported in the repository as 12th graders* in 2007-08

English & Math Performance

2004 Accountability Cohort (one-year continuous enrollment)

Graduation Rate

2003 Graduation-Rate Cohort (Rate = 2003 Total Cohort as of June 30, 2007 graduates as of August 31, 2007)

*Twelfth graders are students whose last reported grade between July 1 and June 30 of the academic reporting year (e.g., between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 for the 2007-08 academic reporting year) in the Student Information Repository System is grade 12.

Emma Kimek 2009 44

2004 Accountability Cohort Definition

The 2004 accountability cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade status, who were enrolled in the school on October 3, 2007 (BEDS day) and met one of the following conditions:

first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2004–05 school year (July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005); or

in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2004–05 school year.

Emma Kimek 2009 45

2004 Accountability Cohort Definition (continued)

The State will exclude the following students when reporting data on the 2004 accountability cohort:

• Left district

• Enrolled GED

Emma Kimek 2009 46

In the Student Information Repository System, districts must provide the following information for students who transfer to approved GED programs during the 2005-06 and later school years (as defined in CR 100.7):

The ending reason on the enrollment record for the high school must be transferred to an AHSEP or HSEP program.

There must be a subsequent ASEPP/HSEPP enrollment that includes a service provider code for an NYSED-approved AHSEP or HSEP program.

Transfers to GED

Emma Kimek 2009 47

If the student is not enrolled in the AHSEP or HSEP program on June 30, 2008, 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 for that period.

Transfers to GED (continued)

Emma Kimek 2009 48

2003 Graduation-Rate(Total) Cohort Definition

The 2003 graduation-rate (total) cohort consists of all students as of June 30, 2007, regardless of their current grade status, who:

first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2003–04 school year (July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004); or

in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2003–04 school year

AND

whose last enrollment in the school was 5 months or longer (excluding July and August) or, whose last enrollment was less than 5 months but who had a prior enrollment in this school or district between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2007 that was 5 months or more.

Emma Kimek 2009 49

When reporting data on the 2003 total cohort, the State will exclude students whose last enrollment record indicated that they:

transferred to another district or nonpublic school (excluded from the district graduation-rate cohort) or criminal justice facility; or

left the U.S. and its territories; or died.

2003 Graduation-Rate (Total)Cohort Definition (continued)

Emma Kimek 2009 50

2003 Graduation-RateActivity 1

School Beginning Enrollment

Date

Ending Enrollment

Date

School A 9/1/03 6/30/07

Student 1

Is student 1 included in School A’s graduation rate?

Emma Kimek 2009 51

2003 Graduation-RateActivity 2

Student 2

School Beginning Enrollment

Date

Ending Enrollment

Date

School A 9/1/03 11/30/03

School B 12/1/03 6/30/07

Which school is this student a graduation rate cohort member?

Emma Kimek 2009 52

2003 Graduation-RateActivity 3

School Beginning Enrollment

Date

Ending Enrollment

Date

School A 9/1/03 6/30/04

School B 7/1/04 9/30/05

School A 10/1/05 5/30/07

School B 5/31/07 6/30/07

Student 3

Which school is this student a member of the graduation rate cohort?

Emma Kimek 2009 53

2003 Graduation-RateActivity 4

School Beginning Enrollment

Date

Ending Enrollment

Date

School A 9/1/03 6/30/04

School B 7/1/04 9/30/04

School A 10/1/04 5/30/07

School B 5/31/07 6/30/07

School A and School B are in different districts.

Student 4

Which cohort does this student belong to?

Discuss

What is the implication of having students attend GED for Performance and

Graduation rate?

Emma Kimek 2009 55

Accountability for Limited English Proficient Students

Emma Kimek 2009 56

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

All LEP students :NYSESLAT LEP students in 3 - 8 enrolled in U.S.

schools (not including Puerto Rico) < than 1 year use NYSESLAT for participation.

NYSESLAT not used for performance All students in US> 1 year, must take

NYSTP in ELA

Emma Kimek 2009 57

Accountability for Students with Disabilities

Emma Kimek 2009 58

New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA)

NYSSA students’ performance same as NYSTP

Cannot exceed 1 percent; except by petition

Emma Kimek 2009 59

Accountability for Schools with Special Circumstances

Emma Kimek 2009 60

Small schools and districts Unusual grade configurations (9,10,11 and no 12) Schools with grades below grade 3 Unique schools

Special Circumstances

Emma Kimek 2009 61

Activity

You are the mentor for the high school, middle school and elementary schools which have not made AYP for participation, performance and graduation rate. What would you do next to help the principals?

What’s Next?

Emma Kimek 2009 63

Proposed Phases and Categories of School Improvement2009-2010

In

ten

sity

of

Inte

rven

tio

ns

FOCUSED More than one

accountability measures OR more than one student

group within an accountability measure but not the ALL student group

BASIC One accountability

measure and one student group but not the ALL

student group

COMPREHENSIVE One or more

accountability measures AND the ALL student

group or all subgroups

Improvement

Corrective Action

Restructuring

FOCUSEDOne or more accountability measures OR

more than one student group within an accountability measure but not the ALL

student group

COMPREHENSIVE One or more accountability measures

AND the ALL student group

FOCUSED One or more accountability measures OR

more than one student group within an accountability measure but not the ALL

student group

COMPREHENSIVE One or more accountability measures

AND the ALL student group

SURR

Identified based on the ALL student

group and farthest from StateStandards

and most in need of

improvement

The intensity of interventions increases as the categories progress through the phases.

Emma Kimek 2009 6464

Phase

Diagnostic

Differentiated Accountability Model

Category

CORRECTIVE ACTIONIMPROVEMENT RESTRUCTURING

CURRICULUM AUDITSCHOOL QUALITY REVIEW ASSIGNMENT OFJoint Intervention Team and

Distinguished Educator

FOCUSED COMPBASIC FOCUSED COMPREHENSIVE FOCUSED COMP

SURR

Intensity of Intervention

FAILED AYP 2 YEARS

FAILED AYP 2 YEARS

Plan/InterventionCORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN &

IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULUM AUDIT

IMPROVEMENT PLANCREATE AND IMPLEMENT

External personnel to revise and assist school implement the most

rigorous plan or, as necessary,PHASE-OUT /CLOSURE

Oversight& Support

SED provides TA to districts: sustaining greater latitude and more responsibility for

addressing schools

SED empowers districts: gives them the support and assistance necessary to take primary

responsibility for developing and implementing improvement strategies

SED & its agents work in direct partnership with the

district

School Report Cards

Emma Kimek 2009 66

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.emsc.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 the office at (518) 474-7965

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

Whom to Contactfor Further Information