update on middle level accountability may 2006. “…to ensure that all children have a fair,...
TRANSCRIPT
Update on Middle Level Accountability
May 2006
“…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”
Purpose of Purpose of No Child Left BehindNo Child Left Behind
Developing Better Citizens Is Seen Developing Better Citizens Is Seen As A More Critical Goal For As A More Critical Goal For
SchoolsSchools
57%
36%
6%
58%
38%
4%
Developing better citizens Improving achievement Both equally
All Parents
There are two important tasks in public schools today – developing better citizens and improving achievement. If you had to prioritize, which would you say is more critical to the future of the country – developing better citizens or improving achievement?
N=1,000N=1,000 – March 2004AASA Polling by Ipsos Public Affairs, August 2004
Basic Rules for State andFederal Accountability
Improvement Status Identification• A school that fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two
consecutive years in the same level and subject is identified for improvement.
• If a previously identified school fails to make AYP in the level 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 level, the school must make AYP in that subject and level for two consecutive years. The school may remain or be placed in improvement status in another subject and/or level for which it has not made AYP.
Sample Identifications of School for Improvement Status
School A fails to make AYP in the following groups:–Grade 4 ELA White Students in 2004–05–Grade 3-8 Math Economically Disadvantaged Students in 2005–06
School A is not identified for improvement because it has not failed to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject and level.
School B fails to make AYP in the following groups:–Grade 4 ELA Asian Students in 2004–05–Grade 3-8 ELA LEP Students in 2005–06
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).
Grades and Levels
For 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-05 School Years, NY had three grade levels:
–Elementary (Grade 4)–Middle (Grade 8)–High School
Beginning in 2005-2006, NY has two grade levels:
- Elementary-Middle (Grades 3-8)- High School
• Each district is treated as if it were “one big school.”• District accountability is computed by subject (i.e. ELA) not by subject and
level (i.e. ELA 3-8) as is the case for school accountability• 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 (e.g., in BOCES, approved private placements).
• For a district to make AYP in a subject it must make AYP at any level in that subject.
• For example, if a district makes AYP in Grade 3-8 ELA and fails to make AYP in High School ELA, it still gets credit for making AYP in ELA.
• Beginning with 2005-06, there are only “two bites at the apple,” not three.
District-Level Accountability
Federal Status
Restructuring6
Planning for Restructuring5
Corrective Action4
School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 2
3
School in Need of Improvement (SINI) — Year 1
2*
Good Standing1
Status
Years of Failure Under Title I to Make AYP in a
Subject and Grade
*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.
State Status
SRAP 5 - Restructuring6
SRAP 4 - Planning for Restructuring5
SRAP 3 – Corrective Action4
SRAP — Year 23
School Requiring Academic Progress (SRAP) — Year 1
2*
Good Standing1
Status
Years of Failure Under Title I to Make AYP in a
Subject and Grade
*SRAPs are not required to offer choice or SES.
Holding Schools Accountable: The Bottom LineHow Many Schools Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)?
3,9454,305
42031
2,959
3,576
2003-04 2004-05
Number of SchoolsEvaluatedMade AYP
Special Evaluation
Overall, the percentage of schools making AYP on all measures increased from 75.0 to 83.1%.
Grade 3-8 Testing: What We Know Now
• We must begin to use Grade 3-8 Results for Accountability Purposes beginning with the 2005-2006 School Year
• We have sought USDOE approval to:– Create a single Performance Index for ELA and a single
Performance Index for math to measure performance of elementary and middle schools.
– Adjust AMO’s and Safe Harbors to reflect new Performance Index.
• We will not be one of the states piloting the use of a growth model.
Things We Don’t Know as of May 2006
• What will be the Grade 3-8 AMOs for 2005-2006 and beyond?
• What will be the Safe Harbor targets for schools in 2005-2006?
Calculating the Grade 3-8 Performance Index
Grade Number Levels of Students 1 2 3 4
6 60 14 14 20 127 80 6 12 40 228 60 12 20 20 8TOTAL 200 32 46 80 42Total % 16% 23% 40% 21%Index = (23+40+21+40+21)=145
Calculating the Grade 3-8 Performance Index for SWDs
Grade Number Levels of Students 1 2 3 4
6 10 5 5 0 07 15 8 5 2 08 15 2 10 3 0TOTAL 40 15 20 5 0Total % 38% 50% 13% 0%Index = 76
Students with Disabilities: Percent of Schools Not Making AYP 2003-04
67%
34%
58%
42%
59%55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Grade 4 ELAGrade 4 MathGrade 8 ELAGrade 8 MathHS ELAHS Math
School Year Elementary-Level Middle-Level Secondary-Level
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
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
Annual Measurable Objectives for2004–05 to 2013–14
School Year Elementary & Middle-Level Secondary-Level
ELA Math ELA Math
2005–06 X X 154 146
2006–07 X X 159 152
2007–08 X X 165 159
2008–09 X+Y X+Y 171 166
2009–10 X+2Y X+2Y 177 173
2010–11 X+3Y X+3Y 183 180
2011–12 X+4Y X+4Y 188 186
2012–13 X+5Y X+5Y 194 193
2013–14 200 200 200 200
Annual Measurable Objectives for2005–06 to 2013–14
– STEP 1: Determine the percentage of students who are enrolled in buildings below the Grade 4 and 8 2004-2005 AMOs.
– STEP 2: Using 2005-06 Grade 3-8 Performance Index, determine the AMO which would result in the same percentage of students being enrolled in schools below that AMO as were enrolled in schools below the AMO in 2004-2005.
– STEP 3: Maintain same AMO for 2006-07 and then increment annually beginning in 2008-2009 to reach 200 in 2013-14
Possible Adjustment Strategy for AMO
Possible Adjustment Strategy for AMO
Example:– In 2004-2005 the Grade 4 ELA AMO is 131 and the Grade 8 ELA
AMO is 116.– Assume that 7,000 out of 100,000 4th graders are enrolled in schools
that have a PI for the all student group below 131 and 11,000 out of 100,000 8th graders are enrolled in schools with a PI below 116. Therefore, 9% ((7,000+11,000)/200,000) of students are enrolled in schools below the AMO.
– Calculate the grade 3-8 PI for all schools using 2005-06 results. Array schools from highest to lowest performing.
– Assume that 9% of grade 3-8 students are enrolled in schools with a PI below 118.
– The AMO for 2005-2006 will be 118.
Modified Standards and Assessments for Students with Disabilities
• USDOE is preparing regulations to permit the use of modified standards and assessments with up to 2% of a State’s students (i.e. the 2% cap.)
• For 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, states can apply to USDOE for permission to make a statistical adjustment to the performance of the SWD subgroup.
• In 2004-2005, NY applied and received permission to use the adjustment for Grade 4 ELA and math and Grade 8 ELA results only.
• In NY, the adjustment results in an addition of 34 points to the Performance Index of the SWD subgroup.
• For 2005-2006, NY has asked for permission to use the 34 point adjustment for both Grade 3-8 ELA and math.
• The adjustment was available only if the sole reason a school or district fails to make AYP on an accountability criterion was the academic performance of the SWD subgroup.
• If the adjusted index for the SWD subgroup exceeds the AMO then the school or district is deemed to have made AYP on that accountability criterion.
.
Testing Students with Disabilities: 2005-06
Students should be reported for assessment and accountability purposes as ungraded if:
• The student participates in the New York State Alternate Assessment
• The student is receiving instruction in both ELA and math that is at least three years below that of their non-disabled peers because of the student’s cognitive deficits or intellectual capacity.
• If the student is ungraded, the student should be administered the assessments that are two years below those typically taken by their non-disabled peers.
• It is anticipated that only a small percentage of students will be reported as ungraded.
• Testing procedures for 2006-07 are TBD.
Scheduled Changes to NCLB Accountability Workbook
• Attendance Rate becomes third academic indicator for elementary and middle grades in 2007-2008.
• Beginning with 2002 accountability cohort, ELA and math cohort defined as students who were first enrolled in ninth grade four years previously and were enrolled in a school on BEDS day of year four. (Used to determine whether school made AYP in 2005-2006.)
• Beginning with 2003 graduation cohort (used to determine AYP in 2007-2008), a student is included in the cohort based on the year they first enter grade 9. A student who has spent at least five months in a district/school in that year or in year 2, 3, or 4 is part of the district/school cohort unless they transfer to another diploma-granting program.
Implications of Changes
• Graduation Rate and ELA and math accountability cohort will become more independent.
• Accountability cohort will include more students who transfer into a school but will exclude more dropouts.
• Graduation cohort will include more students who drop out.
NCLB Amendments Requests Submitted to USDOE
• Make AYP determinations after the start of the 2006-2007 school year for Grade 3-8 Assessments.
• Transition from science to attendance in 2007-2008 and use both for one year during transition.
• Revise definition of LEP and SWD subgroup once student data repository is in place to include former LEP and SWD students.
• Eliminate use of first test score for high school cohort.
• Combine Grade 4 and 8 Science into a single indicator.
Be on the Lookout in 2006-07 For:
• New rules for participation of LEP students in ELA assessments.
• New guidance on testing of ungraded SWDs.• Announcement of new graduation rate standards
and attendance standards.
Challenges Ahead
• Single Grade 3-8 Performance Index makes schools and districts responsible for more disaggregated groups.
• New standard setting for grade 3-8 assessments may challenge middle schools even more.
• Changes in testing practices for LEP students may require greater emphasis on rapid English acquisition than bilingual fluency.
• New graduation standards will raise expectations for middle schools.
How to Get Ahead of the Wave
• Ensure The Rules are Understood by the Persons who Are Accountable
• Have a Process in Place to Ensure Data is Accurate
• Adapt and Adjust to New Circumstances
• Be Prepared to Abandon Some Old Favorites
• Keep Watching the Horizon
• Be Prepared to Deal with Uncertainty
• Remember: Good Instruction Usually Leads to Good Accountability Results
If You Take Away Nothing Else..
• If a schools fails to make AYP, it is most often because of the performance of its most vulnerable populations, but
• Systemic problems most often manifest themselves in the most vulnerable populations.
More Information
Ira Schwartz, Coordinator
Accountability, Policy, and Administration
New York State Education Department
Office of School Improvement and Community Services
718 722-2796