Meeting of the Board of Regents | April 2003

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

TO:

The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents

FROM:

James A. Kadamus

COMMITTEE:

Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education

TITLE OF ITEM:

Discussion of Implementation of No Child Left Behind Accountability Plan

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

April 11, 2003

PROPOSED HANDLING:

Discussion

RATIONALE FOR ITEM:

Policy Direction

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goals 1 and 2

AUTHORIZATION(S):

Issue

Component of Approved Plan

Recommendations for Implementation

Basic defined as performance at Level 1 on the grades 4 and 8 ELA and math assessments. Proficiency defined as Level 3. Advanced defined as Level 4. In addition, the Regents have established a fourth level, Basic Proficiency, which is defined as performance at Level 2.

Implement as described.

Basic defined as a score below 55 on the Regents. Proficiency defined as a score between 65 and 84. Advanced defined as a score of 85 or above. In addition, the Regents have established a fourth level, Basic Proficiency, which is defined as a score between 55-64. Students who pass an approved alternative to a Regents exam are considered proficient. Students with disabilities who pass the appropriate RCTs are considered to have demonstrated basic proficiency.

Implement as described.

School Performance Index (SPI). The School Accountability Performance Index ranges from 0-200 and will be calculated by adding the percentage of students who perform at or above Level 2 to the percentage of students who perform at or above Level 3. A school in which all students perform at Level 1 will have a SPI of 0. A school in which all students perform at or above Level 3 will have a SPI of 200. The goal is that by 2013-2014 all students will perform at or above Level 3 and, therefore, all schools and districts in the State will have a SPI of 200 for all groups for which they are accountable.

Implement as described.

High School Performance Index based on Annual High School Cohort. (The High School Performance Index will range from 0-200 and will be calculated by adding the percentage of students in the cohort who scored 55 or above on a Regents exam or passed the RCTs to the percentage of students who scored 65 and above.) The High School Cohort measures the percentage of students in a school or district who have met the State standards within four years of first entry into ninth grade or, for ungraded students with disabilities, within four years of attainment of age 17.

Implement as described.

Elementary and Middle-Level Science Examination until Annual Attendance Rate can be calculated for disaggregated groups. The elementary science indicator shall be based on the percentage of students passing the examination. The middle-level science indicator shall be calculated using a Performance Index that ranges from 0-200, with one index point given for each percentage point of students who perform at Level 2 and two index points given for each percentage point of students performing at or above Level 3.

The standard for elementary- and middle-level science should be considered to be a level equivalent to "farthest from State standards." In other words, the standard should not be set in terms of the ceiling to which all schools should aspire but rather the floor below which performance is not acceptable. The proposed numeric targets are a 40 percent proficiency rate on the grade 4 science test and an index of 80 on the grade 8 science test. The Commissioner, may in future years, raise these standards.

Percentage of students who have graduated from high school within four years of first entry into ninth grade or, for ungraded students with disabilities, by age 21 as measured by the annual high school graduation rate cohort (the annual high school cohort plus students excluded from the cohort solely because they transferred to a GED program). An exception will be made for State-approved, five-year high school programs that result in the receipt of a special certification in addition to a high school diploma, in which case the graduation rate will be determined at the end of five years. Beginning with the cohort of students who first enter ninth grade in 2003-2004, the definition of the graduation cohort will be expanded so that schools and districts will also be held accountable for all students who are enrolled in the school for a minimum of five months between grades 9 and 12 and do not transfer to another diploma-granting program.

The standard for high school graduation rate should be considered to be a level equivalent to "farthest from State standards." There are several reasons for initially setting a modest standard:

• New York has not previously set a goal of having students graduate within four years.
• It can be expected that many groups, such as newly arrived immigrants or certain students with disabilities, will typically need more than four years to graduate.
• Schools and districts were not aware of this standard when these students first entered high school four years ago.
• The minimum requirements for high school graduation rate are scheduled to become more rigorous over time.

The Department is conducting studies on what the graduation rate should be. The Commissioner may raise this standard over time.

The Annual Measurable Objectives for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years shall be the same as the baseline established for the Grade 4 and 8 ELA and math assessments expressed in terms of the School Accountability Performance Index and the High School Accountability Performance Index. Beginning in 2004-2005, the Annual Measurable Objective shall be increased in equal annual increments until, by 2013-2014, the Annual Measurable Objective shall be a Performance Index of 200, which requires that 100 percent of students tested achieve proficiency.

Establish the baseline using 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school year results for grades 4 and 8 ELA and math results. Use 2001-2002 to establish the baseline for high school ELA and math. Using the methodology required by NCLB, the Annual Measurable Objectives for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years would be the following Performance Indices:

Grade 4 ELA: 123

Grade 4 Math: 136

Grade 8 ELA: 107

Grade 8 Math 81

HS ELA: 142

HS Math: 132

Separate measures shall be maintained for elementary, middle, and high school English language arts and math until 2005-2006 when grades 3-8 assessments are instituted. At that time, a single grades 3-8 Performance Index for English language arts and a single index for mathematics will be used for accountability and a new baseline shall be established.

Implement as described.

The most recent school-year results will be used for accountability purposes, except when the number of students would be insufficient to hold the school or district accountable for the performance of any group of students. In those instances, the results from the prior year will be aggregated with the current-year results for accountability purposes. In addition, the initial baseline for grades 4 and 8 English language arts and math shall be established using an average of the results from the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years.

Combine results for the current and the previous school years when there are fewer than 30 continuously enrolled students on a performance measure for which a school or district can be held accountable using the most current school year results.

A minimum size of 40 students for school and district accountability. The Department is continuing to consider the possibility of the use of a confidence interval and may in the future seek approval for its use.

A confidence interval would be used for accountability purposes and the minimum "n" size would be set at 30 for accountability and 40 for participation. An accountability group would be deemed to have made AYP if its results are not significantly different than the target. The safe harbor targets would be set for two years in advance rather than annually and would require the gap to be closed by 19 percent. Using a confidence interval and a minimum size of 30 would both increase reliability and the number of groups for which schools and districts would be held accountable. (This change will require USDOE approval.)

11. LEP/ELL Results

For certain LEP/ELL students, the student�s performance on the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) will be used to determine whether a student�s performance in English language arts for grades 4 and 8 is considered to be equivalent to Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 for purposes of inclusion in the School Accountability Performance Index.

Implement as described. SED will be required to submit the NYSESLAT at a later date to USDOE for peer review.

Special education students participating in the regular assessment program are held to the same accountability standards as all other students. Special education students meeting graduation assessment requirements with an RCT are included in the Performance Index as Level 2 students. Until the Secretary of Education issues final regulations, students participating in the alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilities will be held to the same grade level academic content and achievement standards as all students. This will result in all students participating in alternate assessments to be deemed for accountability purposes to be performing at Level 1. Once final regulations have been promulgated, the Department will take full advantage of any opportunities offered for determining AYP that allow for the use of alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

SED will take full advantage of any final USDOE rule-making that permits alternate assessment results to be incorporated into the index based on a student�s level of performance on the alternate assessment. USDOE has recently proposed regulations that would impose a one percent cap on the use of an alternate assessment by students with the most significant cognitive disabilities for accountability purposes, with waivers available to LEAs that can demonstrate circumstances exist that could explain the higher percentages, such as a school, district or program that has drawn families of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities or a small student population that results in very few students exceeding the cap. If necessary, SED will develop a mechanism for adjusting the index of schools or districts that exceed the cap and do not qualify for a waiver under the Federal regulations.

Disaggregated performance of students from feeder schools on the grade 4 State assessments will be used for accountability purposes.

Implement as described, except that in K-1 schools, instead of the use of "backmapping," schools will be required to conduct a self-assessment in a form, according to such timeline, and using such procedures as determined by the Commissioner and submit the information to SED. Any other schools that have fewer than the required "n" for accountability even after two years of data are aggregated would also be subject to these provisions. When annual testing in grades 3-8 begins in 2005-2006, K-1 schools, but not K only schools, will also be held accountable using the backmapping methodology.

14. District Accountability

District accountability measures will be based on the aggregation of all students attending schools in the district and students who the district places outside of the district, such as BOCES programs, approved private special education placements, etc. All groups of students for which an AYP is established must achieve the AYP for the district to be deemed to have made AYP.

Implement as described.

All districts are required to develop Local Assistance Plans (LAPs) for any school below the State standard. (Currently, the State standard is a Performance Index of 150 in grades 4 and 8 ELA and math and 90 percent of students meeting the cohort requirements in high school ELA and math. The State standard applies only to aggregate school performance.) Non-Title I schools will be required to do school improvement and corrective action plans according to same rules for identification as Title I schools, but Section 1116 requirements (i.e., choice and supplementary education services) will not apply to Non-Title I schools. Schools that move in and out of Title I status will reenter the Title I accountability system in the same status that they left the system, unless they made AYP while a non-Title I school.

Local Assistance Plans would still be required for schools whose "all student" performance is below a benchmark established by the Commissioner. The plans would be required to be adopted by a Board of Education by October 15 and implemented immediately, instead of the current deadline of January 15. Local Assistance Plans will be required only for schools below the benchmark in ELA and math, not graduation rate or science. A district does not have to do a separate Local Assistance Plan if it includes similar information in a CDEP or if a school is implementing a school improvement, corrective action or restructuring plan.

A school moves along the State continuum regardless of its Title I status. A school moves along the Title I continuum in those years in which Title I funds are received. Thus, if a Title I school was in its fifth year of being required to make academic progress but had never failed to make AYP for two consecutive years as a Title I School, the school would be required to implement restructuring but would not be required to offer choice or supplementary education services. Schools that move between Title I and Non-Title I status would have a dual designation, i.e., "School Requiring Academic Progress: Year 4/ Title I School In Need of Improvement: Year 1."

School improvement, corrective action, and restructuring under the State system will apply to both Title I and Non-Title I Schools. The only difference between the consequences for Title I and Non-Title I schools would be that Non-Title I schools would not be required to take those actions that are directly supported by Title I funds (i.e., choice and supplementary education services.) At the district level, there would only be State Districts Requiring Academic Progress. There would not be Non-Title I Corrective Action Districts. Districts would be required to submit to SED by August 1 a list of schools that will receive Title I funds the next school year.

Schools and districts that achieve the State standard and make AYP for all disaggregated groups will be designated as "high performing." Schools and districts that do not make all State standards but make AYP for three consecutive years will be designated as "rapidly improving." As part of NCLB, New York will continue to have a Title I distinguished school and educator program and will consider expanding it to non-Title I schools.

Implement as described. Identification would occur for high performing schools and districts based on 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 data. Rapidly improving schools and districts would be based on three years of NCLB data: 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005. In addition, if schools have three or fewer disaggregated groups, the Commissioner may make a decision not to designate the school or district.

Schools and districts that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject and in the same grade, even if the failure is with different subgroups, will be identified for improvement.

Implement as described. Both Title I and Non-Title I districts would be subject to improvement but only Title I districts would be subject to corrective action.

If a restructured school fails to make AYP for two consecutive years within a three-year period following restructuring, the school must do a new restructuring plan.