Implementation of the State Repository System

1
Implementation of the State Repository System
The New York State Education Department
March 2006
2
Repository System Goal

• To consolidate the Departments collection of
  individual student data in the repository system
  

3
Time Lines

• In 2005-06, all K-8 data formerly reported in
  LEAP must be submitted through the State
  Repository System.
• In 2005-06, high school data will continue to be
  reported in STEP as we transition to full
  implementation of the new system.
• By the 2006-07 school year, all data elements now
  reported through STEP, LEAP and selected other
  Department data collection forms will be reported
  through the State Repository System.

4
Repository System

• Level 1 Repository (regional)data will be moved
  from district student management system to Level
  1. After district verifies accuracy data will be
  moved to
• Level 2 Repository (statewide)
• includes student name and unique identifier
• source of individual and summary performance
  reports and verification reports.

5
Repository System (continued)

• Level 3 Repository (State use)
• data for school report cards and accountability
  decisions
• to protect student privacy no student names and
  unique identifiers are encrypted

6
Annual Reporting Database

• Created using aggregated student data on the
  Level 3 Repository
• Used to produce the NYS Report Cards and
• Summary reports and data analyses available to
  the public

7
Accountability Database

• Created using data on the Level 3 Repository
• Contains data used to determine AYP and
  accountability status
• Used to produce the NYS Accountability Report and
  
• summary reports and data analyses available to
  the public

8
New York State Student Identification System
(NYSSIS)

• Purpose to assign a stable, unique student
  identifier (10-digit number) to every
  pre-kindergarten through grade 12 student in New
  York State public school when he/she first
  enrolls.
• Unique identifiers will
• enhance student data reporting
• improve data quality
• ensure that students can be tracked
  longitudinally as they transfer between districts
• Update of Current Status

9
Unique Identifier Auditing System (UIAS)

• UIAS will ensure that
• two districts do not submit records with the same
  unique student identifier showing simultaneous
  enrollment and
• appropriate records for students with unique
  identifiers claimed by each school district or
  charter school are reported.

10
Implementation
11
Data Administrator

• Districts are strongly advised to appoint a data
  administrator to
• coordinate and lead the collection of data,
• oversee changes in and maintenance of the local
  data management system, and
• chair a committee of district staff charged with
  ensuring the accuracy of data.

12
Local Data Systems

• To facilitate transfer of data to Level 1, the
  local students management system should
• contain accurate and complete data for State
  reporting and
• subscribe to the appropriate standards for format
  and content.

13
Moving District Data to Level 1

• Districts must transfer student data from their
  student management system(s) to the Level 1
  Repository.
• Scan centers and student-management-system
  vendors can assist districts with developing
  procedures for transforming data to the required
  format.
• In 2005-06, Level 0 will be available for
  entering data not available in the local student
  management system into Level 1.

14
nySTART Data Verification

• Provides verification reports with individual
  student data and summary counts to ensure that
  data are accurate. If errors are found, districts
  must correct data in the district source systems
  and transfer corrected data to the Level 1
  Repository.
• The district must certify that the Level 1
  Repository data are accurate. Data must be
  certified to be accurate by district officials
  before being moved to Level 2 for stated use.

15
Data Verification Level 2

• Provides additional verification reports,
  allowing districts to preview their report card
  and accountability data.
• These reports will provide districts with a
  second opportunity to identify and correct errors
  in their source systems.
• At scheduled intervals, selected data will be
  transferred from the Level 2 to the Level 3
  Repository. This will happen for the first time
  in July or August.

16
Responsibilities of District and School
Administrators in 2005-06

• Arrange to participate in a Level 1 Repository
  (required of all districts outside the Big 5).
• Designate a Data Administrator.
• Obtain unique identifiers for students enrolled
  in the district, including students in
  out-of-district placements. Student records
  cannot be moved to the Level 2 Repository without
  unique statewide identifiers.
• Review the Data Standards manual.
• Determine whether each required data element is
  present or missing on the local student
  management system. Develop short- and long-term
  plans for providing the missing data elements.

17
Responsibilities
 

• Identify the location of all required data in the
  district and the person responsible for each data
  element.
• Determine if the local system(s) include records
  for all students for whom the district has
  reporting responsibility, including students
  placed out of district. Create records for
  missing students.
• Create a process for transforming data in the
  local student management system to the format
  specified in the 2005-06 Dictionary of Reporting
  Data Elements and the eScholar templates.

18
Responsibilities
 

• Provide student records with required data
  elements to the Level 1 Repository on the
  required schedule.
• The Data Coordinator should coordinate the
  districts verification process to ensure that
  district report cards and accountability status
  are correct.
• Review the data requirements for 2006-07 and
  succeeding years as they are published.

19

• Using the Repository to Improve Performance

20
Reports from the Repository

• Designed to enable school administrators,
  teachers and parents to better meet the
  instructional needs of individual students.
• Eventually include almost all State exams
• Available to all public schools and BOCES using
  Analytical Tool
• Continual improvement based on feedback

21
Authorization and Authentication

• Welcome packet provided User ID and password for
  interim system.
• In July, a sophisticated security system will be
  introduced.
• School administrators will be able to authorize
  staff to obtain individual user IDs and passwords.

22
Authorization and Authentication (continued)

• Authorization can be provided at different
  levels, consistent with FERPA
• District-level aggregated data
• Districtwide individual student data
• School-level aggregated data
• Schoolwide individual student data
• individual student data at a single grade level

23
Reports from the Repository

• Individual Student Reports for grades 3-8 and
  NYSAA
• Tailored to student grade and performance level
• Parent report will include Web address with
  additional information appropriate for students
  at that level
• District and School summary reports, showing
  subgroup performance and beginning in 2006-07
  showing longitudinal performance

24
Reports from the Repository

• Item/performance indicator analyses, as
  appropriate District and School summary reports,
  showing subgroup performance and beginning in
  2006-07 showing longitudinal performance

25
nySTART Uses

• Provides guided analysis to direct user to
  appropriate reports
• Access standard reports and analyses, using data
  from the grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments, the
  NYS Alternate Assessment (NYSAA), and,
  ultimately, other State assessments, including
  Regents examinations
• Access reports based on factors such as grade,
  age, disability, LEP status, race/ethnicity to
  meet the unique needs of districts and schools

26
Analytical Tool Uses

• View individual student records based on the
  Level 2 Repositories
• Access the verification reports needed to certify
  data accuracy
• Provide school superintendents with access to the
  New York State Report Cards before they are
  publicly available
• Provide public access to summary reports and data
  analyses on the Annual Reporting Database

27
NYS Virtual Learning System

• VLS provides instructional content to teachers
  that will enable students to meet the States
  learning standards. The Web portal
• organizes resources and tools to provide
  one-stop shopping for instructional needs
• eliminates the time and effort that is involved
  in searching for and researching appropriate
  educational resources
• ensures that resources are of high quality
• provides online professional development
  opportunities

28
TrainingJuly and August

• Understanding and Using the Security System
• Understanding the Individual Student Reports
• Using nySTART to improve instruction and
  curriculum

29
School and District Accountability Rules
Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The New York State Education Department
March 2006
30
Calculating the Grades 3-8 Performance Index for
Schools with Grades 3-5

• Test Number 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
• TOTAL 108 21 23 40 24
• Index ((2340244024)/108)100140

Note The methodology is the same regardless of
how many grade levels (3-8) a school serves.
31
Participation Rate Elementary-Middle Level
For an accountability group with 40 or more
students to make Adequate Yearly Progress in
English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, 95
percent of students enrolled at the time of test
administration must have valid scores on an
appropriate assessment. In 200506, if the
participation rate of an accountability group
falls below 95 percent, the Department will
calculate a weighted average of the 200405 and
200506 participation rates. If the average
participation rate equals or exceeds 95 percent,
the group will meet the participation
requirement. Sample calculation for group below
95 percent participation in 200506
32
Participation Rule for Grades 4 and 8 Science

• Beginning in 2005-06, to make AYP in science, a
  district or school with at least 40 students in
  the all student group (composed of grade 4
  and/or grade 8 students) must have valid science
  scores for at least 80 percent of those enrolled
  students.

33
Participation Rate Secondary Level
For an accountability group with 40 or more
students to make Adequate Yearly Progress in
English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, 95
percent of seniors must take an assessment that
meets the students graduation requirement in
that subject. In 200506, if the participation
rate of an accountability group falls below 95
percent, the Department will calculate a weighted
average of the 200405 and 200506 participation
rates. If the average participation rate equals
or exceeds 95 percent, the group will meet the
participation requirement. Seniors are
students whose STEP record for the district or
school reports them as enrolled in grade 12 on
June 30, 2006 or as enrolled in grade 12 during
the 200506 school year and graduated on June
30, 2006. All students meeting these criteria
will be counted as seniors, including students
who are not included in the district or school
accountability cohort. Student working toward
an IEP may take the NYSAA.
34
High School Accountability Cohorts for 2005-06
35
Guide to Accountability Cohorts

• High schools are accountable for three areas
• English and mathematics performance
• English and mathematics participation and
• graduation rate.
• A different cohort of students is measured in
  each of these areas. Further, the cohort used to
  measure English and mathematics performance has
  been redefined beginning with the 2002 cohort
  the cohort used to measure graduation rate has
  been redefined beginning with the 2003 cohort.
  (See Section on Future Cohorts for 2003 Cohort
  definition.)

36
2005-06 High School Accountability
37
2002 Accountability Cohort Definition

• This cohort will be used to determine if the
  district or school met the performance
  requirements in English and mathematics at the
  secondary level for the 200506 school year. The
  2002 accountability cohort consists of all
  students, regardless of their current grade
  status, who were enrolled in the school on
  October 6, 2005 (BEDS day) and met one of the
  following conditions
• first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the
  200203 school year (July 1, 2002 through June
  30, 2003) or
• in the case of ungraded students with
  disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday
  during the 200203 school year.

38
2002 Accountability Cohort Definition (contd)

• The State will exclude the following students
  when reporting data on the 2002 accountability
  cohort
• students who transferred to another high school
  or criminal justice facility after BEDS day 2005
• students who transferred to an approved
  alternative high school equivalency preparation
  (AHSEP) or high school equivalency preparation
  (HSEP) program (CR 100.7) after BEDS day 2005 and
  met the conditions stated on the next slide
• students who left the U.S. and its territories
  after BEDS day 2005 and
• students who died after BEDS day 2005.

39
2002 Accountability Cohort(Transfers to GED
Removed from Cohort)
Students will be removed from the cohort for the
school and district from which they transferred
to an approved GED program if the final
enrollment record shows that on June 30, 2006 the
student a) has earned a high school equivalency
diploma or b) is enrolled in an approved GED
program. Students will be removed from the school
cohort if the enrollment records show that the
student has transferred to a different high
school and is working toward or has earned a high
school diploma. Students will be removed from the
district cohort if the enrollment records show
that the student has transferred to a high school
in a different district and is working toward or
has earned a high school diploma.
40
2002 Accountability Cohort(Transfers to GED
Remaining in Cohort)
Students will remain in the cohort of the school
and district from which they transferred to an
approved GED program if the final enrollment
record shows that on June 30, 2006 the student
a) has not earned a high school equivalency
diploma b) is not enrolled in an approved GED
program and c) has not transferred to a high
school that provides instruction leading to a
high school diploma. Students who transfer back
to the high school from which they transferred to
an approved GED program without first entering
another high school will remain in the district
and school cohort.
41
Transfers to GED

• On the 2006 STEP file, districts must provide the
  following information for students who transfer
  to approved GED programs during the 2004-05 or
  2005-06 school years (as defined in CR 100.7)
• The ending reason on the enrollment record for
  the high school must be transferred to approved
  GED program.
• The GED enrollment record must provide a service
  provider code for an approved GED program.

42
Transfers to GED (continued)

• If the student is not enrolled in the GED program
  on June 30, 2006, 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.

43
Graduation Rate2001 Cohort for 200506
2001 Graduation-Rate Cohort Members of the 2001
school accountability cohort students
eliminated from that cohort solely because they
transferred to a GED program. 2001 Graduation
Rate Number of graduation-rate cohort members
who earned a Regents or local diploma on or
before August 31, 2005 number of
graduation-rate cohort members. Example 2001
school accountability cohort count
153 Students eliminated from this cohort because
they transferred to a GED program
7 Graduation-rate cohort (2001 school
accountability cohort count) 153 (students
eliminated from the cohort because they
transferred to a GED program) 7 160 2001
graduation-rate cohort members who earned a
Regents or local diploma on or before August 31,
2005 129 Graduation Rate (Percent of 2001
Graduation-Rate Cohort Earning a Local Diploma by
August 31, 2005) 129 (153 7) 80.6
44
2001 Accountability Cohort Definition

• This cohort is used to determine AYP in English
  and mathematics at the secondary level for the
  200405 school year. The 2001 accountability
  cohort consists of all students, regardless of
  their current grade status, who were enrolled in
  the school on October 8, 2003 (BEDS day) and met
  one of the following conditions
• first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the
  200102 school year (July 1, 2001 through June
  30, 2002) or
• in the case of ungraded students with
  disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday
  during the 200102 school year.

45
2001 Accountability Cohort Definition

• The State will exclude the following students
  when reporting data on the 2001 accountability
  cohort
• students who transferred to another high school,
  criminal justice facility, or alternative high
  school equivalency preparation program after BEDS
  day 2003
• students who left the U.S. and its territories
  after BEDS day 2003 and
• students who died after BEDS day 2003.

46
Accountability Standards
47
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and State
Standards for 200506
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
States learning standards in ELA and math by
201314. The State Standards are the PI values
that signify minimally satisfactory performance
in science or graduation rate.

• Elementary-Middle Level
• English Language Arts AMO PI TBD
• Mathematics AMO PI TBD
• Science State Standard 100
• Secondary Level
• English Language Arts AMO PI of 154
• Mathematics AMO PI of 146
• Graduation-Rate State Standard 55 (may be
  raised by the Commissioner)

48
Annual Measurable Objectives for200405 to
201314

• School Year Elementary-Level Middle-Level Secondar
  y-Level
• ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
• 200405 131 142 116 93 148 139
• 200506 154 146
• 200607 159 152
• 200708 165 159
• 200809 171 166
• 200910 177 173
• 201011 183 180
• 201112 188 186
• 201213 194 193
• 201314 200 200 200 200 200 200

49
Confidence Intervals Were Used toDetermine
Effective AMOs
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.
Annual Measurable Objective
50
Effective AMOs

• An Effective AMO is the lowest PI that an
  accountability group of a given size can achieve
  in a subject for the groups 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.

Grades 3-8 Effective AMOs for 200506 will be
determined after operational test data are
available in late summer.
51
Making Safe Harbor
52
200506 Safe Harbor Calculation for ELA and Math

• Safe Harbor is an alternate means to demonstrate
  AYP for accountability groups whose PI is less
  than their Effective AMO. The unadjusted Safe
  Harbor Target calculation for ELA and math for
  200506 using the 200405 PI is
• Safe Harbor Target 2004-05PI (200
  2004-05PI) ? 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 and
middle levels) or graduation rate (at the
secondary level) qualification for safe harbor.
To qualify at the elementary and middle level,
the group must make the State Standard or its
Progress Target in science in grades 4 and 8 (if
both are included in the school). At the
secondary level, it must make the State Standard
or its Progress Target for graduation rate. Safe
harbor will be adjusted in relation to the new
AMOs for 2005-06.
53
Sample Safe Harbor Calculation based on 2004-05 PI

• 200405 ELA Effective AMO 116 (group size 42)
• 200405 elementary-level ELA PI 107
• 200506 unadjusted Safe Harbor Target
• 107 (200 107) ? 0.10 116
• In 2004-05 this group did not make its Effective
  AMO. It was assigned a safe harbor target for
  2005-06 based on the PI it achieved. This PI will
  be adjusted based on the AMO established for
  grades 3-8 ELA for 2005-06.

54
Adjustment Strategy for Safe Harbor for 2004-05
grade 4 or 8 PIs

• Proportional
• OLD AMO in Grade 4 ELA in 2005-06 138
• OLD Safe Harbor Target for 2005-06 116
• Safe Harbor Target (116) 0.84 of AMO (138)
• Assume NEW AMO for Grades 3-8 in 2005-06 118
• Adjusted Safe Harbor in 2005-06 118 X .84 99
• Tip You can find the unadjusted safe harbor
  target on the district or school accountability
  report available at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts. Only
  accountability groups that either did not make
  AYP in 2004-05 or made AYP using safe harbor will
  have safe harbor targets for 2005-06.

55
Safe Harbor Adjustment Strategy for Schools with
Grades 4 and 8 (1)

• Calculate adjusted 2005-06 safe harbor targets
  based on 2004-05 PIs at grades 4 and 8 (use
  procedure in Slide 33).
• Grade 4 adjusted safe harbor target 99
• Grade 8 adjusted safe harbor target 92
• If a group met or exceeded its Effective AMO in
  2004-05, the safe harbor target for 2005-06 will
  be its 2005-06 Effective AMO.
• 2004-05 Effective AMO 116
• 2004-05 PI 117
• 2005-06 target 2005-06 Effective AMO

56
Safe Harbor Adjustment Strategy for Schools with
Grades 4 and 8 (2)

• Calculate the weighted average of the adjusted
  safe harbor targets.

57
Science and Graduation RateQualifying for Safe
Harborin ELA and Math in 200506

• To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math
  at the elementary and middle level, the PI for
  elementary- and middle-level science combined for
  a group must equal or exceed the State Standard
  (100) or the groups Progress Target.
• To qualify to make safe harbor in ELA and math
  at the secondary level, the percent of the 2001
  graduation-rate cohort earning a local diploma by
  August 31, 2005 must equal or exceed the State
  Standard (55 percent) or the groups Progress
  Target for secondary-level graduation rate.

58
Sample Qualification for ELA Safe Harbor for
Group in School with Grades 6-8

• 200405 Middle-Level Science PI 97
• 200506 Science Progress Target 97 1 98
• 200506 Science PI 99
• 200506 Science State Standard 100
• Though this groups PI for 200506 (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.

59
High School Accountability Cohorts for 2006-07
and 2007-08
60
2006-07 High School Accountability
61
2007-08 High School Accountability
62
2003 Graduation-Rate Cohort

• Beginning with the 2003 graduation-rate cohort
  (used for accountability in 2007-08)
• students are included in the cohort based on the
  year they first enter grade 9 (or for ungraded
  students, the year they turn 17).
• students who have spent at least five months in a
  district/school during year 1, 2, 3, or 4 of high
  school are part of the district/school cohort
  unless they transfer to another diploma-granting
  program.

63
Inclusion Rules for the 2003 Graduation-Rate
Cohort

• A student will be included in the district/school
  cohort if the students last enrollment record in
  the district or school shows
• that the student was enrolled for at least five
  continuous (not including July and August) months
  and the ending reason was not one of the
  following transferred to another New York State
  district or school, died, transferred by court
  order, or left the U.S.
• less than five months enrollment and an ending
  reason indicating that the student dropped out or
  transferred to a GED program and the students
  previous enrollment record in that
  district/school (assuming one exists)
• indicates that the student dropped out or
  transferred to a GED program, and
• that the student was enrolled in the
  district/school for at least five months.

64
2003 Graduation Rate Cohort Examples

• Students included in the West High School cohort
• A student who entered grade 9 at the school in
  September 2003 and dropped out in the March 2004
  and did not reenter a diploma-granting program
  (enrolled for five months).
• A student who entered grade 9 at another school
  in September 2003 and transferred to West in
  September 2006 and remained enrolled until
  February 2007 (enrolled for five months).

65
2003 Graduation Rate Cohort Examples

• Students not included in the West High School
  cohort
• A student who entered grade 9 at the school in
  September 2003 and dropped out in December 2003
  and did not reenter a degree-granting program
  (not enrolled for five months).
• A student who entered grade 9 at another school
  in September 2003 and transferred to West in
  September 2006 and dropped out in December 2006
  (not enrolled for five months).

66
Accountability for Students with Disabilities
67
New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA)

• NYSAA performance levels are counted the same as
  general assessment (NYSTP) 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 proficient and advanced proficient scores on
  the NYSAA.
• In 200506, to meet this requirement, districts
  that have more than one percent of their
  continuously enrolled students performing at
  Levels 3 and 4 on the NYSAA have to count some of
  these students at Level 2 when determining PIs.

68
Testing Ungraded Students with Disabilities

• CSE must determine that the student meets
  criteria specified in November 2005 Kadamus-Cort
  memo.
• Students must be administered the correct test
  for their age, as specified in the memo.
• Students earned performance levels will be used
  to calculate the PIs for the school and district
  in which they are enrolled.
• The students enrollment record in the repository
  must show them as ungraded.

69
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with
Disabilities

• Background InformationSlides 8283
• School Eligibility CriteriaSlide 84
• Application of FlexibilitySlide 85 86
• ExamplesSlides 8790

70
Background

• The U. S. Department of Education (USDOE) has
  offered states that meet certain criteria
  flexibility to judge 2 percent of students
  against modified achievement standards.
• We believe USDOE will deem New York State
  eligible to adjust the AYP determination for the
  students with disabilities subgroup for the
  2005-06 school year, as an interim measure until
  measures of modified achievement standards are
  developed.
• This interim AYP adjustment is for the 2005-06
  school year.

71
Criteria for Flexibility

• To be eligible, New York State also had to meet
  certain criteria, including
• demonstrating the improved performance of
  students with disabilities in English and
  mathematics,
• the availability of an Alternate Assessment
  (based on alternate achievement standards),
• appropriate accommodations on all State
  assessments, and
• sound education policies related to students with
  disabilities.
• An additional criterion was that 95 percent of
  students with disabilities statewide at each
  applicable grade level had to be tested in
  English and mathematics in 2004-05.
• In 2004-05 New York State met this criterion on
  four accountability measures elementary- and
  middle-level English language arts (ELA) and
  mathematics. NY did not met the criterion in high
  school ELA or mathematics and is not approved to
  use this flexibility with these criteria.
• NYs plan was approved even though NY indicated
  that the earliest alternate assessments will be
  in place would be 2007-2008.

72
Determining New York States Adjustment

• The adjustment is to be made by dividing 2 by
  the statewide percentage of students with
  disabilities (SWD) and adding that percentage to
  the percent proficient in the SWD group.
• In NY, the percentage of SWDs statewide is 12.
  Therefore, the presumed percentage of SWDs to
  which the 2 cap is applicable is 17 (2 divided
  by 12).
• Under the rules, USDOE allows us to deem an
  additional 17 of students with disabilities
  proficient in 2005-06.
• In NY, students who score at Level 3 are
  considered proficient. An adjustment of 17 would
  equal adding 34 points to the Performance Index.

73
Criteria for Schools To Use Flexibility

• A school or district is eligible to use this
  flexibility on the elementary- middle level
  English language arts (ELA) and/or mathematics
  accountability measures, if it meets the
  following criteria
• The only accountability group that does not make
  AYP on that measure is the students with
  disability group.
• 95 percent of enrolled students with disabilities
  were tested on that measure.

74
Application of Flexibility for Eligible Schools

• If a school meets the criteria, the Department
  will add 34 points to the Performance Index of
  the students with disability group.
• If the adjusted Performance Index equals or
  exceeds the AMO for the measure, the students
  with disability group will be judged to have made
  AYP and the school will make AYP on that measure.
• AMOs for 2005-06 have not been determined.

75
Example 1

• In elementary-middle level ELA, West Elementary
  School is accountable for four groups all
  students, students with disabilities, White
  students, and Black students.
• 95 percent of enrolled students in each group
  were tested.
• The Performance Index of each group except the
  students with disability group exceeded its
  Effective AMO therefore, each group except the
  students with disabilities group made AYP.
• The students with disability group
• Effective AMO 114
• safe harbor target 110
• Performance Index 106 (did not make AYP)
• Because East Elementary School meets the criteria
  to use the flexibility, the Department will add
  34 points to its Performance Index
• 106 34 140
• The adjusted Performance Index is lower than the
  AMO for elementary-middle level ELA (Assume the
  AMO 142).
• Therefore, East is judged to have not made AYP in
  elementary-middle level ELA.

76
Example 2

• In elementary-middle level mathematics, East
  Elementary School is accountable for four groups
  all students, students with disabilities, White
  students, and economically disadvantaged
  students.
• 95 percent of enrolled students in each group
  were tested.
• The Performance Index of each group except the
  students with disability group exceeded its
  Effective AMO therefore, each group except the
  students with disabilities group made AYP.
• The students with disability group
• Effective AMO 114
• safe harbor target 110
• Performance Index 108 (did not make AYP)
• Because West elementary school meets the criteria
  to use the flexibility, the Department will add
  34 points to its Performance Index
• 108 34 142
• The adjusted Performance Index exceeds the AMO
  for elementary-middle level mathematics (Assume
  the AMO 141).
• Therefore, West is judged to have made AYP in
  elementary-middle level mathematics.

77
Accountability for Schools with Special
Circumstances
78
Accountability for Schools That Serve Only
Students Below Grade 3

• Schools that serve only students below grade 3
  and, consequently, do not participate in State
  assessments are called feeder schools.
• Accountability decisions for feeder schools that
  serve grade 1 and/or grade 2 are based either
• on the performance of schools with grade 3 in the
  same district, or
• on a procedure called backmapping.

79
Whom to Contactfor Further Information

• the New York State Report Card, contact the
  School Report Card Coordinator at
  rptcard_at_mail.nysed.gov
• New York State assessments, go to the Office of
  State Assessment web site at www.emsc.nysed.gov/os
  a
• 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 Martha
  Musser at mmusser_at_mail.nysed.gov or (518)
  474-7965
• accountability, contact Ira Schwartz at
  ischwart_at_mail.nysed.gov or [phone]