Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities

1
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with
Disabilities

• Background InformationSlides 24
• School Eligibility CriteriaSlide 5
• Calculation of the Performance IndexSlide 6
• Application of FlexibilitySlide 7
• ExamplesSlides 811

2
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.
• As an interim measure until measures of modified
  achievement standards are developed, USDOE has
  deemed New York State eligible to adjust the AYP
  determination for the students with disabilities
  subgroup for the 2004-05 school year.
• This interim AYP adjustment is for the 2004-05
  school year only and only for eligible States.
  These issues will be revisited while USDOE is
  developing a regulation related to modified
  achievement standards for a limited group of
  students with disabilities. USDOE has not
  announced how this process will work for
  2005-2006.
• To be eligible, the State must commit to have
  in place no later than 2006-07 reliable and valid
  alternate assessments based on modified
  achievement standards for a limited group of
  students with disabilities.

3
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 2003-04.
• New York State met this criterion on three
  accountability measures Elementary-level English
  Language arts (ELA) and mathematics, and
  middle-level ELA. NY did not met the criterion in
  middle-level mathematics or 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.

4
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 2004-05.
• In NY, students who score at Level 3 are
  considered proficient. An adjustment of 17 would
  equal adding 34 points to the Performance Index.

5
Calculation of the Performance Index (PI)
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
Elementary and Middle Levels PI (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 X 100
Secondary Level PI (number of cohort members
scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 the number
scoring at Levels 3 and 4) number of cohort
members X 100
6
Criteria for Schools To Use Flexibility

• A school or district is eligible to use this
  flexibility on one or more of these
  accountability measures -- Elementary-level
  English Language arts (ELA) and/or mathematics,
  and/or middle-level ELA 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.

7
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 2004-05
• Elementary-Level ELA 131
• Elementary-Level Math 142
• Middle-Level ELA 116

8
Example 1

• In elementary-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 125
• safe harbor target 112
• Performance Index 109 (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
• 109 34 143
• The adjusted Performance Index exceeds the AMO
  for elementary-level math (142).
• Therefore, East is judged to have made AYP in
  elementary-level math.

9
Example 2

• In elementary-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 116
• safe harbor target 110
• Performance Index 96 (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
• 96 34 130
• The adjusted Performance Index is lower than the
  AMO for elementary-level ELA (131).
• Therefore, West is judged to have not made AYP in
  elementary-level ELA.

10
Example 3

• In middle-level ELA, South Middle School is
  accountable for four groups all students,
  students with disabilities, White students, and
  limited English proficient students.
• 95 percent of enrolled students in each group
  were tested.
• The Performance Index of the all students and
  White groups exceeded their Effective AMOs
  therefore, they made AYP.
• The Performance Index of the LEP group was below
  its Effective AMO and it did not make safe
  harbor therefore, the group did not made AYP.
• Because the LEP group did not make AYP, the
  school is not eligible for flexibility for the
  students with disabilities group.
• Therefore, South is judged to have not made AYP
  in middle-level ELA.

11
Example 4

• In middle-level ELA, North Middle School is
  accountable for four groups all students,
  students with disabilities, White students, and
  Hispanic students.
• 95 percent of enrolled students in each group
  except the students with disabilities 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.
• Because the school failed to test 95 percent of
  students in the students with disabilities group,
  the school is not eligible for flexibility for
  the students with disabilities group.
• Therefore, North Middle School is judged to have
  not made AYP in middle-level ELA.