description: tags: cocsa

8/14/2019 description: tags: cocsa

1/44


2/44

Instructions for Completing Consolidated State Application

Accountability Workbook

By January 31, 2003, States must complete and submit to the Department this

Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook. We understand thatsome of the critical elements for the key principles may still be underconsideration and may not yet be final State policy by the January 31 due date.States that do not have final approval for some of these elements or that havenot finalized a decision on these elements by January 31 should, whencompleting the Workbook, indicate the status of each element which is not yetofficial State policy and provide the anticipated date by which the proposed policywill become effective. In each of these cases, States must include a timeline ofsteps to complete to ensure that such elements are in place by May 1, 2003, andimplemented during the 2002-2003 school year. By no later than May 1, 2003,States must submit to the Department final information for all sections of the

Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook.

Transmittal Instructions

To expedite the receipt of this Consolidated State Application AccountabilityWorkbook, please send your submission via the Internet as a .doc file, pdf file, rtfor .txt file or provide the URL for the site where your submission is posted on theInternet. Send electronic submissions to [email protected].

A State that submits only a paper submission should mail the submission byexpress courier to:

Celia SimsU.S. Department of Education400 Maryland Ave., SWRoom 3W300Washington, D.C. 20202-6400(202) 401-0113


3/44

PART I: Summary of Required Elements for State AccountabilitySystems

Instructions

The following chart is an overview of States' implementation of the criticalelements required for approval of their State accountability systems. States mustprovide detailed implementation information for each of these elements in Part IIof this Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook.

For each of the elements listed in the following chart, States should indicate thecurrent implementation status in their State using the following legend:

F: State has a final policy, approved by all the required entities in the State (e.g.,State Board of Education, State Legislature), for implementing thiselement in its accountability system.

P: State has a proposed policy for implementing this element in its accountabilitysystem, but must still receive approval by required entities in the State(e.g., State Board of Education, State Legislature).

W: State is still working on formulating a policy to implement this element in itsaccountability system.

Summary of Implementation Status for Required Elements ofState Accountability Systems

Status State Accountability System Element

Principle 1: All Schools

F 1.1 Accountability system includes all schools and districts in the state.

F 1.2 Accountability system holds all schools to the same criteria.

F 1.3 Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement standards.

F 1.4 Accountability system provides information in a timely manner.

F 1.5 Accountability system includes report cards.

F 1.6 Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions.


4/44

Principle 2: All Students

F2.1 The accountability system includes all students

F 2.2 The accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic year.

F 2.3 The accountability system properly includes mobile students.

Principle 3: Method of AYP Determinations

F3.1 Accountability system expects all student subgroups, public schools, and LEAs to

reach proficiency by 2013-14.

F 3.2 Accountability system has a method for determining whether student subgroups, publicschools, and LEAs made adequate yearly progress.

F 3.2a Accountability system establishes a starting point.

F 3.2b Accountability system establishes statewide annual measurable objectives.

F 3.2c Accountability system establishes intermediate goals.

Principle 4: Annual Decisions

F4.1 The accountability system determines annually the progressof schools and districts.

Principle 5: Subgroup Accountability

F 5.1 The accountability system includes all the required student subgroups.

F 5.2 The accountability system holds schools and LEAs accountable for the progress ofstudent subgroups.

F 5.3 The accountability system includes students with disabilities.

F 5.4 The accountability system includes limited English proficient students.

F 5.5 The State has determined the minimum number of students sufficient to yield statisticallyreliable information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used.

F 5.6 The State has strategies to protect the privacy of individual students in reportingachievement results and in determining whether schools and LEAs are making adequateyearly progress on the basis of disaggregated subgroups.

Principle 6: Based on Academic Assessments

F6.1 Accountability system is based primarily on academic assessments.


5/44

Principle 7: Additional Indicators

F7.1 Accountability system includes graduation rate for high schools.

F 7.2 Accountability system includes an additional academic indicator for elementary andmiddle schools.

F 7.3 Additional indicators are valid and reliable.

Principle 8: Separate Decisions for Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics

F8.1 Accountability system holds students, schools and districts separately accountable for

reading/language artsand mathematics.

Principle 9: System Validity and Reliability

F9.1 Accountability system produces reliable decisions.

F 9.2 Accountability system produces valid decisions.

F 9.3 State has a plan for addressing changes in assessment and student population.

Principle 10: Participation Rate

F10.1 Accountability system has a means for calculating the rate of participationin the

statewide assessment.

F 10.2 Accountability system has a means for applying the 95% assessment criteria to studentsubgroupsand small schools.

Status Legend:F Final state policy

P Proposed policy, awaiting State approvalW Working to formulate policy


6/44

PRINCIPLE 1. A single statewide Accountability System applied to allpublic schools and LEAs.

CRITICAL

ELEMENT

EXAMPLES FOR

MEETING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

EXAMPLES OF

NOTMEETINGREQUIREMENTS

1.1 How does theState AccountabilitySystem includeevery public schooland LEA in theState?

Every public school and LEA is required tomake adequate yearly progress and isincluded in the State Accountability System.

State has a definition of public school andLEA for AYP accountability purposes. The State Accountability System producesAYP decisions for all public schools,including public schools with variant grade

configurations (e.g., K-12), public schoolsthat serve special populations (e.g.,alternative public schools, juvenileinstitutions, state public schools for the blind)and public charter schools. It also holdsaccountable public schools with no gradesassessed (e.g., K-2).

A public school or LEA isnot required to makeadequate yearly progressand is not included in theState AccountabilitySystem.

State policy systematicallyexcludes certain public

schools and/or LEAs.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Colorados accountability system includes every public school and LEA in thestate. The state has defined AYP pursuant to the statute and rules. CDE will

apply AYP to all levels (elementary, middle/junior high, and high school). AYPwill also be calculated for variant grade configurations and schools that servespecial populations, including the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind.

.


7/44

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FORMEETING STATUTORY

REQUIREMENTS

EXAMPLES OFNOTMEETING

REQUIREMENTS

1.2 How are all publicschools and LEAs held tothe same criteria whenmaking an AYPdetermination?

All public schools and LEAs aresystematically judged on thebasis of the same criteria whenmaking an AYP determination.

If applicable, the AYP definitionis integrated into the StateAccountability System.

Some public schools and LEAsare systematically judged on thebasis of alternate criteria whenmaking an AYP determination.


All schools (separated by grade levels: elementary, middle, and high school)containing grades three and higher will be systematically judged based on thesame criteria.

AYP results are included in the states School Accountability Reports and in thestates Accreditation Annual Reports.

Amendment #1Colorados state assessment system (CSAP) does not include students untilgrade 3. AYP will be defined differently for Colorados K-1 and K-2 schools thanfor those schools containing grades 3 and higher. K-1 and K-2 school AYP willbe determined using the third grade reading and math scores of studentspreviously enrolled at the school. K-1 and K-2 schools will be hold to theelementary school AYP targets for accountability purposes. All schools will beexpected to yield annual results that meet the requirement of 100% proficiency inreading and math by 2013-2014.

Amendment #2School districts must miss targets in the same content area for two consecutiveyears to be identified for Program Improvement. However, if a school districtmisses math targets only at the elementary level in year one and math targetsonly at the high school level in year two, the district would be identified forProgram Improvement in math. This has led to an over-identification of schooldistricts for Improvement as it may reflect an anomaly of the data as opposed to

a systemic failure on the part of the school district. In addition, in that thedetermination lacks precision, it makes it difficult for a district to focus its Title Iresources in the area where targets were missed as required of districts identifiedfor Improvement.

Colorado requests the ability to exchange its Same Subject, Any Grade Spanmodel of identification for District Improvement for the Same Subject, SameGrade Span model referenced in Henry Johnsons letter dated March 7, 2006.


8/44

Only districts that do not meet AYP targets in the same content area andgradespan for two consecutive years will be identified for Title I Program Improvement.(For example, a district that missed only math targets at the elementary level oneyear and math targets at the high school level the next year would not beidentified. The district would need to miss elementary math targets for two

consecutive years to be identified).


REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

1.3 Does the State have,at a minimum, a definitionof basic, proficientandadvancedstudentachievement levels in

reading/language arts andmathematics?

State has defined three levels ofstudent achievement: basic, proficient

and advanced.1

Student achievement levels of

proficientand advanceddetermine howwell students are mastering thematerials in the States academiccontent standards; and the basiclevelof achievement provides completeinformation about the progress oflower-achieving students towardmastering the proficientand advancedlevels.

Standards do not meetthe legislatedrequirements.


9/44


Colorados CSAP has four instructional levels designed to give the level of detailnecessary for school personnel to better align the state academic contentstandards to instruction at the classroom level. Colorado has defined threelevels of student achievement for accountability: non-proficient, proficient andadvanced. For the purposes of calculating and reporting AYP for schools,districts, and the state, partially proficient, proficient and advanced ranges will beconsidered proficient.

Districts, schools, teachers, and parents receive detailed information annuallyregarding the progress of students toward content proficiency.

Evidence of compliance was submitted to the Peer Reviewers in August andDecember of 2002 and again October 2005.


REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

1.4 How does the Stateprovide accountability andadequate yearly progressdecisions and informationin a timely manner?

State provides decisions aboutadequate yearly progress in time forLEAs to implement the requiredprovisions before the beginning of thenext academic year.

State allows enough time to notifyparents about public school choice orsupplemental educational serviceoptions, time for parents to make an

informed decision, and time toimplement public school choice andsupplemental educational services.

Timeline does notprovide sufficient time forLEAs to fulfill theirresponsibilities before thebeginning of the nextacademic year.


10/44


CSAP and CSAPA results are provided to schools and districts by the end of Julyeach year, which is prior to the start of the academic school year.

As soon as it is available, CDE uses CSAP and CSAPA data to run school anddistrict AYP determinations. Once validated, and before the start of the schoolyear, CDE disseminates the data and determinations to the LEAs.

When applicable, LEAs are notified by CDE that they must immediately sendletters offering choice to the parents of students enrolled in schools onImprovement. In most cases, if a school will definitely be on Improvement thefollowing year, the district sends letters offering choice prior to the end of thepreceding year. LEAs are also required to provide supplemental services andtake corrective actions appropriate to the number of years on schoolImprovement or corrective action. The established timelines are all consistentwith NCLB.

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR

MEETING STATUTORYREQUIREMENTS

EXAMPLES OF

NOTMEETINGREQUIREMENTS

1.5 Does the StateAccountability Systemproduce an annual StateReport Card?

The State Report Card includes allthe required data elements [seeAppendix A for the list of requireddata elements].

The State Report Card is available tothe public at the beginning of theacademic year.

The State Report Card is accessiblein languages of major populations inthe State, to the extent possible.

Assessment results and otheracademic indicators (includinggraduation rates) are reported bystudent subgroups.

The State Report Card doesnot include all the requireddata elements.

The State Report Card isnot available to the public.


11/44


CDE publishes the State Report Card annually. The reports can be found atwww.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms. All required elements are included in thereport and disaggregated by required subgroups. The State Report Card ispublished in English and Spanish. The State Report Card is sent to all schooldistricts and major professional organizations. Upon publication, a press releaseis prepared and disseminated. CDs containing the State Report Card data aresent to all school districts so that they may use the data for additional reports andprojects.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedProgramshttp://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms


12/44


REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

1.6 How does the StateAccountability Systeminclude rewards andsanctions for public schoolsand LEAs?

State uses one or moretypes of rewards andsanctions, where the criteriaare:

Set by the State;Based on adequate yearlyprogress decisions; and,Applied uniformly acrosspublic schools and LEAs.

State does not implement rewardsor sanctions for public schoolsand LEAs based on adequateyearly progress.


Colorado will continue to assess the progress of all public schools and districts inthe state toward the goal of 100% proficiency in reading and math by the end ofthe 2013-2014 school year.

Schools that exceed AYP growth targets for two or more years or have madesignificant gains to close the achievement gap will be eligible for Title IDistinguished School Awards. CDE awards the two National Title I Distinguishedschool awards according to demonstrated high achievement and a closing of theachievement gap. 8 state regional awards for Title I schools are awarded toschools that demonstrate a closing of the achievement gap between students

eligible for F/RD lunch and students who are not eligible.

The Colorado School Awards Program was created in the 2000 ColoradoGeneral Assembly to present financial awards to the highest performing and themost improved schools in the state.

The John Irwin Schools of Excellence Awards target the highest performingschools and the Governors Distinguished Improvement Awards focus on themost improved schools.

Per the requirements of NCLB, schools and districts identified for Improvement

will uniformly be held to the requirements in the law.

Amendment #3Districts will be required to offer school choice and supplemental services in yearone of Improvement. The minimum and maximum expenditures for choice andsupplemental services will be consistent with the NCLB requirements for yearone of Improvement (5% minimum, 15% maximum). In year two the school willbe required to offer both supplemental services and choice and the NCLB


13/44

requirements for year two of Improvement will apply (10% minimum, 20%maximum).

The state has created an extensive statewide system of support that includes:

School Support Teams for schools identified for Improvement School Support Teams for schools identified as having an achievement

gap

Comprehensive Appraisals for District Improvement for districts identifiedfor Improvement

Regional Service Teams for school districts

Professional Development opportunities for school and district faculty andadministrators

Additional grant opportunities

Utilization of effective districts, schools, models, and staff in support of

struggling schools Written and web-based publications identifying effective strategies and

resources


14/44

PRINCIPLE 2. All students are included in the State Accountability System.


REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

2.1 How does the StateAccountability Systeminclude all students inthe State?

All students in the State are includedin the State Accountability System.

The definitions of public school andLEA account for all studentsenrolled in the public school district,regardless of program or type ofpublic school.

Public school students exist inthe State for whom the StateAccountability System makesno provision.


All students are required to participate in the CSAP, Lectura, or the CSAPA (forless than one percent of students). . All public school students are accounted forin the States definition of public school and LEA. An AYP determination is madefor all public schools and LEAs in the state. The assessment results of allstudents enrolled in the school, district, or state for a full academic year areincluded when making AYP determinations at each of the three levels. CSAP,CSAPA, and Lectura administration guides and training activities assurecompliance with these requirements along with very stringent testingadministration procedures.


15/44


REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

2.2 How does the Statedefine full academicyear for identifyingstudents in AYPdecisions?

The State has a definition of fullacademic year for determiningwhich students are to be includedin decisions about AYP.

The definition of full academicyear is consistent and appliedstatewide.

LEAs have varying definitions offull academic year.

The States definition excludesstudents who must transfer fromone district to another as theyadvance to the next grade.

The definition of full academicyear is not applied consistently.


CSAP, Lectura, and CSAPA results are reported according to the studentslength of time in school as well as their length of time in the district. Categoriesof reporting include those students in school/district for 12 or more consecutivemonths, Colorados definition of one full academic year.

For the purpose of determining AYP of schools, CDE will use the scores ofstudents enrolled in that school from one CSAP, Lectura, or CSAPAadministration to the next, unless the student is enrolled in the lowest grade inthe school. In that case, students who have been continuously enrolled in the

district and have been enrolled in the school on or before October 1st areincluded.

For the purposes of determining AYP for school districts, the scores of allstudents attending district schools continuous in district for 12 or more monthswill be included in the district calculations. Students not included in the schoolAYP calculations will be included in the districts AYP calculations. Students notin the school or district for one academic year will be included in the states AYPcalculations.

These definitions and procedures apply to all schools and districts statewide.


16/44


REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

2.3 How does the StateAccountability Systemdetermine which studentshave attended the samepublic school and/or LEAfor a full academic year?

State holds public schoolsaccountable for students whowere enrolled at the same publicschool for a full academic year.

State holds LEAs accountable forstudents who transfer during thefull academic year from onepublic school within the district toanother public school within thedistrict.

State definition requiresstudents to attend the samepublic school for more than afull academic year to beincluded in public schoolaccountability.

State definition requiresstudents to attend school in thesame district for more than afull academic year to beincluded in district

accountability.

State holds public schoolsaccountable for students whohave not attended the samepublic school for a fullacademic year.


Every student is assigned a Student Identifier number. CSAP, Lectura, andCSAPA results are reported according to the students length of time in school aswell as their length of time in the district. Categories of reporting include those

students in school/district for 12 or more consecutive months, Coloradosdefinition of one full academic year.

For the purpose of determining AYP of schools, CDE will use the scores ofstudents enrolled in that school from one CSAP, Lectura, or CSAPAadministration to the next, unless the student is enrolled in the lowest grade inthe school. In that case, students who have been continuously enrolled in thedistrict and have been enrolled in the school on or before October 1, areincluded.

For the purposes of determining AYP for school districts, the scores of all

students attending district schools for one academic year will be included in thedistrict calculations. Students not included in the school AYP calculations will beincluded in the districts AYP calculations. Students not in the school or districtfor one academic year will be included in the states AYP calculations.

These definitions and procedures apply to all schools and districts statewide.


17/44


18/44

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR MEETINGREQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

3.2 How does theState AccountabilitySystem determinewhether each studentsubgroup, publicschool and LEA makesAYP?

For a public school and LEA to makeadequate yearly progress, each studentsubgroup must meet or exceed the Stateannual measurable objectives, each studentsubgroup must have at least a 95%participation rate in the statewideassessments, and the school must meet theStates requirement for other academicindicators.

However, if in any particular year the studentsubgroup does not meet those annualmeasurable objectives, the public school or

LEA may be considered to have made AYP, ifthe percentage of students in that group whodid not meet or exceed the proficient level ofacademic achievement on the Stateassessments for that year decreased by 10%of that percentage from the preceding publicschool year; that group made progress onone or more of the States academicindicators; and that group had at least 95%participation rate on the statewideassessment.

State uses differentmethod for calculatinghow public schools andLEAs make AYP.


19/44


Data collected as a part of the CSAP, Lectura, and CSAPA administration isdisaggregated by each of the required student sub-populations to make AYPdeterminations and to assist the classroom teacher with his/her instructionalpractice.

AYP will be determined using 2002 data as the baseline. The starting points arecalculated pursuant to NCLB and rule requirements. The same starting point andannual, measurable goals apply to all student sub-populations resulting in 100%proficiency of all students by 2013-2014(www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/ayp).

In calculating AYP for student sub-populations, CDE has identified thirty as theminimum number of students for AYP sub-group accountability purposes toprotect student identity and to assure high levels of reliability.

To make AYP, each district, school, and all required subgroups of 30 or moremust:

1. Achieve a 95% participation rate2. Meet or exceed the annual performance objectives in reading and math3. Meet or exceed annual objectives for the applicable other indicator

graduation rate for high school, advanced level of CSAP performance forelementary and middle school.

CDE will also utilize the AYP Safe Harbor provision in making AYPdeterminations as follows:

In calculating AYP, any student sub-population that did not meet the AYPperformance goal, but did decrease the percentage of non-proficient students inthe applicable student subgroup by 10% or more from the prior year, the schoolor district will then be judged to have made AYP if the LEA or school also meetsthe states other indicator when using the safe harbor provision (graduation ratefor high school and the appropriate percent of students scoring advanced onCSAP in elementary and middle schools). Goals must be met for all applicablestudent sub-populations. (See the AYP calculator atwww.cde.state.co.us/FedProgram/ayp).

CDE will calculate an additional longitudinal Safe Harbor measure with 2006-2007 data that will include only matched student records from 2006 to 2007.Section 1111 of No Child Left Behind, states that Each State educational agencymay incorporate the data from the assessments under this paragraph into aState-developed longitudinal data system that links student test scores, length ofenrollment, and graduation records over time. Colorado will utilize the fact thatwe have a well established student identifier system and a continuousassessment system from grades three through ten. We are able to track the
http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/ayphttp://www.cde.state.co.us/FedProgram/ayphttp://www.cde.state.co.us/FedProgram/ayphttp://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/ayp


20/44

same students results as they progress through the assessment system.Additionally, there is widespread support throughout the state and legislature touse longitudinal data in school and district accountability.

Specifically, CDE will create an additional Safe Harbor measure comparing only

the same students scores from the prior year to the current year. Schools anddistricts will need to show a 10% reduction in the percent of matched studentsscoring non-proficient in 2006 to 2007 in order to make the additionalLongitudinal Safe Harbor target. CDE will not use any confidence intervals inthese calculations. Additionally, if the school or disaggregated group meets theminimum N for performance calculations, and has a 95% match rate between thecurrent students (minus the third graders) and the matched students, thenLongitudinal Safe Harbor will be calculated. The Longitudinal Safe Harbor willnot be available to K-3 schools (as there is no prior comparable data to compare3rd grade students scores with).

CDE will provide the Department with impact data of the new provision in the fall,when AYP determinations are final.


21/44

CRITICALELEMENT

EXAMPLES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS EXAMPLES OFNOTMEETING

REQUIREMENTS

3.2a What is theStates startingpoint forcalculatingAdequate YearlyProgress?

Using data from the 2001-2002 school year, theState established separate starting points inreading/language arts and mathematics formeasuring the percentage of students meetingor exceeding the States proficient level ofacademic achievement.

Each starting point is based, at a minimum, onthe higher of the following percentages ofstudents at the proficient level: (1) thepercentage in the State of proficient students inthe lowest-achieving student subgroup; or, (2)the percentage of proficient students in a public

school at the 20

th

percentile of the States totalenrollment among all schools ranked by thepercentage of students at the proficient level.

A State may use these procedures to establishseparate starting points by grade span; however,the starting point must be the same for all likeschools (e.g., one same starting point for allelementary schools, one same starting point forall middle schools)

The State AccountabilitySystem uses a differentmethod for calculating thestarting point (or baselinedata).


Using data from 2002, CDE has established starting points of proficiencyseparately in reading and math for each instructional level (elementary, middle,and high school). The same starting point for reading and math applies to eachstudent sub-population within each of the three instructional levels.

The starting points were determined using the percentage of proficient studentsin the public school at the 20th percentile of the States total enrollment among allschools ranked by the percentage of students at the proficient level. Thepercentage of proficient schools at the 20th percentile of enrollment was higherthan the lowest performing subgroup in both reading and math at the elementary,middle, and high school levels. With the addition of the third and fourth grademath assessment in 2005, intermediate elementary AYP math targets have beenre-calculated to account for the new test results. (see 9.3)

CDE is using thirty as the threshold for establishing baselines among the variousstudent sub-populations to protect student identity and to assure accuracy andreliability of data. A 95% confidence interval is also incorporated into AYPcalculations. Only those student scores that have been in the school for one fullacademic year will be used in AYP calculations. See Attachment A


22/44

CRITICALELEMENT

EXAMPLES FOR MEETINGREQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

3.2b What are theStates annualmeasurableobjectives fordeterminingadequate yearlyprogress?

State has annual measurable objectives thatare consistent with a states intermediategoals and that identify for each year aminimum percentage of students who mustmeet or exceed the proficient level ofacademic achievement on the Statesacademic assessments.

The States annual measurable objectivesensure that all students meet or exceed theStates proficient level of academicachievement within the timeline.

The States annual measurable objectivesare the same throughout the State for eachpublic school, each LEA, and eachsubgroup of students.

The State AccountabilitySystem uses anothermethod for calculatingannual measurableobjectives.

The State AccountabilitySystem does not includeannual measurableobjectives.


CDEs definition of AYP is consistent with all of the above referenced criteria inthat it states a minimum percentage of students that must be proficient eachyear, leads to 100% proficiency in reading and math by 2013-2014, and is thesame for all districts and schools within each of the three grade spans.

Colorado has set annual measurable objectives that are consistent with the

states intermediate goals and specifically identify for each year a minimumpercentage of students who must meet or exceed the proficient level of academicachievement on CSAP, Lectura, and CSAPA.

AYP goals for Colorado are set so that all students must meet or exceedproficiency in reading and math by the 2013-2014 school year.

Colorados AYP goals are the same throughout the state for each public school,each school district, each subgroup of students and the state.

See Attachment A


23/44



REQUIREMENTS

3.2c What are the Statesintermediate goalsfor determiningadequate yearlyprogress?

State has established intermediategoals that increase in equalincrements over the period coveredby the State timeline.

The first incremental increasetakes effect not later than the 2004-2005 academic year. Each following incrementalincrease occurs within three years.

The State uses anothermethod for calculatingintermediate goals.

The State does not includeintermediate goals in itsdefinition of adequate yearlyprogress.


Intermediate goals have been set that increase in equal increments over equalincrements of time. The first increase takes place during the 2004-2005academic year. All following incremental increases occur within each three yearperiod.

See Attachment A


24/44


25/44

PRINCIPLE 5. All public schools and LEAs are held accountable for theachievement of individual subgroups.

CRITICAL ELEMENTEXAMPLES FOR

MEETING REQUIREMENTSEXAMPLES OFNOTMEETING

REQUIREMENTS

5.1 How does thedefinition of adequateyearly progress includeall the required studentsubgroups?

Identifies subgroups for defining adequateyearly progress: Economicallydisadvantaged, major racial and ethnicgroups, students with disabilities, andstudents with limited English proficiency.

Provides definition and data source ofsubgroups for adequate yearly progress.

State does notdisaggregate data byeach required studentsubgroup.


CSAP and CSAPA results for the AYP baseline year, 2002, were disaggregatedfor all of the required subgroups with the exception of socio-economic status.The data for this subgroup has been disaggregated since the 2002-2003 schoolyear. The minimum n required for AYP subgroup accountability purposes isthirty. All subgroups of thirty or more at the school, district, or state level mustmake reach AYP targets for the school, district, or state to make AYP.

The race/ethnicitysubgroups are defined through identification during the States

October Count data collection process and the CSAP/CSAPA testingadministration.

The other required subgroups are defined as follows:

Students with disabilities: any student with an Individualized Education Plan.Economically disadvantaged: any student coded as eligible for free or reducedlunchEnglish language learners: students identified as NEP (Non English Proficient),LEP (Limited English Proficient) or FEP (Fully English Proficient) who has notbeen formally exited from a English language acquisition program.


26/44

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FORMEETING REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

5.2 How are public schoolsand LEAs held accountablefor the progress of studentsubgroups in thedetermination of adequateyearly progress?

Public schools and LEAs are heldaccountable for student subgroupachievement: economicallydisadvantaged, major ethnic and racialgroups, students with disabilities, andlimited English proficient students.

State does not includestudent subgroups in itsState AccountabilitySystem.


All student subgroups of thirty or more must meet the annual AYP performancetargets - or Safe Harbor - and the targets for advanced level of performance orgraduation rate as applicable, in order for the school district, or state to makeAYP. AYP is calculated separately for reading and math for each of the threegrade spans: elementary, middle, and high school. AYP determinations aremade for all public schools, school districts, and the State.


27/44

CRITICALELEMENT

EXAMPLES FORMEETING REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

5.3 How arestudents withdisabilities includedin the Statesdefinition ofadequate yearlyprogress?

All students with disabilities participate instatewide assessments: generalassessments with or withoutaccommodations or an alternateassessment based on grade levelstandards for the grade in whichstudents are enrolled.

State demonstrates that students withdisabilities are fully included in the StateAccountability System.

The State AccountabilitySystem or State policyexcludes students withdisabilities from participatingin the statewide assessments.

State cannot demonstrate thatalternate assessmentsmeasure grade-levelstandards for the grade inwhich students are enrolled.


28/44


All students with disabilities participate in the CSAP, Lectura, or the CSAPAlternate (CSAPA). The CSAPA is intended for a very small percentage ofstudents (less than 1%) on Individual Education Plans who require significantlydifferent instructional and technological supports to progress in their learning.Currently, the CSAPA is administered grades 3-11, in reading, math and writingand in science (5, 8, and 10 in 2005-2006).

For AYP determinations, Colorado intends to use the flexibility granted by theUSDE for students with disabilities in AYP in the manner described below. If aschool or district does not make AYP solely because of performance targets forstudents with disabilities, the school or district may appeal the determination ifthe students with disabilities subgroup met 2003-2004 AYP targets.

2003-2004

AYPTargets

2006-2007

AYPTargets

Colorados

ProposedTargets forStudentswith IEPs-only as anappeal

ElementaryReading

76.92% 82.69% 76.92%

ElementaryMath

75.86% 83.64% 75.86%

MiddleReading

73.61% 80.21% 73.61%

MiddleMath

59.51% 69.63% 59.51%

HighReading

79.65% 84.74% 79.65%

High Math 47.00% 60.25% 47.00%

This flexibility through appeals will be used during the period Colorados StateBoard of Education considers the report prepared by a Technical AdvisoryCommittee convened by the state legislature. CDE will incorporate therecommendations of the Technical Advisory Committees report as appropriate at

the discretion of the State Board. After the recommendations are addressed,CDE will bring the students with disabilities target back on track to reaching100% by 2013-2014.


29/44



REQUIREMENTS

5.4 How are studentswith limited Englishproficiency included inthe States definition ofadequate yearlyprogress?

All LEP student participate in statewideassessments: general assessments withor without accommodations or a nativelanguage version of the generalassessment based on grade levelstandards.

State demonstrates that LEP students arefully included in the State AccountabilitySystem.

LEP students are notfully included in the StateAccountability System.


30/44


State Academic Accountability Process for Limited English Proficient StudentsColorado Senate Bill 186 mandates the assessment of students in reading,writing, language arts, math, and science.

Colorado categorizes English Language Learners under three languageproficiency levels: Non-English Proficient (NEP), Limited English Proficient(LEP) and Fluent English Proficient (FEP). The levels are consistent withproficiency levels on sanctioned language proficiency assessments.

Colorado law makes specific provisions for the assessment of Non-EnglishProficient or Limited English Proficiency students participating inSpanish/Bilingual Language Instruction Educational Programs to be assessedwith the Spanish version of the CSAP, Lectura, (grades 3 and 4), if theirbackground language is Spanish and they have been in Colorado for less thanthree years. For AYP purposes, they may count Lectura scores only if thestudent has been in the US for less than three years, per No Child Left Behind.

All ELL students must take the Lectura, CSAP English or CSAPA in order tocount as a participant for AYP. Any ELL student for whom Colorado does nothave a valid achievement assessment result will be counted as not participatingin the state assessment and will be included in the denominator when makingcalculations of participation rates. The assessment results for all students takingthe Lectura, CSAP, and CSAPA are included in the equation when making AYPdeterminations.


31/44


MEETING REQUIREMENTSEXAMPLES OFNOTMEETING

REQUIREMENTS

5.5 What is the State's

definition of the minimumnumber of students in asubgroup required forreporting purposes? Foraccountability purposes?

State defines the number of

students required in a subgroupfor reporting and accountabilitypurposes, and applies thisdefinition consistently across theState.

Definition of subgroup will result indata that are statistically reliable.

State does not define the

required number of studentsin a subgroup for reportingand accountability purposes.

Definition is not appliedconsistently across theState.

Definition does not result indata that are statisticallyreliable.


For accountability purposes, the minimum N is thirty students in a studentsubgroup, at the school, district and state levels. The minimum N is the same forall required subgroups. For reporting of assessment data, the minimum N is 16.

CDEs data analyses indicate that thirty best meets the criteria for validity,reliability, and accountability, coupled with the application of 95% confidenceintervals. In addition, the reporting policy will assure the privacy of individualstudent results.


32/44

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FORMEETING

REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

5.6 How does the State AccountabilitySystem protect the privacy of studentswhen reporting results and whendetermining AYP?

Definition does not revealpersonally identifiable

information.6

Definition revealspersonally identifiableinformation.


For accountability purposes, the minimum N is thirty students in a studentsubgroup, at the school, district and state levels. The minimum N is the same forall required subgroups. For reporting assessment of data, the minimum N is 16.

CDEs data analyses indicate that thirty best meets the criteria for validity,reliability, and accountability, coupled with the application of 95% confidenceintervals. In addition, the reporting policy will assure the privacy of individualstudent results.


33/44

PRINCIPLE 6. State definition of AYP is based primarily on the Statesacademic assessments.


MEETINGREQUIREMENTS

EXAMPLES OF

NOTMEETING REQUIREMENTS

6.1 How is the Statesdefinition of adequate yearlyprogress based primarily onacademic assessments?

Formula for AYP showsthat decisions are based

primarily on assessments.7

Plan clearly identifieswhich assessments areincluded in accountability.

Formula for AYP shows thatdecisions are based primarily onnon-academic indicators orindicators other than the Stateassessments.


Colorados assessment system received approval from the United StatesDepartment of Education in July of 2001. The assessment system was reviewedagain in late 2005.

CSAP and CSAPA span grades 3 10 in reading and writing, and math. CSAPand CSAPA science assessments are administered in grades 5 and 8, and 10.Lectura (reading) and Escritura (writing) are administered to a limited number ofELL students in grades 3 and 4.

CSAP and CSAPA are designed to measure the degree to which all studentshave met Colorados academic content standards. All students are required toparticipate in the state assessments.

AYP calculations are based on CSAP, Lectura, and CSAPA results. ColoradosOther Indicator for elementary and middle schools is the percent of studentsscoring advanced on the CSAP in reading and math. The only AYP target notbased on state assessments is the graduation rate used in making high schoolAYP determinations. No other indicators or data are used in making AYPdeterminations.


34/44

PRINCIPLE 7. State definition of AYP includes graduation rates for public High schoolsand an additional indicator selected by the State for public Middle and public Elementaryschools (such as attendance rates).

CRITICALELEMENT

EXAMPLES FORMEETING REQUIREMENTS


REQUIREMENTS

7.1 What is theState definitionfor the public highschool graduationrate?

State definition of graduation rate:

Calculates the percentage of students,measured from the beginning of the school year,who graduate from public high school with aregular diploma (not including a GED or anyother diploma not fully aligned with the statesacademic standards) in the standard number ofyears; or, Uses another more accurate definition that hasbeen approved by the Secretary; and Must avoid counting a dropout as a transfer.

Graduation rate is included (in the aggregate) forAYP, and disaggregated (as necessary) for use

when applying the exception clause8

to makeAYP.

State definition of publichigh school graduationrate does not meet thesecriteria.


Graduation rates are calculated based upon high school graduates only. Agraduate is a student who completes locally developed graduation requirements.If a student is not considered a graduate by the local board of education, thenthat student is not included in the graduation rate calculation.

Colorados definition of graduation rate includes only those students who receivediplomas within the standard number of years. The graduation rate is acumulative or longitudinal rate that calculates the number of students whoactually graduate as a percent of those who were in membership and could havegraduated over a four-year period from grades 9-12.

The definition does not allow for the inclusion of dropouts or completers asgraduates. There must be documentation that transfer students enrolled inanother district in order for those students to not be counted as dropouts.

Go to CDEs web site for additional information regarding Colorados graduationrate calculations:

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeboard/download/bdregs_301-67.pdf
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeboard/download/bdregs_301-67.pdfhttp://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeboard/download/bdregs_301-67.pdf


35/44



REQUIREMENTS

7.2 What is the Statesadditional academicindicator for publicelementary schools for thedefinition of AYP? Forpublic middle schools forthe definition of AYP?

State defines the additional academicindicators, e.g., additional State orlocally administered assessments notincluded in the State assessmentsystem, grade-to-grade retention rates

or attendance rates.9

An additional academic indicator isincluded (in the aggregate) for AYP,and disaggregated (as necessary) foruse when applying the exceptionclause to make AYP.

State has not defined anadditional academicindicator for elementaryand middle schools.


Colorados Other Indicator is the percentage of students performing at theadvanced level on CSAP reading and math assessments.

Setting targets for advanced level of performance will help to assure all studentsachieve to their highest potential. Targets have been set for schools and districtsas a whole as well as each required subgroup of 30 or more students.


36/44


37/44

PRINCIPLE 8. AYP is based on reading/language arts and mathematicsachievement objectives.



REQUIREMENTS

8.1 Does the state measureachievement inreading/language arts andmathematics separately fordetermining AYP?

State AYP determination forstudent subgroups, publicschools and LEAs separatelymeasures reading/language

arts and mathematics.10

AYP is a separate calculationfor reading/language arts andmathematics for each group,public school, and LEA.

State AYP determination forstudent subgroups, publicschools and LEAs averages orcombines achievement acrossreading/language arts andmathematics.


AYP is calculated and a determination made annually separately for readingand math for the state, all school districts, schools, and all required studentsubgroups of 30 or more students.


38/44

PRINCIPLE 9. State Accountability System is statistically valid and reliable.


EXAMPLES OFNOTMEETING REQUIREMENTS

9.1 How do AYPdeterminations meetthe States standardfor acceptablereliability?

State has defined a method fordetermining an acceptable levelof reliability (decisionconsistency) for AYP decisions.

State provides evidence thatdecision consistency is (1) withinthe range deemed acceptable tothe State, and (2) meetsprofessional standards andpractice.

State publicly reports the estimateof decision consistency, andincorporates it appropriately intoaccountability decisions.

State updates analysis andreporting of decision consistencyat appropriate intervals.

State does not have an acceptablemethod for determining reliability(decision consistency) ofaccountability decisions, e.g., itreports only reliability coefficientsfor its assessments.

State has parameters foracceptable reliability; however, theactual reliability (decisionconsistency) falls outside thoseparameters.

States evidence regardingaccountability reliability (decisionconsistency) is not updated.


The reliability of CSAP is very high, and the standard error of measurement inthe central score ranges is small, approximately ten scale score points. This

information is reported to the public.

Sample data runs submitted to the Peer Reviewers on December 17, 2002,describe acceptable levels of decision consistency for AYP decisions.Confidence intervals are a part of the decision process. This information will giveCDE a level of consistency it deems acceptable. The sample data runsdocument that these levels of decision consistency are acceptable withprofessional standards and practice. CDE will continue to run data on theinformation submitted with this application to work out any technical bugs thatmay be identified in the future. Making proper judgments on AYP is ofparamount importance to CDE.

CDE will annually analyze the level of consistency and make appropriatemodifications, as appropriate.


39/44

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR MEETING

REQUIREMENTSEXAMPLES OFNOTMEETING

REQUIREMENTS

9.2 What is the State's

process for making validAYP determinations?

State has established a process

for public schools and LEAs toappeal an accountability decision.

State does not have a system

for handling appeals ofaccountability decisions.


CSAP assessments meet all nationally recognized standards for assessmentvalidity.

The state runs AYP data as soon as CSAP, Lectura, and CSAPA data areloaded into CDEs data warehouse. CDE internally validates the data and

determinations, and also works with districts to validate it as well. After thoroughvalidation has been completed, AYP data is released to school districts.

Any school or district may appeal decisions made regarding AYP to the stateand/or school district, based on data error or statistical error. In the case of AYPdecisions regarding schools, the school district must consider the appeal andrender a final decision within 30 days of AYP data release to districts.

Similarly, if a district appeals a decision regarding AYP, CDE must make a finaldetermination within 30 days of the date of the appeal.

CDE provides ongoing technical assistance to districts regarding assessmentadministration, AYP data and determinations, and all associated procedures,including appeals of initial AYP determinations.


40/44

CRITICAL ELEMENTEXAMPLES FOR MEETING

REQUIREMENTSEXAMPLES OFNOTMEETING

REQUIREMENTS

9.3 How has the Stateplanned for incorporatinginto its definition of AYPanticipated changes inassessments?

State has a plan to maintaincontinuity in AYP decisionsnecessary for validity throughplanned assessment changes, andother changes necessary to comply

fully with NCLB.11

State has a plan for including newpublic schools in the StateAccountability System.

State has a plan for periodicallyreviewing its State Accountability

System, so that unforeseen changescan be quickly addressed.

States transition planinterrupts annualdetermination of AYP.

State does not have a planfor handling changes: e.g., toits assessment system, or theaddition of new publicschools.


41/44


Colorados state testing program (CSAP) expanded to include math assessmentsin grades 3 and 4 during spring of 2005. Prior to 2005, elementary school mathAYP determinations were made using only data from the 5th grade math CSAP.

New elementary math AYP starting points were calculated in a mannerconsistent with NCLB requirements. Data from 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade math CSAPresults were aggregated for all Colorado elementary schools. Based onperformance, schools were ranked from highest proficiency levels to lowestproficiency levels. Staring from the bottom school, school enrollments wereadded together until 20 percent of the states elementary enrollment had beencaptured. The proficiency level of that school was used as the starting point asthat percentage was higher than the lowest performing subgroup of students.Targets were set such that, given an increase once every three years, they wouldlead to 100% proficiency by 2013-2014. Elementary math AYP determinationsfor 2006 will include 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade math CSAP data and will be madeusing the new elementary math targets presented below. Safe Harbordeterminations will be made using 2005 and 2006 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade mathCSAP data when applicable.

New Target Old Target

2006-2007 83.64% 81.90%2008-2010 89.09% 87.94%

2011-2013 94.54% 93.98%2014 100% 100%

Baselines for new schools will be based upon the districts most recent CSAP

data. The districts most recent CSAP data, for reading and math, will becomethe baseline data applied to the new school for the first year of the schoolsoperation. This data will be compared to the schools actual data generatedduring the first year of operation for first year AYP calculations. The data for theschool in its second and subsequent years will be the data generated by theschools actual student assessment results. Future AYP determinations will becalculated based upon that schools actual student performance data.

Students who attend a new school will be accounted for in year one of theschools operation if they had been continuously enrolled in the district for 12+months and had enrolled in the school on or before October 1. The goal of 100%

proficiency for all students will remain consistent with the 2013-2014 timeline.

CDE will continue to annually review how AYP and other accountability decisionsare made and applied to ensure consistency, validity and reliability.


42/44

PRINCIPLE 10. In order for a public school or LEA to make AYP, the Stateensures that it assessed at least 95% of the students enrolled in eachsubgroup.

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR MEETING

REQUIREMENTS

EXAMPLES OF NOT

MEETING REQUIREMENTS

10.1 What is the State'smethod for calculatingparticipation rates in the Stateassessments for use in AYPdeterminations?

State has a procedure todetermine the number of absentor untested students (bysubgroup and aggregate).

State has a procedure todetermine the denominator(total enrollment) for the 95%calculation (by subgroup andaggregate).

Public schools and LEAs areheld accountable for reachingthe 95% assessed goal.

The state does not have aprocedure for determining therate of students participatingin statewide assessments.

Public schools and LEAs arenot held accountable fortesting at least 95% of theirstudents.


State law requires that every student enrolled in a public school shall berequired to take the assessments. This fact is stressed again in the CSAPProcedures Manual and communications related to AYP. There is a CSAP orCSAPA test booklet for all enrolled students in Colorado public schools.

CDE calculates the participation rate by analyzing the number of students who

do not participate in the appropriate assessments. All students in theschool/district, at the tested grade levels, are included in the denominator forpercentages. Students who were coded as test deferred due to language arecounted as non-participants. Additionally, students who have been in the US formore than three years are counted as non-participants if they take the Lectura(Spanish) assessment. Colorados definition of AYP requires that 95% of allstudents in all required student subgroups of 30 or more as well as the school orschool district as a whole participate in CSAP or CSAPA.

School districts and schools that fail to reach the 95% participation threshold forthe school or district as a whole and for all required student subgroups of thirty or

more students cannot make AYP.


43/44


EXAMPLES OF NOTMEETING

REQUIREMENTS

10.2 What is the State'spolicy for determiningwhen the 95% assessedrequirement should beapplied?

State has a policy that implements theregulation regarding the use of 95%allowance when the group isstatistically significant according toState rules.

State does not have aprocedure for making thisdetermination.


The 95% requirement is applied to all schools and districts as a whole and to anyof the required subgroups of thirty or more students. Schools, school districtsand the state cannot make AYP if the 95% participation requirement is not met.


44/44

Attachment A

AYP Proficiency Performance Targetsby Grade Level, Content Area, and Year

Year Elementary School Middle School High School

Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math*2002 76.92 75.86 73.61 59.51 79.65 47.00

2003 76.92 75.86 73.61 59.51 79.65 47.00

2004 76.92 75.86 73.61 59.51 79.65 47.00

2005 82.69 81.90 80.21 69.63 84.74 60.25

2006 82.69 83.64 80.21 69.63 84.74 60.25

2007 82.69 83.64 80.21 69.63 84.74 60.25

2008 88.46 89.09 86.81 79.75 89.83 73.50

2009 88.46 89.09 86.81 79.75 89.83 73.50

2010 88.46 89.09 86.81 79.75 89.83 73.50

2011 94.23 94.54 93.41 89.88 94.92 86.752012 94.23 94.54 93.41 89.88 94.92 86.75

2013 94.23 94.54 93.41 89.88 94.92 86.75

2014 100 100 100 100 100 100

Documents

description: tags: cocsa