Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005

Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved

Changes in 2005

Fall 2005

Accountability in Illinois, Fall 2005 2

Process for Workbook Changes Comments at last Triple I

meeting in November 2004

Comments from legislators in 2005

Dialogue with USDE in March 2005

Comments to State Superintendent Dunn over time

Discussion with an ad hoc group in spring 2005

Work on wording with USDE since April 2005


2005 Workbook Changes Subgroup Size, including the use of confidence

intervals District grade span review for improvement Special education subgroup “proxy” Changed definition of full academic year

Look for the green print in the workbook, representing 2005 changes…


Remember All 3 AYP Criteria!!!1. Achieve at least a 95% participation rate in state assessments

for all students and for each subgroup. Participation rates can be averaged back one or two years to get to 95%.

2. Reach targets (47.5% in 2005 and 2006) for the overall group for percent meeting and exceeding standards in reading and mathematics and reach targets for subgroups (47.5% in 2005 and 2006) or meet Safe Harbor requirements.

3. Meet attendance (89% in 2006 to 92% in 2014)and graduation targets (69% in 2006 to 85% in 2014)as applicable.


#1--Subgroup Size

Proposed several options... Change subgroup size for all eligible

subgroups in a school and in a district. from 40 to 45 for each subgroup; and from a 3% standard error of

measurement to a 95% Confidence Interval.


Also in #1, Confidence Intervals

Look on web site at www.isbe.net/pdf/2005_ayp_95_CI.pdf

The formula for the minimum performance target in 2005 and 2006 is

subgroupfor size Group

)5.52)(5.47( x 1.645-47.5


Confidence Intervals (continued)

For example, the minimum performance target for a school with a subgroup that has 45 reading scores is

3.35 45

)5.52)(5.47( x 1.645-47.5


Confidence Intervals (continued)

Subgroup CI Subgroup (Minimum Performance Target)

45 12.2 35.3 60 10.6 36.9 85 8.9 38.6 120 7.5 40.0 175 6.2 41.3 250 5.2 42.3 400 4.1 43.4 500 3.7 43.8


#2--District Status Grade Span Review Although the same AYP calculations occur as

has been in the past, eligibility for district improvement status has changed.

The 3 criteria for achieving AYP are 95% participation rate, meeting the target on performance, and meeting the target on graduation rate (high school) or attendance rate (elementary and middle schools). For unit districts, both attendance and graduation rates must be met as well as the other factors.


District Status (continued) Eligibility for district improvement status depends on the grade spans in the schools as well as the # of schools in the district.

For districts with more than one school and more than one grade span, beginning with the 2004-05 test data, district student data will be aggregated up to 3 grade spans -- elementary (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12).

When a LEA does not make AYP in all of the grade spans that the LEA has, in the same content area, for 2 consecutive years, it will be identified for district improvement status. If the LEA makes AYP in at least one of the grade spans, it will be ineligible for district improvement.


District Status (continued)

For districts with only one school or only one grade span, determination for district improvement status will be based on the same criteria for school improvement status.

To sum up, a district is eligible for district improvement status when all of its underlying grade spans (i.e., grades 3 through 5, 6 through 8 and 9 through 12) (when there is more than one grade span or school) have not met AYP in the same subject area for two consecutive years.


#3--Subgroup of Students with Disabilities / Proxy This new “2%” flexibility was announced by

Secretary Spellings in May as part of a short-term solution to fair assessment of students with disabilities.

Schools and districts that do not make AYP only because of this subgroup will have 14% added to the percent meeting and exceeding standards.

Actual % meeting and exceeding is reported.


Activities Related to the Proxy…

14% for IEP subgroup is short-term approach; its use in 2006 is a question at this time…

Illinois and other states that received permission for the proxy had to commit to a long-term approach of developing another assessment for the students with IEPs not assessed well through the current system…


#4--New Definition of Full Academic Year There is one additional change which was approved,

effective beginning with the 2006 tests. May 1, 2005 enrollment data will be critical to use in calculating the 2006-07 AYP status based on the 2006 assessments.

Beginning in 2006, only students who were enrolled on May 1st of the previous year count for AYP

Students enrolled in a school by this date will be included in AYP calculations.

Students not enrolled in the district as of May 1 will be assessed but not included in the AYP status of the district.


New Definition (continued)

Students enrolled in the district by May 1 and matriculating from one school to another (e.g., K-2 building into a 3-5 building) over the summer will be seen as continuously enrolled in the district and part of the grades 3-5 building and included in AYP status.

Students, enrolled in the district by May 1, and who move from one school in the district to another in the same district for any other reason will be considered as not enrolled for a full academic year and thus not included in the AYP calculation for the school.

Any student continuously enrolled within the district but changes to a new school within the district for reasons other than those determined by the district (e.g., overcrowding) after May 1st will be counted at the district level, not at the school level.


New Definition (continued)

Should the district need to move a grade or grades to another building at the beginning of the school year (e.g., due to overcrowding), those students who were enrolled in the district by May 1 and moving to the new building because of district needs would be seen as a student continuously enrolled in the district and part of the new building AYP status.

A new data collection will need to be developed and implemented for collecting May 1 data.


No change in same subgroup although requested of USDE

“Same subject area” criteria for AYP calculations was added in 2004.

ISBE sought to add an additional criteria of “same subgroup” in 2005. This was not accepted, as it did not meet the USDE “core criteria.”

HB 3678 of 2005 seeking same change…now Public Act 94-666. Letter sent to USDE seeking approval to use this mechanism as part of AYP determination.


Clarifications Included… Minimum size of subgroups is applied at the

school and district level as well as used for safe harbor calculations.

Illinois has 18 subgroups (9 across reading and 9 across math) since multiracial/ethnic is a grouping here, plus the “all” category (total of 20 measures).

Test scores of students with disabilities go to the home school (and district…).


Clarifications Included… (continued)

Students who are in jail or attend a school housed in a locked correctional facility at the time of state assessment will not be tested. These students will not be included in enrollment counts for their home schools and districts.

Illinois has committed to developing an alternate assessment (not IAA) for the 2% students of students per USDE flexibility.


Clarifications Included… (continued)

For students with limited English proficiency residing for their first year of enrollment in U. S. schools in Illinois, they must be tested in math and may be tested in reading. In either case, Illinois will not include performance results from those assessments but will count them for participation.


Public Act 94-0666 Seeks…Only with the specific approval of USDE can Illinois do these: AYP for students with disabilities shall be based on their IEPs,

not a State assessment; placing a school or LEA on AEW status for not meeting AYP

criteria for two consecutive annual calculations shall not begin until the 2005-2006 SY;

criteria must not be met in the same subgroup and in the same subject or in the school's or LEA's participation rate, attendance rate, or graduation rate for the school or LEA to be on AEW or AW status;

a school or LEA on AEW or AW status that meets AYP criteria for one annual calculation (instead of two consecutive annual calculations) shall be considered as having met expectations and removed from any federal status designation.

Letter sent to USDE by Superintendent Dunn; no response to date.


AYP DesignationsSchool Status (total #) 100 schools on 7/6 988 on 7/9 1,115 on 7/11 1,548 on 7/21 1,738 on 8/1 2,008 on 8/9 2,181 on 8/16 2,942 on 8/23 3,767 on 8/31 ALL

District Status (total #) 200 LEAs on 7/28 282 on 7/29 338 on 8/3 407 on 8/9 443 on 8/11 482 on 8/16 764 on 8/23 879 on 8/31 ALL

See sample letters at http://www.isbe.net/nclb/

default.htm


Suggestions for Future Changes?

Workbook In line with the law Making sense for Illinois Possibly 1% or more, per Texas route? Possibly change the targets between now and

2014, up to the 100%? 2007 Changes in NCLB itself

Target of 100% made a goal? Please let [email protected] know!

Documents

Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005