2011 interpretive guide of alabama accountability system
DESCRIPTION
2011 Interpretive guide of Alabama Accountability SystemTRANSCRIPT
2011 INTERPRETIVE GUIDE
Alabama Accountability System
Alabama Department of Education
Joseph B. Morton
State Superintendent of Education
July 2011
2
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) .......................................................................................... 4
Assessments Included in Accountability ............................................................................... 8
Academic Achievement Levels ............................................................................................... 9
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) ............................................................................... 10
Student Groups for Disaggregation ..................................................................................... 11
Group Size .............................................................................................................................. 12
Proficiency Index ................................................................................................................... 13
Confidence Interval ............................................................................................................... 16
Uniform Averaging ................................................................................................................ 18
Safe Harbor ............................................................................................................................ 21
Relationship between AYP and School Improvement ...................................................... 22
Glossary .................................................................................................................................. 24
Sample Status Reports .......................................................................................................... 26
3
2011 INTERPRETIVE GUIDE
Alabama Accountability System
Introduction
In August 2004, Alabama reported the results of its new accountability system. Many factors, including
both state and federal laws, were influential in the development of this new accountability system. As
Alabama worked to comply with these laws, parents, teachers, school officials, and policymakers also
worked to ensure that the new accountability system was consistent with the state’s educational needs. In
order to understand how this all came together, one must look at accountability in Alabama over the past
several years.
A state law was passed in 1995 requiring the administration of a nationally normed achievement test in
Grades 3-11, and requiring the results be used for identifying schools in need of improvement. As a
result, beginning in 1996 schools and school systems were identified as Alert, Caution, and Clear based
on the results of scores from the Stanford Achievement Test. After much effort by educators and others,
another state law was passed in 2000 that gave the State Board of Education the authority to determine
the assessment and accountability programs for Alabama. Based on this new authority, the State
Superintendent of Education appointed the Test Advisory Committee to make recommendations for
assessment and accountability programs. This committee took their charge seriously and began work
developing recommendations for assessment and accountability programs.
As the Test Advisory Committee worked, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was being
drafted. Many of the provisions that the Test Advisory Committee considered were consistent with those
being considered by drafters of the new federal law. NCLB required criterion-referenced achievement
tests to be administered in Grades 3-8 and at least once at the high school level and that these
assessments be used for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) for schools.
In consideration of these requirements, the State Board of Education passed a resolution on July 9, 2002,
outlining a long-range assessment plan and principles to be used in the development of an assessment
program and an accountability system. In June 2003, the State Board of Education adopted the
recommendations of the Accountability Advisory Committee for implementation beginning 2003-2004.
The accountability program that resulted was intended to be a single state accountability system in
compliance with NCLB and the Code of Alabama (1975), Chapter 16-6B-1-3. This required Alabama to
put into place an interim accountability plan for school years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 while the new
assessments and the accountability system were being developed for implementation in 2003-2004.
The changes were significant and complex. To help educators, concerned citizens, public officials, and
the media better understand these complex changes, this Interpretive Guide has been developed. It is
designed to introduce the key components of the resulting accountability system. As the accountability
program has been implemented, issues have emerged that required decisions and actions that were not
anticipated. It is intended that this Interpretive Guide will explain the accountability program based on
assessments administered in 2010-2011 and provide guidance through 2013-2014.
4
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
NCLB uses the term AYP to describe whether a school or school system has met its annual
accountability goals. AYP is “what the school or school system did this year.” Three factors are
considered in determining AYP. These factors are participation rate, annual measurable objectives in
reading and mathematics, and additional academic indicators.
Participation Rate
To meet AYP, a school, school system, and each group (students in the aggregate and each subgroup)
must have at least a 95% participation rate on assessments. This participation rate is calculated
separately for reading and mathematics.
Participation rates are calculated as the number of students who participate in a state assessment (either
the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test [ARMT], the Alabama High School Graduation Exam
[AHSGE], or the Alabama Alternate Assessment [AAA]) divided by the number of students enrolled on
the first day of the state testing window. Students that previously passed the AHSGE are counted as
participating regardless of when the student passed. For limited-English proficient students for who
2009-2010 was their first year in an U.S. school, participation in the ACCESS for English Language
Learners (ACCESS) will be used for reading participation.
If the school, system, or a group does not have at least a 95% participation rate, the following method is
applied:
Uniform Averaging – If the participation rate for the current year does not meet the 95% goal, the
participation rate for the most recent three years will be averaged using a weighted average. If this
average meets the goal, the school, system, or group will be considered to have met the participation
rate. (See pages 18–19 for additional information.)
Please note that a student must have a valid reading test score to be included for participation in reading
and a valid mathematics test score to be included for participation in mathematics.
Annual Measurable Objectives for Reading and Mathematics (AMO)
It is the goal of NCLB that all public school students perform at the “proficient” level in reading and
mathematics by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. In Alabama “proficient” is defined as Level III –
Meets Academic Content Standards. The assessment results from spring 2004 test administrations were
used to determine the starting points or baselines for Grades 4, 6, 8, and 11 reading and for Grades 4, 6,
and 11 mathematics. The assessment results from spring 2005 test administrations were used to
determine the starting points or baselines for Grades 3, 5, and 7 reading and Grades 3, 5, 7, and 8
mathematics. With the baselines established, yearly target goals or annual measurable objectives were
established, according to NCLB requirements, which will be used to determine whether schools and
school systems are making adequate yearly progress toward meeting the 2013-2014 requirement of 100%
proficient.
The scores of all student groups (students in the aggregate and each group of students) must meet or
exceed the state’s annual measurable objectives for reading and mathematics. (See page 11 for
explanation of student groups used for this disaggregation.) Annual measurable objectives are
established separately for reading and mathematics for each grade included in accountability calculations.
5
Annual measurable objectives are expressed as the percent of students scoring Level III and above. (See
Annual Measurable Objectives on page 10.) For determining AYP, scores are combined across grades
using a proficiency index. (See Proficiency Index, pages 13–15, for a more detailed explanation.)
Although all students in the school must be tested and their assessment results reported, schools are only
held accountable for scores of those students enrolled for a “full academic year.” All students enrolled in
schools or school systems for a “full academic year” are included in the calculations for determining if
the proficiency goal has been met. A “full academic year” is defined as students enrolled as of
September 1 and continue to be enrolled as of the first day of the state testing window without a break in
enrollment. (See Student Groups for Disaggregation, page 11, for exception for limited English
proficient students.)
If the school, system, or a group does not make proficiency, the following methods are applied:
Confidence Interval – The confidence interval provides a test for whether or not a proficiency index
is statistically different from the goal of zero at the .01 level. If a school, school system, or group’s
proficiency index falls below zero, but is within the confidence interval, the school, school system, or
group is considered to have met its proficiency goal. (See pages 16–17 for additional information.)
Uniform Averaging – The proficiency indexes for the most recent three years will be averaged. If
this average is zero or higher, the school, system, or group will be considered to have met its
proficiency goal. (See pages 18 and 20 for additional information.)
Safe Harbor – A school, school system, or group is considered to have met its proficiency goal via
the safe harbor provision if it meets the following criteria:
The group decreases those who are not proficient by at least 10% from the preceding year
The group meets the 95% participation rate, and
The group meets the goal or makes the required improvement on the additional academic
indicator. (See page 21 for additional information.)
Additional Academic Indicators
In addition to the annual measurable objectives in reading and mathematics, NCLB requires at least one
additional academic indicator (AAI) be used to determine if schools and school systems have made AYP.
Students in the aggregate, the All Students group, must meet the state’s requirements for the additional
academic indicators. However, if safe harbor is invoked for a disaggregated group, the group also must meet
the additional academic indicator. Alabama uses two different additional academic indicators.
Alabama uses attendance rate as the additional academic indicator in elementary schools, middle schools,
and any schools without a Grade 12. A school or school system is considered to have made its attendance
goal if it meets the goal of 95% attendance rate or if it improves the attendance rate from the previous year.
For high schools or schools with a Grade 12, the additional academic indicator is stipulated by NCLB to be
the graduation rate. Currently, the graduation rate is calculated using the NCES Leaver Rate formula and is
reported one (1) year in arrears. This will be the last year Alabama uses this formula for calculating the AYP
graduation rate. Beginning next year, Alabama will be using the 4-year adjusted cohort rate formula for
calculating the graduation rate and will be reported one (1) year in arrears.
Schools and school systems may meet the graduation rate goal in one of the following ways:
6
Current year graduation rate is greater than or equal to the goal of 90% (same as previously used for AYP).
Average graduation rate for the most recent three years is greater than or equal to the goal of 90%.
Current year graduation rate is greater than or equal to the previous year graduation rate plus 10% of the
difference between the goal of 90% and the previous year’s graduation rate.
Average graduation rate for the most recent three years is greater than or equal to the average graduation rate for
the previous three years plus 10% of the difference between the goal of 90% and the average of the previous
three years.
When reporting AYP for a school, the matrix below is completed for all grades combined.
Matrix for AYP Determinations
2011-2012 School Year
(Based on School Year 2010-2011 Data)
Component
Reading Mathematics
Additional
Academic
Indicator*
Group
Met
Participation
Goal
Met
Proficiency
Goal
Met
Participation
Goal
Met
Proficiency
Goal
Met
Graduation
Goal/
Attendance
Goal
All Students
Special
Education
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
Limited
English
Proficient
Free/Reduced
Meals
* Schools with students in Grade 12 are required to meet the graduation rate as the additional academic indicator.
Additionally, schools and school systems are given an AYP status for the reading component, the
mathematics component, and the additional academic indicator component. To make AYP in reading, a
school/school system must have at least 95% participation in all applicable groups (the All Students group
and all applicable disaggregated student groups) and meet the annual measurable objectives in reading in all
applicable groups. To make AYP in mathematics, a school/school system must have at least 95%
participation in all applicable groups (the All Students group and all applicable disaggregated student
groups) and meet the annual measurable objectives in mathematics in all applicable groups. To make AYP
in the additional academic indicator(s), a school/school system must meet the goal(s) or make the required
7
progress toward the goal(s) from the previous year. If a school meets all applicable goals for a component, it
will make AYP for that component. A school or school system may make AYP in one component and not
make AYP in another component. A school or school system must make AYP in all three components
(reading, mathematics, and additional academic indicators) in order to make overall AYP. A school is
identified as not making AYP in a component when it does not meet all applicable goals for the component
(reading, mathematics, or additional academic indicators).
For a school system, the status report below is completed separately for each grade span (3-5 Grade Span,
6-8 Grade Span, and High School Span). If the span fails to meet the goal in any applicable cell, they will
not have made AYP for that span.
A school system that meets all applicable goals for a component (reading, mathematics, and AAI) for at
least one grade span will make AYP for that component. (e.g., If a school system makes AYP in reading at
the 3-5 Grade Span, the school system makes AYP for the reading component. It does not matter what
happens in the 6-8 Grade Span or the High School Span.) A school system is identified as not making AYP
in a component when it does not make AYP in all three grade spans (3-5 Grade Span, 6-8 Grade Span, and
High School Span).
Two colors are used to display the status of a school or system. Green indicates that the school or system
made the goals for participation and proficiency in reading or mathematics, or the AAI; red indicates that the
school or system did not. Both should be considered when evaluating need for improvement. A closer look
at a green cell may indicate that while a group may have made AYP in that component, it may require
intervention in order to maintain AYP in that component.
Example
of
System Status Summary Report
3-5
Grade Span
6-8
Grade Span
High School
Span
System AYP
Reading AYP No Yes No Yes
Mathematics AYP No No No No
AAI AYP Yes Yes No Yes
Overall AYP No
It should be noted that the term “failing school” is not used in the state accountability plan and is not used in
federal law or regulations. If a school or school system does not make AYP, a description should be attached
to the phrase “did not make AYP” to explain the basis on which it was determined that the school/
school system did not make AYP. For example, “the school did not make AYP in reading proficiency
among special education students (one cell) and in reading participation rate among limited English
proficient students (one cell)” provides much more information than saying that the school is a failing
school.
All schools are given an academic status. Schools without students in Grades 3-8 and/or 11 will receive the
academic status of the school within the school system to which the majority or largest number of students
will attend when they leave. Schools that are newly reconfigured or newly formed will, for their first year of
existence, receive the academic status of the school which contributed the majority or largest number of
students.
8
Assessments Included in Accountability
The assessments used to determine AYP for NCLB for the 2010-2011 school year were the ARMT, the
reading and mathematics subject-area tests of the AHSGE, the reading and mathematics subject-area tests of
the AAA, and ACCESS. All assessments used for accountability are administered in English.
The ARMT consists of selected test items from the Stanford Achievement Test, Tenth Edition (Stanford 10)
that match the Alabama courses of study in reading and mathematics plus additional test items that, when
added to the selected Stanford 10 items, give complete coverage of the content contained in those courses of
study. Students in Grades 3-8 take the ARMT during the spring of the year.
Students in Grade 11 take the AHSGE, the exam required for students to pass in order to get a high school
diploma. The AHSGE also is based on the Alabama courses of study in reading and mathematics.
The AAA is the assessment administered to special education students whose Individualized Education
Program (IEP) teams determine they cannot participate in general state assessments, with or without
accommodations. The AAA is based on a student’s mastery of the Alabama Extended Standards in reading
and mathematics.
ACCESS is the assessment administered to limited-English proficient (LEP) students. For LEP students
who are in their first twelve months of enrollment in a U.S. school, ACCESS will count as their
participation for reading. These students’ test scores will not be included in the reading and mathematics
proficiency calculations.
9
Academic Achievement Levels
Academic achievement levels define how well students are mastering the state’s academic content standards
at each grade level. The State Board of Education adopted academic achievement standards in a resolution
dated July 9, 2002. The results of the ARMT, AHSGE, and AAA are reported in four academic achievement
levels:
Level IV – Exceeds Academic Content Standards
Level III – Meets Academic Content Standards
Level II – Partially Meets Academic Content Standards
Level I – Does Not Meet Academic Content Standards.
Level III is considered proficient. Therefore, a student scoring a Level III or Level IV meets the proficiency
standard. A student scoring a Level I or Level II does not meet the proficiency standard.
The same reporting system is applied to all criterion-referenced assessments in Alabama.
10
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)
In accordance with NCLB, the results from the ARMT and the AHSGE (cumulative passing rates for Grade
11 students) were used to determine baselines or starting points. These starting points were established using
criteria set forth in NCLB. These baselines are applied to schools, school systems, and groups and are
calculated separately by grade and subject.
Once the baselines were established, intermediate goals were established with equal increases in the required
percent proficient. AMOs, the annual requirements for percentage of students at proficiency, will be the
same as the most recent intermediate goals. The annual measurable objectives are listed below. Note that
the annual measurable objectives for two consecutive years may be the same. The ultimate goal for NCLB is
that all students reach Level III (proficient) or higher by 2013-2014.
Reading
Annual Measurable Objectives
Percentage of Proficient Students
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Grade 3 73 73 77 77 81 85 88 92 96 100
Grade 4 68 68 73 73 77 77 82 86 91 95 100
Grade 5 73 73 77 77 81 85 88 92 96 100
Grade 6 74 74 78 78 81 81 85 89 93 96 100
Grade 7 63 63 68 68 74 79 84 89 95 100
Grade 8 43 43 51 51 59 59 67 76 84 92 100
Grade 11 81 81 84 84 86 86 89 92 95 97 100
Mathematics
Annual Measurable Objectives
Percentage of Proficient Students
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Grade 3 63 63 68 68 74 79 84 89 95 100
Grade 4 61 61 67 67 72 72 78 83 89 94 100
Grade 5 59 59 65 65 71 77 82 88 94 100
Grade 6 39 39 48 48 56 56 65 74 83 91 100
Grade 7 40 40 49 49 57 66 74 83 91 100
Grade 8 48 48 55 55 63 70 78 85 93 100
Grade 11 68 68 73 73 77 77 82 86 91 95 100
11
Student Groups for Disaggregation
NCLB requires the inclusion of the following groups, in addition to the All Students group, in determining
AYP: special education students, major racial/ethnic groups, students with limited-English proficiency, and
economically disadvantaged (free/reduced meals). Groups of sufficient size (see Group Size, page 12) must
meet the same annual measurable objectives as the All Students group. Groups also must meet the 95%
participation rate and, if safe harbor is invoked, meet the additional academic indicator requirement for that
group. The major racial/ethnic groups that have been identified are as follows: American Indian/Alaskan
Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and White.
Special Education Students
One of the most difficult issues facing schools is the inclusion of special education students in the assessment
and accountability systems. Federal regulations (December, 2003) clarified that a state is permitted to use
alternate achievement standards to evaluate the performance of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities and give equal weight to proficient and advanced performance (Levels III and IV) based on the
alternate standards when calculating school, school system, and state AYP. Although the regulations do not
put a limit on how many special education students may participate in these alternate achievement standards,
the regulations do stipulate that the number of proficient and advanced scores based on the alternate
achievement standards cannot exceed 1.0 percent of all students enrolled in the grades tested at the state or
school system level for accountability. Therefore, any number of students over the 1.0 percent cap scoring in
Levels III and IV on the AAA will count at the lowest proficiency level (Level I – Does Not Meet
Standards) regardless of the students’ actual scores. If a school system exceeds the 1.0 percent, the State
Department of Education will randomly select which students are counted as proficient and which students
are counted as not proficient for accountability purposes regardless of their actual scores. The scores of
these students will be counted the same at the school, school system, and state levels.
In Alabama, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are defined as those students with
cognitive functioning at least three standard deviations below the mean (I.Q. of 55 and below) and whose
cognitive impairments may prevent them from attaining grade-level achievements, even with the very best
instruction. (Note: A school system may apply to the State Department of Education for an exception to the
1.0 percent cap.)
In past years, if a school or school system did not make AYP based solely on the proficiency index of the
special education group, the U. S. Department of Education had approved the use of the Interim 2%
Flexibility Option. However, effective with the 2009-2010 school year, this option was no longer available.
Limited English Proficient Students
All limited-English proficient students (LEP) must participate in the statewide assessments, with or without
accommodations, regardless of their level of English language proficiency or length of time in school. An
exception is allowed for limited-English proficient students in their first twelve months of enrollment in
U. S. schools. LEP students are not required to participate in the statewide reading assessment during their
first twelve months of enrollment in U. S. schools, but must participate in ACCESS (the English language
acquisition test) and in the statewide mathematics assessment. These tests will not be included in the reading
and mathematics results for the proficiency index for accountability, but they will be counted in the
participation rate.
12
Group Size
Schools and school systems are only responsible for groups of students that are large enough to yield
statistically reliable data for AYP determinations.
Forty has been established as the minimum number of students required. If a group contains fewer than 40
students, the proficiency index for determining AYP will not be applied to that group. Schools and school
systems that do not meet the required minimum of 40 students in the aggregate (all students) will be
assigned a proficiency index based on the number of students they do have and a notation will indicate that
the school/school system did not meet the minimum requirement of 40.
Forty also has been established as the minimum number required for the participation rate for determining
AYP. If a group has 40 or more students, a 95% participation rate is required. If a group contains fewer than
40, accountability will not be applied to the group. Schools and school systems that do not meet the
minimum requirement of 40 in the aggregate (all students) will be required to test at least two fewer students
(N-2 rule for small schools) than their enrollment in order to meet the participation rate requirement.
It should be noted, however, that although a school may not have 40 students in a group (e.g., special
education students), those special education students will be included in the school system’s number of
special education students. As a result, the school system may have at least 40 special education students
and the special education group will be counted at the school system level.
13
Proficiency Index
Because each grade has its own goal (annual measurable objective), it was necessary to develop a means of
combining the percent proficient across grades. The proficiency index is the reporting metric that was
developed which allows test scores to be combined across grades in determining AYP status. The
proficiency index includes the following: (1) separate starting points and growth trajectories for each grade
and subject, (2) a comparison of percent proficient for each grade/subject to the annual measurable objective
and calculation of a difference score for each grade/subject, (3) a procedure to weight the scores based on the
number of students in each grade (i.e., a weighted constant), and (4) a determination of a proficiency index in
each subject by summing across grades the products of the difference scores and the weighted constants. A
proficiency index score of zero or higher indicates that a group made its goal.
The proficiency index is an indication of where the group is in relation to meeting its goals across grades. A
proficiency index of zero means that, on average, students are meeting the goals across grades. A positive
index indicates that the group is exceeding the goals. For example, an index of 3.0 means that, on average,
the group has 3 percent more of its students scoring proficient than is required. Likewise, an index of
negative 3.0 means that, on average, the group has 3 percent fewer students scoring proficient than is
required.
14
Calculations for Determining the Proficiency Index
Students scoring in Level II will count 0.5 and students scoring in Levels III and IV will count as 1.0 when
determining the number of proficient students. The use of Level II in the proficiency index calculations
applies to the ARMT and the AHSGE, but does not apply to the AAA.
The following is a hypothetical example of the reading proficiency index for the Hispanic student group for a
hypothetical school with Grades 4 and 5 to illustrate how the proficiency index is computed.
Grade 4 reading annual measurable objective for 2011 = 86% proficient
Actual percentage of Grade 4 Hispanic students (20 students) proficient = 87.500000%
Difference = 1.500000%
Grade 5 reading annual measurable objective for 2011 = 88% proficient
Actual percentage of Grade 5 Hispanic students (30 students) proficient = 78.333333%
Difference = -9.666667%
Grade 4 Calculations for Percent Proficient
Grade 4 has 20 students tested who were full academic year.
6 students at Level IV = 6 x1 = 6.0
10 students at Level III = 10 x1 = 10.0
3 students at Level II = 3 x 0.5 = 1.5
1 student at Level I = 1 x 0 = 0.0
17.5 proficient
Formula for determining percent proficient:
# proficient / # of students tested who were full academic year
17.5/20 =
87.500000% proficient
Grade 5 Calculations for Percent Proficient
Grade 5 has 30 students tested who were full academic year
7 students at Level IV = 7 x 1 = 7.0
14 students at Level III = 14 x 1 = 14.0
5 students at Level II = 5 x0.5 = 2.5
4 students at Level I = 4 x 0 = 0.0
23.5 proficient
Formula for determining percent proficient:
# proficient / # of students tested who were full academic year
23.5 / 30 =
78.333333% proficient
15
Weighted constants (Number Tested in Grade/Total Tested)
Grade 4 = (20/50) = .4
Grade 5 = (30/50) = .6
Hispanic reading proficiency index =
.4(1.500000) + .6(-9.666667) = (.600000) + (-5.800000) = -5.20%
The proficiency index in this example shows that the Hispanic group is below the goal by 5.20% percentage
points. The 99% confidence interval will then be applied to determine if the group meets AYP. If a
difference of -5.20% is not significant, the Hispanic group will be considered to have made its goal. (See
Confidence Interval [pages 16 - 17], Uniform Averaging [pages 18 and 20], and Safe Harbor [page 21] for
additional ways to meet AYP.)
16
Confidence Interval
The reporting of confidence intervals is a commonly used reference. In fact, polling companies often report
the results of surveys using confidence intervals around reported percentages. For example, “The results of
the poll indicate that 69% of the people would vote for Candidate X – the margin of error (confidence
interval) for the survey is plus or minus 4 points.”
As indicated earlier, schools, school systems, or groups with proficiency index scores of zero or higher are
considered to have made their goals. However, in order to ensure statistically sound decisions, confidence
intervals (CI) were placed around the proficiency index scores for schools, school systems, and groups. The
confidence interval provides a test for whether or not a proficiency index is statistically different from the
goal of zero at the .01 level. If a school, school system, or group’s proficiency index falls below the goal, yet
the goal is within the confidence interval, then the school, school system, or group is considered to have met
its goal.
The confidence interval constructed around the proficiency index is based on the formula for the standard
error of a proportion, giving an indication of how much sampling variability can be expected with the size of
the sample.
17
Calculations for Determining Confidence Interval
The formula used to calculate the confidence interval is as follows:
CI = (t-critical) x p)/N p)-((100 x
where t-critical is the critical value for a one-tailed t-test at the .01 level (99% CI),
p is the absolute value of the proficiency index, and
N is the number of students in the group.
The confidence interval is calculated and added to the proficiency index value. If the sum of the proficiency
index and the confidence interval is equal to or greater than zero, the group is considered to have met its
goal.
The following is an example of the confidence interval calculation for the Hispanic student group with a
reading proficiency index of -5.20% previously shown.
Confidence Interval Calculations for Hispanic Group
50 Hispanic students are in the group. The group has a proficiency
index of -5.20%.
Formula:
CI = (t-critical) x p)/N p)-((100 x
2.4082 x 50/)2.5)2.5100(( x =
2.4082 x 50/2.5)8.94( x =
2.4082 x 50/96.492 =
2.4082 x = 8592.9
2.4082 x 3.139936 =
7.561594 =
7.56
When 7.56 is added to the proficiency index of -5.20, the result of 2.36 is greater than zero, so the group
would be considered to have met the annual measurable objective in reading.
As indicated by the formula, the size of the confidence interval depends on the size of the group. Therefore,
a confidence interval must be calculated for each group. The smaller the group is, the larger the confidence
interval.
18
Uniform Averaging
In order to increase reliability of decisions, Alabama incorporates a uniform averaging procedure. If the
participation rate and/or proficiency index for the current year does not meet the goal, the participation
rate and/or proficiency index for the most recent three years’ data, including the current year’s data, will
be averaged. If this average meets the goal, the school, school system, or group will be considered to
have met its goal.
Exception: If there is only one previous year’s data to average, the average will be based on two years’
data until three years’ data are available for averaging.
19
Calculations for Determining Uniform Averaging for Participation
The following is an example of uniform averaging calculations for a student group with a reading
participation rate of 94%.
A weighted average participation rate will be calculated using data for the most recent three years
(including the current year) according to the following formula:
Ti + T(i-1) + T(i-2)
AP = --------------------
Ei + E(i-1) + E(i-2)
AP is the weighted average participation between the given year i and year (i - 2)
Ti is the number of students tested for year i
T(i-1) is the number of students tested for year (i-1)
T(i-2) is the number of students tested for year (i-2)
Ei is the number of students enrolled on the first day of testing for year i
E(i-1) is the number of students enrolled on the first day of testing for year (i-1)
E(i-2) is the number of students enrolled on the first day of testing for year (i-2)
When 95.30 is rounded, the result is 95. This group would be considered to have met the reading
participation rate requirement of 95% for AYP.
Uniform Averaging Calculations for Participation Rate
2011: Tested 45 students and had 48 students enrolled. 94% Participation Rate
2010: Tested 49 students and had 50 students enrolled. 98% Participation Rate
2009: Tested 48 students and had 51 students enrolled. 94% Participation Rate
Formula: Ti + T(i-1) + T(i-2)
AP = --------------------
Ei + E(i-1) + E(i-2)
45 + 49 + 48
AP = --------------------
48 + 50 + 51
142
AP = -------
149
AP = 95.30
20
Calculations for Determining Uniform Averaging for Proficiency Index
The following is an example of uniform averaging calculations for a student group with a reading
proficiency index of -2.35.
A weighted average proficiency index will be calculated using data for the most recent three years
(including the current year) according to the following formula:
(Ti)(PIi) + (T(i-1))(PI(i-1)) + (T(i-2))(PI(i-2))
API = ----------------------------------------------
Ti + T(i-1) + T(i-2)
API is the weighted average proficiency index between the given year i and year (i-2)
Ti is the number of students enrolled Full Academic Year (FAY) and tested in year i
T(i-1) is the number of students enrolled FAY and tested in year i-1
T(i-2) is the number of students enrolled FAY and tested in year i-2
PIi is the proficiency index for year i
PI(i-1) is the proficiency index for year i-1
PI(i-2) is the proficiency index for year i-2
With a uniform averaging proficiency index of .68, this group would be considered to have met the reading
proficiency index requirement for AYP.
Uniform Averaging Calculations for Proficiency Index
2011: Tested 42 students enrolled for full academic year with a proficiency index of -2.35
2010: Tested 45 students enrolled for full academic year with a proficiency index of .98
2009: Tested 48 students enrolled for full academic year with a proficiency index of 3.04
Formula:
(Ti)(PIi) + (T(i-1))(PI(i-1)) + (T(i-2))(PI(i-2))
API = ----------------------------------------------
Ti + T(i-1) + T(i-2)
(42)(-2.35) + (45)(.98) + (48)(3.04)
API = ---------------------------------------
42+ 45 + 48
-98.70+ 44.10 + 145.92
API = -------------------------
42 + 45 + 48
91.32
API = -------------
135
API = .68
21
Safe Harbor
If students in a school/school system in the aggregate and each group do not have a proficiency index of zero
or higher, the school/school system will be considered not to have made AYP. However, a safe harbor
provision may allow the group (and as a result, the school) to make its goal. The safe harbor provision
requires that:
The group decreases those who are not proficient by at least 10% from the preceding year
The group meets the 95% participation rate, and
The group meets the goal or makes the required improvement on the additional academic
indicator.
Attendance rates and graduation rates are disaggregated, as necessary, for applying safe harbor to groups
within schools and school systems.
Calculations for Determining Safe Harbor
The following is an example of the safe harbor calculation for a student group with a reading proficiency
index of -2.64.
By virtue of having met all the criteria of safe harbor, this group would be considered to have made the
reading proficiency index for AYP.
Safe Harbor Calculations
2011: -2.64 Proficiency Index 97% Participation Rate 95% Attendance Rate
2010: -4.02 Proficiency Index 96% Participation Rate 97% Attendance Rate
Did the group decrease by 10% those who are not proficient from the previous year?
YES
Did the group have at least a 95% participation rate?
YES
Did the group meet or make the required improvement on the additional academic
indicator?
YES
22
Relationship between AYP and School Improvement
As stated previously, a school or school system must meet all of the following in order to make AYP:
participation rate and annual measurable objectives in reading, participation rate and annual measurable
objectives in mathematics, and the additional academic indicator(s). Whereas NCLB uses the term AYP to
describe whether or not a school or school system has met its goals for a specific year, the term School
Improvement is used to describe whether a school or school system has met its accountability goals over
time. School Improvement is based on “what the school or school system did this year and prior years.”
To be identified for School Improvement, a school must miss AYP in the same component (reading,
mathematics, or additional academic indicator) for two consecutive years. A school system will be identified
as in School Improvement when it does not make AYP in the same component (reading, mathematics, or
additional academic indicators) across all three grade spans (3-5 Grade Span, 6-8 Grade Span, and High
School Span) for two consecutive years. The overall School Improvement status for a school or school
system is the most “advanced” status of the three components. For example, if a school is in School
Improvement Year 2 for reading, Not in School Improvement for mathematics, and School Improvement
Year 1 for additional academic indicator, the school’s overall status is School Improvement Year 2. The
overall School Improvement status is the status on which interventions are based.
A school or school system that makes AYP for two consecutive years in a component will be identified as
Not in School Improvement for that component. A school or school system that does not make AYP for two
consecutive years in the same component will be identified as in School Improvement Year 1 for that
component. If the school or school system does not make AYP the next year in the same component, it will
move to School Improvement Year 2, etc.
Once in School Improvement, if a school or school system makes one year of AYP, it does not advance to
the next level of improvement, but retains its current improvement status in the component. (This is also
known as the delay provision.) It must, however, continue to implement applicable interventions. The next
year’s results determine whether the school or school system “advances” a level or returns to Not in School
Improvement.
Once in School Improvement
Progression of School Improvement
(applied separately to reading, mathematics, and AAI)
Made AYP Previous Year
and in School Improvement
Made AYP
Current Year
School Improvement
Current Year
Yes Yes Not in School Improvement
Yes No Progress to next level
No Yes Delay period
No No Progress to next level
23
Applying this progression to a school that was in School Improvement Year 2 the previous year, the
following are possible outcomes for School Improvement for the current year.
Scenarios
Previous Year
Current Year
Made
AYP
Status Made
AYP
Status
1
Yes
School
Improvement
Year 2
(Delay)
Yes
Not in School
Improvement
2
Yes
School
Improvement
Year 2
(Delay)
No
School
Improvement
Year 3
3
No
School
Improvement
Year 2
Yes
School
Improvement
Year 2 (Delay)
4
No
School
Improvement
Year 2
No
School
Improvement
Year 3
If a LEA requests and is approved for one of its schools to become a Turnaround School under a School
Improvement Grant (SIG), the school will receive an adequate yearly progress report, retain their school’s
history for the purposes of calculating uniform averaging and safe harbor, and have the sanctions of previous
school improvement designations removed.
24
GLOSSARY
AAA – Alabama Alternate Assessment; administered to a special education student whose IEP team
determines the student is unable to participate in general state assessments, with or without
accommodations
Academic Achievement Levels – define how well students are mastering the state’s academic content
standards at grade level
Aggregate – total of all students; also called the All Students group
AHSGE – Alabama High School Graduation Exam; based on the Alabama courses of study
Annual Measurable Objective – state’s established annual requirement for the percentage of students
scoring proficient or higher in a grade and subject
ARMT – Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test; based on the Alabama courses of study for reading and
mathematics
AYP – Adequate Yearly Progress; used to describe if a school or school system has met its annual
accountability goals
Baseline – state’s established beginning point for percentage of students that must be proficient
Confidence Interval – a method of meeting AYP by testing whether or not a proficiency index is
statistically different from the goal
Disaggregate – breakdown by group
Grade Spans – for a school system, an accountability status is reported separately for three grade spans:
3-5 Grade Span, 6-8 Grade Span, and High School Span
Group – distinct group within a larger group; Alabama identifies the following groups: All Students, special
education, major racial/ethnic groups, limited English proficient, economically disadvantaged
(free/reduced meals)
Group Size – the minimum number of students (40) required for the group to be included in accountability
N-2 Rule for Small Schools – for schools and school systems that do not meet the minimum requirement of
40 in the aggregate; required to test at least two fewer students than their enrollment in order to meet the
participation requirement
Participation Rate – percentage of students participating in state assessments
Partially Proficient – partially meets academic content standards (Level II)
Proficient – meets academic content standards (Level III or higher)
Proficiency Index – reporting metric that allows test scores to be combined across grades in determining
AYP
25
Safe Harbor – a method of meeting AYP if a group decreases by at least 10% from the preceding year those
who are not proficient, meets the 95% participation rate, and meets goal or makes the required
improvement on the additional academic indicator
School Improvement – used to describe whether a school or school system has met its accountability goals
over time
Turnaround School – used to describe a school meeting specific criteria as outlined by the School
Improvement Grant process.
Uniform Averaging – a method of meeting AYP by averaging the proficiency index or participation rate of
the most recent three years, including the current year
26
27
System Status Summary Report
Welcome to
Alabama AYP Accountability Reporting & Appeals System
System Status Summary Report
Alabama Department of Education Adequate Yearly Progress Status for 2011-2012 Based on School Year 2010-2011 Data
019 Hennepin County
2011-2012 AYP Status
Made AYP
Not in School Improvement
System Status Summary Report
3 - 5 Grade Span
6 - 8 Grade Span
High School Span
System AYP
Reading AYP Yes No No Yes
Mathematics AYP Yes Yes Yes Yes
Additional Academic Indicator AYP
Yes Yes Yes Yes
28
29
30