Indicator #3

Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development

See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development preceding Indicator #1.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator #3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:

Percent of districts meeting the State’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.

Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

A. Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the State times 100.

Note: For this measure, NYS also computes the percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (students with IEPs) divided by the number of districts that were required to make AYP (met the minimum size criteria).

B. Participation rate =

a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;

b. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);

c. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);

d. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100); and

e. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100).

Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.

Overall Percent = b + c + d + e divided by a.

C. Proficiency rate =

a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;

b. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);

c. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);

d. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100); and

e. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100).

Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.

Overall Percent = [(b+c+d+e) divided by (a)].

Note:

NYS is not using data reported under section 618 in OSEP Table 6 for this indicator because Table 6 data are not consistent with how NYS calculates participation, proficiency and AYP under NCLB. Since school, district and State report cards contain data that are calculated to determine accountability under NCLB, the same data that are used in the State report card are presented in this SPP.
One of the reasons that NYS is not using section 618 data from Table 6 in this SPP is that in Table 6 there is no differentiation between the enrollment of students in each grade that is used as the basis for computing the participation rate and the proficiency rate. In NYS, there is a difference. The participation rate is computed based on total enrollment of students in grade or for high school it is computed based on the enrollment of “seniors”. However, the proficiency rate is based on the enrollment of “continuously enrolled” students in grade or for high school, on the number of students in the accountability cohort.

Another reason for not using section 618 data is that for measures of proficiency, NYS uses a Performance Index (PI) for each grade and assessment, which consists of the percent of continuously enrolled tested students at “basic proficiency” (Level 2 and above) plus the percent of such students “at or above proficiency” (Levels 3-4). For the 2004-05 school year, NYS had six performance indices (grade 4 ELA, grade 4 math, grade 8 ELA, grade 8 math, high school ELA, and high school math). Beginning with the 2005-06 school year, New York State has four indices (grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math).

NYS is not able to provide data disaggregated for students with disabilities who received testing accommodations and those who did not. We expect to be able to report this disaggregation once the SIRS is fully implemented.

NYS does not currently administer an “alternate assessment against grade level standards” as described in d of the measurement of participation and proficiency. NYS administers alternate assessments against alternate achievement standards aligned to grade level content.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

NYS’ accountability system for all students that is approved by USED under NCLB is characterized as follows:

The accountability system applies to all public school districts (including Special Act School Districts) and public schools (including charter schools) and includes all students educated in these institutions or students placed in out-of-district placements by school districts.
Schools must make AYP in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics at the elementary, middle and secondary levels; in science at the elementary and middle levels; and in graduation rate at the secondary level.
Districts and schools are responsible for AYP of students in the following accountability groups, assuming sufficient enrollment in the group:

all students,

students with disabilities,

limited English proficient students,

economically disadvantaged students,

American Indian students,

Asian students,

Black students,

Hispanic students, and

White students.

The failure of one group to make AYP in ELA or mathematics means that the district or school does not make AYP in that subject.

Districts and schools must meet two requirements to make AYP in ELA and mathematics:

the school district must test 95 percent of students in each accountability group with 40 or more students; and

the performance of each group with 30 or more continuously enrolled students must meet or exceed its Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) or the group must make “safe harbor.

To make AYP in science, only the “all students” group is required to meet the performance requirement; there is no participation requirement.
To make AYP on graduation rate, the “all students” group must achieve a graduation rate of at least 55 percent or improve by one percentage point over its previous year’s performance.
Assessment performance is defined at four levels:

Level 1 = Basic

Level 2 = Basic Proficiency

Level 3 = Proficient

Level 4 = Advanced Proficiency

A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative) in ELA, mathematics, or science. PIs are determined using the following equations:

For elementary and middle level assessments, the PI = [(number of continuously enrolled tested students scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the number scoring at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ number of continuously enrolled tested students] X 100 . Beginning with assessments administered during the 2005-06 school year, NYS has a single PI for grades 3-8 in English and another in math.

For high school assessments, the PI = [(number of cohort members scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the number scoring at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ number of cohort members] X 100.

The State has established Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for ELA and mathematics at each grade level. The AMOs increase annually, until reaching the goal of 100 percent student proficiency in 2013–14. In 2005-06, the AMOs were revised to reflect performance in the combined grades 3-8 ELA and math.
Recognizing that the annual performance data for relatively small groups of students are not statistically reliable, the State has established Effective AMOs based on the number of students in a measured group. The Effective AMO is the lowest PI that an accountability group of a given size can achieve in a subject for the group’s PI not to be considered significantly different from the AMO. If an accountability group achieves its Effective AMO, it is considered to have made AYP, as long as the participation requirement, if applicable, has been met.

The State has established standards on the third indicators, elementary- and middle-level science and high school graduation rate, that districts and schools must meet to make AYP.

An accountability group whose performance in ELA and mathematics does not equal or exceed its Effective AMO in a subject can make “safe harbor” if its performance improves by a specified amount over its previous year’s performance and if its performance on the third indicator equals or exceeds the State standard or improves by 1.0 percentage point on graduation rate and one point on science over the previous year.

The following table identifies the State’s AMOs through the 2004-05 school year:

School Year	Elementary Level		Middle Level		Secondary Level
School Year	ELA	Math	ELA	Math	ELA	Math
2003-04	123	136	107	81	142	132
2004-05	131	142	116	93	148	139

The following table identifies the State’s AMOs for grades 3-8 ELA and grades 3-8 math for the 2005-06 year and from 2005-06 through 2013-14 for high school ELA and math.

School Year	Grades 3-8		Secondary Level
School Year	ELA	Math	ELA	Math
2005-06	122	86	154	146
2006-07	122	86	159	152
2007-08	133	102	165	159
2008-09	Pending	Pending	171	166
2009-10	Pending	Pending	177	173
2010-11	Pending	Pending	183	180
2011-12	Pending	Pending	188	186
2012-13	Pending	Pending	194	193
2013-14	Pending	Pending	200	200

The following sources provide additional detailed information about NYS’s Accountability system for all students, including students with disabilities, which is approved under NCLB:

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/655report/2004/Volume1/combined_report.pdf (pages 12-25)
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/school-and-district-accountability-rules-april-2005.ppt
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/accountability-rules_files/flexibility-ayp-swd.ppt
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/leap/2005-06/05-leap-manual.pdf (Definitions of many of the terms used in this document are provided in this manual, e.g., AYP, Safe-Harbor Target, Annual Measurable Objective (AMO), Performance Index, Alternate Assessment, etc.)
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/STEP/home.shtml , click on 2004-05 STEP Manual. (Definitions of many of the terms used in this document are provided in this manual, e.g., AYP, Safe-Harbor Target, AMO, Performance Index, Alternate Assessment).
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/SIRS/home.shtml - 2005-06 Repository Reporting System Reporting User Manual. This is the new reporting system for reporting student information beginning in 2005-06. This system replaces the LEAP and STEP reporting systems.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-05)

AYP Measure

In 2004-05, 48.3 percent of 290 school districts that were required to make AYP made AYP for the subgroup of students with disabilities in all the subjects in which they were required to. NYS has established a minimum enrollment of 40 students for participation and 30 for performance.

69.9 percent of 216 school districts that were required to make AYP in grade 4 ELA made AYP.
93.4 percent of 213 school districts that were required to make AYP in grade 4 math made AYP.
68.6 percent of 258 school districts that were required to make AYP in grade 8 ELA made AYP.
63.4 percent of 254 school districts that were required to make AYP in grade 8 math made AYP.
48.7 percent of 189 school districts that were required to make AYP in high school ELA made AYP.
52.4 percent of 189 school districts that were required to make AYP in high school math made AYP.

Participation Rate in State Assessments

As shown in the table below, in the 2004-05 school year, the participation rates of students with disabilities in State assessments were 95 percent or higher in elementary and middle school ELA and math assessments. However, at the high school level, 89 percent of the seniors with disabilities participated in a high school English assessment and 90 percent in a high school mathematics assessment.

Assessment	Enrollment of Students with Disabilities	Regular Assessment, With or Without Accommodations*	Alternate Assessment-Alternate Achievement Standards	Participation Rate in 2004-05 School Year	Absent or Administrative Error
Grade 4 ELA	30,927	28,036	1,803	96%	1,088
Grade 4 Math	30,534	28,000	1,753	97%	781
Grade 8 ELA	35,572	32,065	1,822	95%	1,685
Grade 8 Math	35,172	31520	1,793	95%	1,859
HS English-Seniors in 2004-05	16,686	14,851	0	89.0%	0
High School Math-Seniors in 2004-05	16,686	15,017	0	90%	0

* The data in the above table are from USDOE Table 6 containing 2004-05 school year data. NYS will provide disaggregated data for students with disabilities who took the regular assessment with and without testing accommodations when SIRS includes all State assessment data.

Proficiency Rate

As shown in the table below, in 2004-05, the students with disabilities accountability group achieved the effective AMO score on the grade 4 mathematics assessment, but did not achieve a PI score sufficient to make safe harbor for any of the other grade 4, grade 8 or secondary level State assessments.

Assess-ment	2004-05 Performance		2004-05 Standard			Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2004-05	2005-06
Assess-ment	Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Elementary and Middle Schools and 2000-01 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS)	NYS PI	Effective AMO	Safe- Harbor Target	Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor	Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2004-05	Safe- Harbor Target
Grade 4 ELA	29,028	102	130	107	Yes	No	NA
Grade 4 Math	28,754	141	141	NA	NA	Yes	NA
Grade 8 ELA	33,006	85	115	92	Yes	No	NA
Grade 8 Math	32,041	82	92	91	Yes	No	NA
HS Eng. 2001 cohort	19,140	104	147	109	No	No	114
HS Math- 2001 cohort	19,140	108	138	107	No	No	117

Discussion of Baseline Data

Adequate Yearly Progress:

In 2004-05, 48.3 percent of 290 school districts made AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup in all the subjects in which they were required to. This is significant improvement compared to 25.1 percent of 299 school districts in 2003-04. NYS has established a minimum enrollment of 40 students for participation and 30 for performance.
The majority of school districts were not required to make AYP for the students with disabilities accountability subgroup because they did not have a minimum enrollment of 30 students with disabilities. In 2004-05:

69.9 percent of 216 school districts made AYP in grade 4 ELA;93.4 percent of 213 school districts made AYP in grade 4 math;68.6 percent of 258 school districts made AYP in grade 8 ELA;63.4 percent of 254 school districts made AYP in grade 8 math;48.7 percent of 189 school districts made AYP in high school ELA; and

52.4 percent of 189 school districts made AYP in high school math.

Beginning in the 2005-06 school year, many more school districts will be required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup since they will have the minimum numbers of students with disabilities enrolled in grades 3-8 combined. NYS will have AYP calculations in grades 3-8 combined for ELA, grades 3-8 combined for math, high school ELA and in high school math.

Participation:

As shown in the table above under the participation heading, in the 2004-05 school year, the participation rates of students with disabilities in State assessments were 95 percent or higher in elementary and middle school ELA and math assessments. However, at the high school level, 89 percent of the seniors with disabilities participated in a high school English assessment and 90 percent in a high school mathematics assessment. The participation rates in 2004-05 were better compared to rates in the 2003-04 school year.

Proficiency:

As shown in the table above under the proficiency heading, the students with disabilities accountability group achieved a Performance Index of:

102 on the Grade 4 ELA examination, five points short of the required safe-harbor target of 107 and twenty-eight points short of the 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 130.

141 on the Grade 4 mathematics examination, which was the effective AMO in 2004-05 for all students.

85 on the Grade 8 ELA examination, seven points short of the required safe-harbor target of 92 and thirty points short of the 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 115.

82 on the Grade 8 mathematics examination, nine points short of the required safe-harbor target of 91 and ten points short of the 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 92.

104 on the high school English examination, five points short of the required safe-harbor target of 109 and 43 points short of 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 147.

108 on the high school mathematics examination, one point above the required safe-harbor target of 107 and 30 points short of 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 138. The group did not make AYP because the group did not meet the third indicator for safe harbor, which is a graduation rate of at least 55 percent or a one-percentage point increase in the graduation rate compared to the previous year.

* NYS is not able to provide data disaggregated for students with disabilities who received testing accommodations and those who did not. We expect to be able to report this disaggregated data once SIRS includes all State assessment data.

NYS will implement State testing in ELA and mathematics in grades 3-8 during the 2005-06 school year. The State plans to develop two new State PI to replace the four indices that currently exist for elementary and middle level assessments; one new index is planned for grades 3-8 ELA and the other for grades 3-8 mathematics. Creation of the two new indices will require the State to establish new AMOs and safe-harbor targets for school buildings and school districts.

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

The targets established for the three measures relating to the participation and performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments use the same data that are used for accountability as described in the State’s approved plan under NCLB.

School Year

Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005
(2005-06)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation:95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 91
Grades 3-8 Math: 100
High School ELA: 114
High School Math: 124

2006
(2006-07)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation:95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 96
Grades 3-8 Math: 105
High School ELA: 119
High School Math: 129

2007
(2007-08)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 101
Grades 3-8 Math: 110
High School ELA: 124
High School Math: 134

2008
(2008-09)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 106
Grades 3-8 Math: 115
High School ELA: 129
High School Math: 139

2009
(2009-10)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 111
Grades 3-8 Math: 120
High School ELA: 134
High School Math: 144

2010
(2010-11)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 116
Grades 3-8 Math: 125
High School ELA: 139
High School Math: 149

School Year	Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005 (2005-06)	AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math. Participation:95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math. Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows: Grades 3-8 ELA: 91 Grades 3-8 Math: 100 High School ELA: 114 High School Math: 124
2006 (2006-07)	AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math. Participation:95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math. Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows: Grades 3-8 ELA: 96 Grades 3-8 Math: 105 High School ELA: 119 High School Math: 129
2007 (2007-08)	AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math. Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math. Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows: Grades 3-8 ELA: 101 Grades 3-8 Math: 110 High School ELA: 124 High School Math: 134
2008 (2008-09)	AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math. Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math. Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows: Grades 3-8 ELA: 106 Grades 3-8 Math: 115 High School ELA: 129 High School Math: 139
2009 (2009-10)	AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math. Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math. Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows: Grades 3-8 ELA: 111 Grades 3-8 Math: 120 High School ELA: 134 High School Math: 144
2010 (2010-11)	AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math. Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math. Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows: Grades 3-8 ELA: 116 Grades 3-8 Math: 125 High School ELA: 139 High School Math: 149

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

Activity	Timeline	Resources
The required sanctions for schools and districts not making AYP are defined in federal and State law and include a continuum of consequences.	2005-11