**Arkansas GMPP Proposal Summary**[^1]

**What are the proficiency levels for the status and growth models?**

Arkansas administers the Arkansas Benchmark Exams in grades 3-8.
Proficiency level cut-offs depend on grade level (700 is the maximum
score).

  -------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------
  [Proficient Scale Score                        
  Standards]{.smallcaps}                         

  GRADE LEVEL                LITERACY            MATHEMATICS

  3                          500                 500

  4                          559                 559

  5                          604                 604

  6                          641                 641

  7                          673                 673

  8                          700                 700
  -------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
                    Algebra           Geometry          Literacy Grade 11

  Below Basic       \<= 150           \<= 153           \<= 168

  Basic             151 - 199         154 -- 199        169 -- 199

  Proficient        200 - 249         200 -- 249        200 - 249

  Advanced          \>= 250           \>= 250           \>= 250
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

The "Status-Plus" model applies for grades 3-12 (CONFIRMED WITH STATE:
12/14).

For the Status component of the model:

> In Grades 3-8, Algebra, Geometry and Grade 11 Literacy:

-   Proficient score for status and safe harbor component:

    -   Students with Proficient and Advanced performance levels
        represent proficient scores and count in the numerator and the
        denominator of the percentage proficient calculation that is
        compared to the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO).

-   Not Proficient score for status and safe harbor component:

    -   Students with Below Basic or Basic performance levels represent
        non-proficient scores and count in the denominator of the
        percentage proficient calculation that is compared to the AMO.

For the Growth component of the model:

In Grade 3:

-   Proficient score for growth component:

    -   Students with Proficient and Advanced performance levels
        represent proficient scores and count in the numerator and
        denominator of percentage proficient calculation that is
        compared to AMO.

-   Not proficient score for growth component:

    -   Students with Below Basic or Basic performance levels represent
        non-proficient scores and count in the denominator of the
        percentage proficient calculation that is compared to the AMO.

In Grades 4-8:

> Proficient score for growth component:

-   Proficient and Advanced performance levels represent proficient
    scores and count in the numerator and the denominator of the
    percentage proficient calculation that is compared to the AMO.

-   Students with Below Basic and Basic performance levels who
    demonstrated satisfactory growth were counted in the numerator and
    denominator of percentage proficient calculation that is compared to
    the AMO.

-   Proficient below Proficiency Threshold (PT) represent proficient
    scores with unsatisfactory growth and count in the numerator and
    denominator of percentage proficient calculation that is compared to
    the AMO. There is no penalty for unsatisfactory growth. These
    students are not removed from the numerator of the percentage
    proficient calculation.

> Not proficient score for growth component:

-   Students with Below Basic or Basic performance levels who *did not*
    demonstrate satisfactory growth represent non-proficient scores and
    count in the denominator of the percentage proficient calculation
    that is compared to the AMO.

In Algebra, Geometry, Grade 11 Literacy:

Proficient score for growth component:

-   Students with Proficient and Advanced performance levels represent
    proficient scores and count in the numerator and denominator of
    percentage proficient calculation that is compared to AMO.

> Not proficient score for growth component:

-   Students with Below Basic or Basic performance levels represent
    non-proficient scores and count in the denominator of the percentage
    proficient calculation that is compared to the AMO.

**How is proficiency calculated?**

For student *i* at school *j* in grade *k* . . .

> *Proficient:*
>
> *if* score *x~ijk~* **[\>]{.underline}** the scaled cutoff score for
> grade *k.* (SEE TABLE ABOVE).
>
> *Not proficient:*
>
> *if* score *x~ijk~* **\<** the scaled cutoff score for grade *k*. (SEE
> TABLE ABOVE).

**How is growth calculated?**

Let:

> GI = Growth Increment = required increase over the next year in scale
> score to ultimately reach proficiency at Grade 8 for a student at
> Grade a with current-grade scale score (below Proficient) of x;
>
> PT = Proficiency Threshold = required increase over the next year in
> scale score to maintain proficiency or above at Grade 8 for a student
> at Grade a with current-grade scale score (Proficient or above) of x;
>
> $P_{k = 8}$ = Proficiency Scale Score Standard at Grade 8 = 700;
>
> $X_{k}$ = Student's current grade scale score
>
> $k$ = Student's current grade level
>
> $k + 1$ = Student's subsequent grade level
>
> $P_{k}$ = Proficiency Scale Score Standard for student's current grade
>
> $P_{k + 1}$ = Proficiency Scale Score Standard for student's
> subsequent grade
>
> \[Note: Proficiency Scale Score Standards (Pa and Pb) obtained from
> Table 1.\]

$$\text{Next year's target growth} = \left( \frac{\text{Difference between this year's and next year's standard}}{\text{Difference between this year's and 8th grade's standard}} \right) \times \text{Difference between this year's score and 8th grade standard}$$

> $\begin{matrix}
> \begin{array}{r}
> \text{PT}_{k + 1} = \left( \frac{P_{k + 1} - P_{k}}{P_{k = 8} - P_{k}} \right) \times P_{k = 8} - X_{k} \\
>
> \end{array} & \begin{array}{r}
> \text{if }X_{k} \geq P_{k} \\
>
> \end{array} \\
> \text{GI}_{k + 1} = \left( \frac{P_{k + 1} - P_{k}}{P_{k = 8} - P_{k}} \right) \times P_{k = 8} - X_{k} & \text{if }X_{k} < P
> \end{matrix}$

*For example:*

  ------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- --------- ----- ------- --------- ----- ------- --------- -----
          Standards                                On                       Above                   Below             
                                                   Target                                                             

  Grade               Pk+1 -   Pk=8 -   (Pk+1 -    Xk       Pk=8-Xk   PT or Xk      Pk=8-Xk   PT or Xk      Pk=8-Xk   PT or
                      Pk       Pk       Pk) /                         GI                      GI                      GI
                                        (Pk=8 -                                                                       
                                        Pk)                                                                           

  3       500         59       200      30%        500      200       59    570     130       38    480     220       65

  4       559         45       141      32%        559      141       45    579     121       39    539     161       51

  5       604         37       96       39%        604      96        37    624     76        29    584     116       45

  6       641         32       59       54%        641      59        32    661     39        21    621     79        43

  7       673         27       27       100%       673      27        27    693     7         7     653     47        47

  8       700         \--      0        \--        700      0         \--   700     0         \--   700     0         \--
  ------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- --------- ----- ------- --------- ----- ------- --------- -----

![](media/image1.png){width="3.6041666666666665in"
height="2.338888888888889in"}

Table: "Proficient Scale Score Standards" (Cut Scores) and Growth
Expectations for Arkansas Benchmark Examinations in Literacy and
Mathematics\*

  ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------
  [Proficient Scale Score                                                       [Growth                                              
  Standards]{.smallcaps}                                                        Expectations]{.smallcaps}                            

  [Grade]{.smallcaps}      [Literacy]{.smallcaps}   [Mathematics]{.smallcaps}   [Grade                      [Literacy]{.smallcaps}   [Mathematics]{.smallcaps}
                                                                                Progression]{.smallcaps}                             

  3                        500                      500                         3 to 4                      59 points                59 points

  4                        559                      559                         4 to 5                      45 points                45 points

  5                        604                      604                         5 to 6                      37 points                37 points

  6                        641                      641                         6 to 7                      32 points                32 points

  7                        673                      673                         7 to 8                      27 points                27 points

  8                        700                      700                         3 to 8                      200 points               200 points
  ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------

\* Table assumes a student who makes the Proficient cut score at each
respective grade level.

**How this aggregates to the school\'s designation?**

> The Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is a minimum percentage of
> students who must meet or exceed proficiency, after which the school
> must meet safe harbor provisions to avoid sanctions.
>
> Schools' statuses in meeting AYP for combined population and all
> subgroups are determined using a 3 step process. Two of these steps,
> referred to as status and growth, involve calculating the percentage
> of full academic year students with proficient scores and comparing
> this percentage to the AMO. In Arkansas, the AMO is different for
> different grade spans K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. The AMO increases each year
> to 100 percent by 2014[^2].
>
> Safe Harbor calculation as defined in the AYP workbook is different
> from the status and growth calculations.
>
> Step 1. The first step consists of applying "One or Three Year
> "calculations of percentage proficient, and determining the best case
> of status for the school from these two calculations. The one year
> option is a 2003 amendment to the AYP workbook. All calculations for
> percentage of students proficient exclude students who are highly
> mobile (less than full academic year).

A.  Schools' percentages of students proficient in the most recent year
    are calculated inclusive of all tested levels at the school, and
    compared with the AMO for the grade span of the school. A confidence
    interval is applied to the AMO values.

    a.  Each group (combined population and subgroups) is assigned a
        status based on the percentage proficient and prior year status.

        i.  Groups that meet the AMO are assigned MS for Met Standards,
            SI_M for schools in school improvement meeting the AMO for
            first time since designation of school improvement (SI).

        ii. Groups that did not meet the AMO are assigned A for Alert if
            the group missed the AMO once, SI_1 if the group missed the
            AMO for two consecutive years, SI_2 if the group missed the
            AMO for three consecutive years, etc.

B.  For the three year model, AYP determinations are made by dividing
    the sum of all proficient students for three consecutive years by
    the total number of students tested for those three years. As with
    the one year calculation, all scores for all tested levels are
    combined into a math and literacy calculation. This 3 year
    percentage proficient is then compared to the AMO values with the
    confidence interval applied.

    a.  Each group is assigned a status based on this 3 year
        calculation.

        i.  Groups that meet the AMO are assigned MS for Met Standards,
            SI_M for schools in school improvement meeting the AMO for
            first time since designation of school improvement (SI).

        ii. Groups that did not meet the AMO are assigned A for Alert if
            the group missed the AMO once, SI_1 if the group missed the
            AMO for two consecutive years, SI_2 if the group missed the
            AMO for three consecutive years, etc.

C.  The one year set of group statuses is compared to the three year set
    of statuses. The most beneficial set is selected for each subject.
    It is important to note that the statuses are selected as a set.
    Schools can not select among the group's one or 3 year statuses to
    create the best case. The most favorable case is selected from one
    or 3 year, not a combination of the group statuses from each set.

> Three year averaging is a common practice in proficiency calculations
> and produces a weighted average that controls for student mobility,
> retention, and other sources of bias.
>
> Step 2: Safe Harbor is determined by calculating schools' percentage
> reduction in the number of students scoring below proficient for each
> group in math and literacy. This reduction in percentage of students
> proficient is compared to the 10% reduction requirement indicated in
> the AYP workbook, Section 3.2b. Schools must reduce the number of
> students below proficient by 10% in order to meet the Safe Harbor
> provision.

A.  The lower bound of a 75% confidence interval is applied in this
    step.

B.  In addition, schools must meet 95% tested to be eligible for Safe
    Harbor.

C.  Schools are then assigned a status for combined population and each
    subgroup in math and literacy that indicates if they met the AMO
    standard through the Safe Harbor provision.

    a.  Groups meeting the provision for Safe Harbor are assigned a MS
        (SH) or a SI_M (SH) to indicate AYP was met for the group
        through Safe Harbor.

    b.  Groups not meeting the provision for Safe Harbor default to the
        status assigned in step 1.

> Step 3: Growth model applied. In the final step of AYP status
> determination, a second calculation of the percent of students
> proficient for each group is employed.

A.  The growth calculation of the percentage of students proficient
    includes the addition of students who met satisfactory growth, but
    were not proficient. These students are added to the numerator in
    the calculation. No confidence interval is applied when comparing to
    the AMO. Status is assigned to each group based on the
    growth-adjusted percentage of students proficient.

    a.  Groups meeting the AMO with the growth-adjusted percentages
        receive a MS or SI_M.

    b.  Groups not meeting the AMO with the growth-adjusted percentages
        receive an A for Alert, or SI_1, SI_2, SI_3... dependent on the
        number of years the group has failed to meet the AMO or Safe
        Harbor.

> Overall status determination follows the group status determination
> processes (Steps 1-3). Overall status determination involves
> examination of the status of all groups within the same subject.
> Schools must receive a status of MS, MS (SH), SI_M, or SI_M (SH) for
> all groups within the same subject to receive a subject status of MS
> or SI_M. Schools that do not meet AYP for all groups within the same
> subject receive a status designation equal to the highest phase of the
> school improvement designations.
>
> For example, if the African American group is designated as Alert for
> missing AYP in math for the first year and the economically
> disadvantaged group is designated as SI_2 for missing AYP in math for
> the third year in a row, then the overall status for math would be
> SI_2.
>
> Once subject status is determined, the secondary indicator is checked
> for status. Schools not meeting the secondary indicator standard can
> also proceed through the school improvement phases. Schools are
> assigned a secondary indicator status of MS, SI_M, A, SI_1, SI_2, ...
> predicated on the number of years the school met on the secondary
> indicator. Attendance is used for K-5 and 6-8 grade spans. Graduation
> rate is used for 9-12 grade spans.
>
> Final school status for the year is determined by selecting the most
> severe of the three statuses: Overall literacy status, overall
> mathematics status and secondary indicator status.
>
> Schools can also be flagged on final status if they fail to meet 95%
> tested for the combined population for two consecutive years.

**Note: Are any such forms of averaging applied to Participation Rate
for AYP determination purposes?**

  ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  ** **        **K-5\    **6-8\    **9-12\   **K-5\     **6-8\     **9-12\
               Math**    Math**    Math**    Verbal**   Verbal**   Verbal**

  Increase per 7.50      8.96      8.85      7.20       8.10       8.06
  year                                                             

  2005-06      40.00     29.10     29.20     42.40      35.20      35.50

  2006-07      47.50     37.96     38.05     49.60      43.30      43.56

  2007-08      55.00     46.83     46.90     56.80      51.40      51.63

  2008-09      62.50     55.69     55.75     64.00      59.50      59.69

  2009-10      70.00     64.55     64.60     71.20      67.60      67.75

  2010-11      77.50     73.41     73.45     78.40      75.70      75.81

  2012-12      85.00     82.28     82.30     85.60      83.80      83.88

  2012-13      92.50     91.14     91.15     92.80      91.90      91.94

  2013-14      100.00    100.00    100.00    100.00     100.00     100.00
  ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**Inclusion, Minimum *n*, Confidence Intervals, and Subgroups?**

Notes Re: Inclusion[^3]

> Based on a student's IEP (Individual Education Program) a student may
> take the ACTAAP assessment with or without accommodation, or an
> alternate assessment. Regardless of a regular administration of the
> exam or an alterate assessment, the student's score is part of the AYP
> determination for the school and any appropriate subgroups.
>
> Students with disabilities who score proficient are counted towards
> AYP for a given school or subgroup provided they do not comprise more
> than 1% of all students tested. Districts with alternately assessed
> students who exceed the 1% cap for proficient scores select the
> proficient scores to remove from AYP calculations, thereby allowing
> the district to comply with the cap.

**Note: Does the 1% cap apply to *proficient* scores only, what about
non-proficient SWD student scores?**

> LEP students are also required to be part of the assessment, however
> they may be eligible to take the test with accommodations depending on
> language proficiency.
>
> Arkansas allows LEP students, during their first year of enrollment in
> U.S. schools, to have the option of taking the reading/language arts
> content assessment in addition to taking the English language
> proficiency assessment. For AYP calculations, state allows inclusion
> in the LEP subgroup, for up to two years, scores of students who have
> attained English proficiency. Schools have the option to include
> scores of students in their first year of enrollment in US in the
> literacy AYP calculations.

Notes: Re: [Minimum *n*]{.underline}

> The minimum number of students required for AYP determination is 40.
>
> Subgroups count towards AYP if...
>
> *n* ~TOTAL\ ENROLLMENT~ [\<]{.underline} 800 for school & district:
> minimum *n* = 40
>
> *n* ~TOTAL\ ENROLLMENT~ [\>]{.underline} 800 for school & district:
> .05(~DAILY\ ATTENDANCE~) [\<]{.underline} minimum *n* [\<]{.underline}
> 200

All Students n = 40

LEP Students n = 40

SWD Students: n = 40

> Districts[/Schools]{.underline} n == If n \< 800, minimum n = 40;
>
> if n \> 800, minimum n = 5% of average daily attendance, but no
> greater than 200.
>
> Small Schools: n = 40
>
> Confidentiality or Reporting n: n = 10

[Notes Re: Confidence Intervals]{.underline}

> The State of Arkansas uses a 70% confidence interval for percent
> proficient by subject area (reading and mathematics) for AYP
> determination purposes. The lower bound of the confidence interval can
> be applied to the AMO for that grade span/year/subject area.

Included Subgroups

All Students

Economic Status

African American

Hispanic

White

SWD Students

LEP Students

**Do they say anything about match rates, matching for individual cases
(etc.)?**

> According to the proposal[^4] (pg. 7) NCLB compatible assessments for
> reading/language arts and mathematics were implemented in the
> 2004-2005 academic year, revised in 2005-2006, and then accountability
> assessments were made in 2006-2007. Theoretically, there should be
> data for all previously enrolled students going back to at least
> 2006-2007.
>
> For match rates see the following table:

**What about students who score proficiently and then decline?**

> That's the idea behind the Proficiency Threshold. A student who scores
> proficient one year has to continue to maintain a certain score
> *above* proficiency, but at a lower rate of progress than a
> below-proficient student.
>
> The rationale for this is---according to the Arkansas Dept. of
> Ed.---to ensure proficient students are "on a path that will continue
> progress and not fall below Proficient by 8th grade."[^5] However,
> students who did not make satisfactory growth by maintaining a score
> above their threshold were not removed from the numerator of the
> calculations for percent proficient for growth.

Do we have some sense of how many schools made AYP this year
(2006-2007)?

For 2006-07 AYP results for Schools in Improvement view the spread sheet
at

<http://arkansased.org/nclb/pdf/ayp_si_2007_101907_rev121007.pdf>

Schools meeting standards for literacy, math and the secondary indicator
totaled 559.

Schools designated in Alert, missing AYP for literacy, math or the
secondary indicator, totaled 146.

A summary of status is given below for 2006-2007

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  School Improvement Status                       Number of Schools

  Year 1                                          77

  Year 1 MS                                       32

  Total Year 1                                    109

  Year 2                                          51

  Year 2 MS                                       13

  Total Year 2                                    64

  Year 3                                          44

  Year 3 MS                                       29

  Total Year 3                                    73

  Year 4                                          54

  Year 4 MS                                       4

  Total Year 4                                    58

  Year 5                                          18

  Year 5 MS                                       0

  Total Year 5                                    18

  Year 6                                          2

  Year 6 MS                                       0

  Total Year 6                                    2

  Year 7                                          1

  Year 7 MS                                       0

  Total Year 7                                    1

  Total                                           325
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

[All Districts in AR are Title I District]{.underline}

[Districts 2006-2007]{.underline}

[Made AYP= 242]{.underline}

[Alert = 30]{.underline}

[SI year 1 = 9]{.underline}

[SI M yr 1 = 1]{.underline}

SI year 2 = 1

[Total 252]{.underline}

[^1]:

[^2]: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/letters/acar4.html#att

[^3]: CCSSO. CCSSO State Accountability Profiles, 2005-2006.
    (http://accountability.ccsso.org)

[^4]: Arkansas Dept. of Ed. November 2006. Arkansas Growth Model
    Proposal. (p. 7).

[^5]: Arkansas Dept. of Ed. November 2006. Arkansas Growth Model
    Proposal. (Attachment I).