**[Proposal Submitted to the]{.smallcaps}**

**[United States Education Department]{.smallcaps}**

**[by the New York State Education Department]{.smallcaps}**

**[To Incorporate]{.smallcaps}**

**[Measures of Student Longitudinal Growth]{.smallcaps}**

**[Into Determinations of School and District]{.smallcaps}**

**[Adequate Yearly Progress]{.smallcaps}**

# Executive Summary

New York State (NYS) proposes using measures of student longitudinal
growth in three ways for accountability. In Grades 3-8, changes in
student z-scores over time will be used to determine whether a student
who is not proficient has grown enough to be on track to become
proficient by Grade 7 or within four years of first enrollment in a
school or school district. In high school, growth in student performance
will be evaluated using a judgmental value-table that assesses student
growth from the Grade 8 examination to core high school end of course
examinations required for a Regents diploma. NYS also proposes
developing a different measurement of growth for such purposes as
evaluating "high performing/rapidly improving" schools that make
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); this growth component would be part of
New York State's more comprehensive and integrated accountability system
and would supplement the system of consequences for schools and school
districts that fail to make AYP.

Under NYS's proposal, a school or school district would receive the same
points in NYS's Performance Index (PI) system for a student who was
determined to have made enough growth to be on track to become
proficient as for a student who scored proficient or above. NYS proposes
maintaining its current process for determining AYP through its PI for
Status and Safe Harbor. The incorporation of growth data would *not*
require a separate judgment for a school to make AYP (i.e., New York
State is *not* proposing that a school could meet AYP by meeting Status
*or* growth). This proposal has many advantages, including that it keeps
the focus on proficiency, makes the system more transparent, maintains
the AYP decision structure with which schools are familiar, and uses
growth data to inform differentiated consequences and contextual
accountability decisions (e.g., high status-low growth verses low
status-low growth) without the threats to validity and public
credibility that challenge many one-size-fits-all uses of growth.

NYS has the required infrastructure of standards, assessments and
policies to support these proposed uses of growth. NYS has standards and
assessments and an Accountability Workbook that are "fully approved" by
the United States Education Department (USED). NYS intends to fully
comply with the other requirements of the USED Growth Model Pilot,
including implementing the proposed growth model using 2008-09 data and
participating in required evaluation studies.

# Preface

NYS is highly committed to having a "best in class" accountability
system. This document describes how the New York State Education
Department (NYSED) proposes to incorporate measures of longitudinal
student growth ("growth model") to make AYP determinations under the *No
Child Left Behind Act* (NCLB). This proposal responds to the invitation
from the Secretary of the USED to submit proposals regarding the use of
growth models in AYP determinations. The NYSED Growth Model proposal
follows the "bright line principles" established by the Secretary, and
incorporates as its core several aspects already approved in other
states' proposals. However, the NYSED Growth Model proposal also
features several unique aspects not found in any plan yet approved,
including strengthening accountability for middle schools and including
high schools in growth accountability. In addition, NYSED proposes using
growth to inform its systems of rewards and recognition as well as its
proposal for differentiated consequences; this proposal thus allows
different aspects of growth to be applied to different groups of schools
for different purposes and thereby strengthens the use of a growth model
for accountability within the framework of NCLB. In developing this
proposal, NYSED has addressed several complex issues, including how to
use growth when the assessment does not have a vertical scale, how to
hold schools accountable for getting students to proficiency within a
set period of time when the students' previous schools did not achieve
this, how to include high schools when the assessment is end of course
exams rather than census survey assessments, and how to incorporate
growth results seamlessly into current mechanisms for making AYP
determinations.

This proposal is organized to address the core issues that the USED has
identified as critical in evaluating state growth model proposals,
including the Secretary's most recent letter. The proposal also
addresses the issues raised by the Peer Review guidance and subsequent
documents issued by the Peer Review panels. The document is organized in
four main sections: I. Introduction, II. The Proposed Model, III. Core
Questions, and IV. Additional Questions. Each section follows the same
format, with *Key Issues* stated simply and directly and the *State
Response* then given. Some additional supporting materials are contained
in the appendix or in specific referenced pages on the NYSED website.

**Introduction**

***When does New York State intend to implement a growth model into its
accountability system?***

The NYSED intends to adopt a growth model for AYP purposes beginning
with the results of 2008-09 school year assessments. The NYS Board of
Regents is highly committed to refining the State's accountability
system. Last year, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed into
law, a statute (Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007) that requires the Board
of Regents to develop and implement by 2008-09 an interim growth model,
provided that the growth model is approved by the USED. Since the
passage of Chapter 57, the Board of Regents has actively been engaged in
discussing possible approaches to measuring growth and using it in
accountability, including looking at other states' experiences as well
as drawing on district efforts, including systems developed by New York
City and the Albany region Board of Cooperative Educational Services
(BOCES) that uses William Sanders' Education Value Added Assessment
System (EVAAS).

***Why does New York State desire to include measures of student growth
into its accountability system?***

NYS desires to have an accountability system that provides the most
useful information to help evaluate and improve school performance. The
current State accountability system measures school performance
primarily in terms of the percentage of students who score proficient or
above (levels 3 and 4 on State assessments), but does not track
individual student's progress over time. The proposed growth model would
give schools and school districts "full credit" for students who
initially scored below proficiency but made sufficient annual progress
so that they are on track to become proficient within a specified number
of years. Accounting for growth would enhance analysis of school and
school district performance because it holds schools and school
districts accountable for helping lower-performing students learn and
gives credit to schools and school districts for a student who has made
significant progress even if the student has not yet reached the
proficient level. Educators must now ask not only, "Is the student
proficient?" but also, "How much did the student learn and grow?"

The specific growth models proposed for Grades 3-8 and high school are
simple, transparent, feasible and based on easily understood
calculations. The models can be easily integrated within the current NYS
accountability system that is familiar to parents, school staff, and the
public. The models will help the State and school districts to
distinguish between schools where many students may enter the school as
not proficient but are showing sufficient growth towards proficiency and
those schools in which students enter not proficient and are not showing
adequate growth towards proficiency. In addition, the model will also be
used by the State to refine its list of high performing and rapidly
improving schools and school districts to ensure that acceptable growth
is occurring for students who are already proficient. By improving the
process for determining AYP, the growth model will allow resources to be
better focused on those schools and school districts that most need
support and intervention.

# The Context

NYS has firmly established an accountability system that complies with
federal requirements, has shown results in terms of raising student
achievement and closing the achievement gap, and is integrated with
extensive communication, management, and support structures at the State
and local levels.

***How committed is New York State to closing achievement gaps?***

Since the implementation of NCLB, the achievement gap in NYS is closing
and student achievement overall is rising as the data below demonstrate.

*Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)* --
Between 2002 and 2007, the gap between the percentage of White students
who score at or above proficient in Grade 4 Reading and the percentage
of Black and Hispanic students who score at or above proficient has
declined by five and four percentage points respectively. During that
time, the percentage of Black students scoring at or above basic
improved by nine percentage points and the percentage of Hispanics
improved by four percentage points. In Grade 4 Mathematics, NYS made
even more dramatic gains with the percentage of all students who are
proficient increasing between 2003 and 2007 by ten percent, the
percentage of Black students proficient increasing by six percent and
the percentage of Hispanic students proficient increasing by ten
percent. These gains are in part attributable to aggressive efforts that
NYS has made to implement a Universal Pre-kindergarten program and
promote effective reading and mathematics instruction in the early
grades. While NYS has not demonstrated dramatic gains in Grade 8 Reading
and Mathematics during this period, the percentage of students who are
at or above Basic in Grade 8 Reading exceeds the national average and
the percentage who or at or above Proficient in Grade 8 Mathematics also
exceeds the national average. (See
<http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp>.)

*Results from State assessments:* NYS tested elementary students in
Grade 4 and middle school students in Grade 8 in school years 2001-02 to
2004-05. During this period, the percentage of students scoring at or
above proficiency in elementary English language arts (ELA) rose from
61.5 percent to 70 percent and the percentage of students at or above
proficiency in middle level ELA improved from 44.3 percent to\
48 percent. With the implementation of Grades 3-8 testing for the
2005-06 school year, performance in Grades 3-8 ELA continued to improve,
with a seven percent increase in the percentage of students who were
proficient between 2005-06 and 2007-08. In elementary school
mathematics, the percentage of students who scored at or above
proficiency increased from 68 percent to 85 percent between 2001-02 and
2004-05 while the percentage of students at or above proficiency in
Grade 8 Mathematics rose from 47.7 percent to 55.5 percent. In Grades
3-8 Mathematics, the percentage of students who scored at or above
proficiency rose from 66 percent in 2005-06 to\
81 percent in 2007-08. The achievement gap also narrowed across Grades
3-8 in mathematics. The number of Black students performing at or above
proficiency increased from 46 percent to 66 percent, the number of
Hispanic students increased from 52 to 71 percent and the number of
White students from 76 to 88 percent.

At the high school level, NYS has also been decreasing the graduation
achievement gap, with the percentage of Black students graduating within
four years increasing by three percent between 2004 and 2006 and the
percentage of Hispanic student increasing by four percent during that
period.

Contributing to these gains was the fact that NYS raised the percent of
core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in every subject except
the arts between 2004-05 and 2005-06. More significantly, NYS also
narrowed the gap between high and low poverty school districts. (See\
<http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/press-release/archive/home.shtml>.)

***How well-developed are New York State's standards, assessments, and
accountability systems?***

NYS currently has "full approval" from the USED for its standards and
assessment system under the USED's Peer Review process. In addition,
NYS's accountability policies regarding NCLB have been approved by the
USED.

***Where is the current State accountability system documented?***

The NYSED posts extensive material pertaining to the State's
accountability rules and regulations for public access. The
accountability rules are presented both in text format (HTML) and as a
PowerPoint presentation. See Accountability Rules posted on the main
website: <http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/home.shtml>

Calculating AYP is described in detail in the Accountability Rules
presentation, see above. Confidence Intervals and Effective Annual
Measurable Objective's (AMO's) are explained separately, see:\
<http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/school-accountability/confidence-intervals.htm>

Other statistical adjustments are used in determining AYP for students
with disabilities and are described in a PowerPoint presentation also
located at the main website.
<http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/home.shtml>

Every school and school district has its AYP determinations stated in
the school and/or school district report card. These report cards are
available to the public at:

<http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/reportcard/2006/home.shtml>

The school district/school report cards explain the methods of
calculating AYP to the public, see: <http://www.nystart.gov/publicweb>.
Page 6 of the school district/school report card breaks down the key
components that are used to calculate AYP; i.e., AMO and PI.

NYS provides clear documentation of its accountability system under NCLB
on the school district/school report card. The elementary-middle level
and high school language arts and mathematics criteria,
elementary-middle level science criteria and graduation rate, are
defined on page 5. (See: <http://www.nystart.gov/publicweb>.)

***Where does this growth model fit in the larger picture of where New
York State would like to go?***

Consistent with the Board of Regents' P-16 Plan and Chapter 57 of the
Laws of 2007, the Board of Regents and the NYSED are working with State
and national experts to review NYS\'s current system of accountability,
supports, and interventions and establish a world class system that will
streamline and promote greater transparency in accountability
determinations, further continual improvement in making AYP
determinations, link determinations to deeper diagnostic analysis and
differentiated consequences, and ensure the delivery of a range of
high-impact supports and interventions. We view this current proposal as
one important piece of this broader initiative. Our intent is to fully
integrate this proposal into that effort in the coming months and to
phase in the more comprehensive system beginning with the 2009-10 school
year. Information regarding the Board of Regents' P-16 action plan can
be found at: <http://usny.nysed.gov/summit/p-16ed.pdf>

Information regarding Board of Regents, efforts to implement the
accountability provisions of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 can be found
at:

<http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2008Meetings/January2008/0108emscd1.doc>

Information about the Board of Regents, efforts to transform the NYSED
into a world class provider of support for schools can be found at:

<http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/documents/GatesWallaceCommitment.doc>

***Does New York State have the assessment and data infrastructure to
allow use of longitudinal student measures of growth?***

The NYSED has a well-developed system of student assessments, unique
student identification numbers, and the data system necessary to
implement the proposed growth model. In addition, NYS will have three
years' of data with which to implement the model (2005-06, 2006-07, and
2007-08 by the end of this school year).

Beginning with results from the 2005-06 school year, NYS has implemented
a system that assigns a unique student identification number to every
student in the State. All school districts are required to report
information annually on each student enrolled in the school district,
including the performance of students on all State assessments. This
system allows the state to track the performance of all students from
grade to grade. By 2008-09, NYS's data depository will contain four
years of State assessment data.

NYS has a system of vertically aligned standards and assessments in
English language arts and mathematics that have received a designation
of "full approval" by the USED.

***Has New York State followed a sound process in developing its growth
model proposal?***

NYS's growth model has been developed with extensive involvement of
interested members of the public and key stakeholders. The Board of
Regents has discussed publicly the development of the growth model five
times in the past year, and materials regarding the Board of Regents,
discussions have been made available on the NYSED's Website. NYSED staff
have made numerous presentations to groups of administrators, teachers,
and parents and have met individually with representatives of key
stakeholder organizations. Feedback from these meetings has been
strongly supportive of the NYSED's efforts. The NYSED has posted its
proposed growth model on its website. The NYSED has conducted
significant outreach, including holding public forums throughout the
State to receive additional feedback on the proposal.\
(See: <http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/GrowthModelForumsSept16.pdf>.)

***How and when will New York State implement its growth model proposal,
if approved by the USED?***

If approved, the NYSED will implement its growth model proposal using
2008-09 school year results. The NYSED will disseminate simple,
transparent, understandable materials to use to familiarize interested
members of the public and key stakeholders with the growth model. School
report cards will be modified to provide information on the number of
students at the subgroup, school, and school district level that are
either not proficient but on track towards proficiency or proficient but
on track to become not proficient.

***How will New York State evaluate its growth model?***

NYSED conducts analyses of its accountability system, including
regularly presenting pertinent items to its Technical Advisory
Committee. The active and sophisticated stakeholder groups in NYS also
provide feedback on all aspects of the State accountability system. The
growth model will be subject to rigorous scrutiny and improvement. In
particular, NYS will pursue the investigation of using two years' data
as contrasted with three or more in terms of impact on important
characteristics, including accuracy, reliability, inclusion, and
transparency. In addition, NYS provides an assurance that it will
participate in evaluations of growth models required by the USED,
specifically, provision of data to allow comparison of the growth model
results with those exclusive of applying the growth model.

# Proposed Growth Model

NYS proposes incorporating student growth for purposes of AYP using one
method for students in Grades 3-8 and a separate method for
incorporating student growth in high schools (students enrolled in
Grades 9-12) determinations. A third method is under development for
holding schools and school districts accountable for the growth of all
students, particularly in schools and school districts that meet AYP
because enough students currently score proficient or above. The model
for Grades 3-8 is described first below, followed by the section for the
high school model.

## Growth Model for Grades 3-8

***What is the nature of the proposed Growth Model for Grades 3-8 and
how will it work?***

The proposed growth model for NYS gives a school full credit if a
student learns enough from one year to the next to be on track to become
proficient within four years or less. If the student has grown enough,
then the student's performance is worth two points in the NYS PI system,
which is the same credit as if the student scored proficient. No points
are taken away if the student did not grow enough. The proposed growth
system only adds a second look at students who did not score proficient,
and gives them credit if they made significant progress.

Student growth is measured over two years, from Grade 3 to Grade 4,
Grade 4 to Grade 5, and so on. Whether the student is on track to become
proficient is determined by projecting the student's growth into the
future and calculating whether the student would be proficient at the
future grade level (e.g., by Grade 7). Because of the different
assessment system in high school, student progress is determined by
measuring student performance from Grade 8 to a Regents Examination in
Mathematics or English language arts. (See Figure 1.)

**Figure 1: Example of Determination of One Student's Growth from Grade
3 to Grade 4, Projected to Grade 7**

Figure 1: This illustrates a student who scores below proficient (red
bars) in Grades 3 and 4. Based upon the student's growth from Grade 3 to
Grade 4, the student's performance is projected to Grade 7. Because the
student is projected to become proficient by Grade 7, the student is
viewed as being on track to becoming proficient, and the school is given
full credit for the student's growth in grade 4. A similar process would
be followed for each student, each year to calculate growth and make
accountability determinations.

Details of the scaling and procedures are given in Appendix A.

***An Example of the Grades 3-8 Growth Model***

Assume the following: on the Grades 3, 4, and 5 Mathematics Tests, the
hypothetical scale scores are translated into performance levels as
follows:

Level 1: Below 620

Level 2: 620

Level 3: 650

Level 4: 690

In Grade 3, Student A scores 614 or Level 1. Since there is no basis for
making a growth determination, Student A's status is "not proficient"
and his score is included in the PI as a Level 1 score. Note that NYS
uses another z-scale to make comparisons across grades, since it does
not have a vertical developmental scale. The example here uses a
vertical scale for simplicity and clarity of illustration. (See Appendix
A for actual procedures.)

Student A is now given a four year growth trajectory (this is a
simplified version of the actual psychometrics that will be employed),
requiring that he obtain proficiency by Grade 7. Currently, there is a
36 point gap between the scale score for proficiency (650) and Student
A's score of 614. If Student A gains 9 scale score points each year, he
will obtain proficiency by Grade 7. Therefore, to be on track toward
proficiency, Student A must earn a scale score of 623 or better on the
Grade 4 Mathematics Test.

In Grade 4, Student A receives a score of 623 or Level 2. Because
Student A is now considered on track towards proficiency, his school
will get credit for Student A's performance as being equivalent to a
Level 3 performance rather than a Level 2 performance. This will raise
the school's PI and make it more likely that the school will make AYP.
For example, let us say there are 100 students in Student A's school in
the low-income group and their scores distribute as follows:

+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-----------+
|         | Level  | Level  | Level  | Level  | On      | Pe        |
|         | 1      | 2      | 3      | 4      | Track   | rformance |
|         |        |        |        |        | Towards | Index     |
|         | (0     | (1     | (2     | (2     | Prof    |           |
|         | index  | Index  | Index  | Index  | iciency |           |
|         | p      | Point  | Points | Points |         |           |
|         | oints) | per    | per    | per    | (2      |           |
|         |        | St     | St     | St     | Index   |           |
|         |        | udent) | udent) | udent) | Points  |           |
|         |        |        |        |        | per     |           |
|         |        |        |        |        | S       |           |
|         |        |        |        |        | tudent) |           |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-----------+
| Number  | 10     | 50     | 35     | 5      | NA      | 130       |
| of      |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| S       |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| tudents |        |        |        |        |         |           |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-----------+
| Less    | 1      | 4      | NA     | NA     |         |           |
| Number  |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| of      |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| S       |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| tudents |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| On      |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| Track   |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| Towards |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| Prof    |        |        |        |        |         |           |
| iciency |        |        |        |        |         |           |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-----------+
| Equals  | 9      | 46     | 35     | 5      | 5       | 136       |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-----------+

In the example above, because one student who is Level 1 and four
students who are Level 2 made enough gain to be considered on track
towards proficiency, the school's PI increases from 130 to 136. If this
PI places the school's low-income group above its Effective AMO, the
school would be able to make AYP for that group.

Since Student A's performance in Grade 4 is 623, a new trajectory for
being on track towards proficiency will be established for Student A.
Now Student A must gain 27 scale score points in three years to be
proficient by Grade 7 (650-623=27). Since Student A has three years to
make this 27 point gain, Student A is expected to make a gain of nine
scale score points per year (27/3=9). Therefore, Student A is on track
for his proficiency target in Grade 5 will be 632 (627+9=632).

In Grade 5, Student A achieves a scale score of 630, or Level 2. Since
Student A did not achieve his on track towards the proficiency target of
632, his score will be included in the school's PI as a Level 2 score.
Student A now has two years to make up the remaining 20 point
difference, so his Grade 6 target will be 640 to be included in the PI
as a Level 3 score.

***An Example of the Growth Model Applied to Middle School***

To continue the previous example, Student A gained 9 points between
Grades 3 and 4, and seven points between Grades 4 and 5, and has 20
points to grow to be proficient by Grade 7. When Student A enters middle
school in Grade 6, under the basic "Proficiency Plus" Grades 3-8 growth
model, there is tremendous demand for the middle school to help the
student make up the difference that exists, in part because the student
did not grow as needed in the elementary school.

The middle school enhanced extension provides a fair incentive for the
middle school and holds it accountable for the student's growth toward
proficiency. In the enhanced extension, the student's growth target is
set four years out from entry into middle school. Thus the student is
expected to grow enough to become proficient by Grade 10.

When Student A enters middle school in Grade 6, Student A is given a
four-year target based on becoming proficient, for example, in
Integrated Algebra by Grade 10. Assume that passing that end of course
examination has a comparable scale score of 666. Based on Student A's
Grade 5 scale score of 630, Student A has to grow nine points each year.
The middle school is held accountable for helping Student A grow nine
points each year, rather than the 10 previously given.

NYSED staff is aware of the technical challenges associated with
creating a projection model that is based on using the high school end
of course examinations. If additional research indicates that this
approach is not feasible or that it would be too complicated to
implement and communicate, we will use only the Grades 3-8 Testing
Program data and the projection methodology that ends with the Grade 8
Tests.

***How does this use of growth hold schools accountable for students
becoming proficient?***

A school only gets full credit for the student if the student made
enough growth while in the school to put the student on track to
becoming proficient within the specified amount of time. If the student
did not make enough growth, then the student is below proficient (by
definition), and the school is subject to all the regular, non-growth
rules and consequences if the school fails to make AYP.

A student receives credit for making growth only when that growth is
sufficient to put the student on a well-defined path towards becoming
proficient within four or fewer years. The student must be projected to
become proficient within no more than four years. For each year the
student is enrolled in the school or school district, the school or
school district has one year less for the student to become proficient.
For example, a student who entered the school in Grade 3 and initially
had her/his growth projected four years from the growth observed between
Grades 3 and 4 would have her/his growth projected only three years the
next year, then two years, and so on.

Every school and school district is held accountable for helping
students who score less than proficient grow towards becoming proficient
within four years. When a student changes schools---notably from
elementary to middle school - the middle school is under exactly the
same conditions as the elementary school: it only receives full credit
if the student is on track to become proficient on the high school end
of course exam required for graduation. This ensures that middle schools
are accountable for their contribution to student growth in a fair and
practical way. In addition, no reestablishment of a growth trajectory
occurs for district accountability if a student transfers between
schools within a school district. For example, a student who is not
proficient in Grade 3 who transfers from an elementary school after
Grade 5 to a middle school in the same district is still, for district
accountability purposes, expected to be proficient by Grade 7.

***How will student growth results be incorporated into AYP decisions
and consequences?***

Growth results will be incorporated into the State's current
"Performance Index" for both Status and Safe Harbor. A student who makes
enough growth to be on track to become proficient will be treated the
same as a student who scores proficient or above.

The PI is a weighted average of performance. Each student's performance
is given zero, one, or two points, and then the average number of points
(points per student) is calculated as the PI for the school that ranges
from a possible 0 to 200 points. (The weighted average is multiplied by
100 to make the PI easier to interpret and use.) NYS set its AMOs on the
PI according to the requirements of NCLB, such that the initial AMO
represented the performance of the school enrolling the student at the
20^th^ percentile rank of all students, and the final AMO for 2013-14
represents all students proficient (200 on the PI).

+----------------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
| **Proposed           |         |            |         |            |
| Performance Index    |         |            |         |            |
| Points**             |         |            |         |            |
+----------------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
| **Performance        | **If    | **If not   | *       | *          |
| Level**              | enough  | enough     | *Status | *Current** |
|                      | g       | growth**   | only**  |            |
| **(on most recent    | rowth** |            |         |            |
| assessment)**        |         |            |         |            |
+----------------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
| 1                    | 2       | 0          | NA      | 0          |
+----------------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
| 2                    | 2       | 1          | NA      | 1          |
+----------------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
| 3                    | NA      | NA         | 2       | 2          |
+----------------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+
| 4                    | NA      | NA         | 2       | 2          |
+----------------------+---------+------------+---------+------------+

A single determination will be made: whether a school or school district
made AYP in terms of the AMO or Safe Harbor according to the PI, which
incorporates both Status and Growth. Unlike any other state previously
approved for the USED Growth Model Pilot, NYS is not adding another
"test" by which a school or school district can make AYP. That is, other
states' proposals posit that a school or school district can make AYP by
meeting Status *or* Growth. NYS proposes to count growth into its PI
only, which would then reflect seamlessly "proficient and enough growth
to become proficient."

The AYP consequences detailed in NYS's Accountability Workbook will
apply to AYP decisions that include growth. That is, if a school or
school district fails to make AYP as a result of its results on the PI,
which now incorporates both growth and status, then the school or school
district will be subject to all of the NCLB requirements of a school or
school district in need of improvement.

NYS will report results disaggregated by Status and Growth (just as it
does for Status and Confidence Interval), and will encourage use of the
growth information appropriately in informing and differentiating State
and local consequences.

## Growth Model for High School

NYS strongly desires to extend growth accountability to the high schools
in the State, although it lacks adjacent-grade testing in high school
and has high school\
end of course exams, which lack census testing of students in any one
year. These conditions have resulted in other states not applying to
extend the growth model pilot to high schools or in these models not
being approved by the USED. NYS's proposal builds upon its strong and
respected Regents examination system and a flexible approach to giving
accountability credit for significant student progress within the
constraints of the current assessment system.

NYS proposes to give full credit to schools and school districts for
students who entered Grade 9 with a low score on the Grade 8 tests, but
who have a significantly higher score in the end-of-course ELA and
mathematics examinations taken in high school. Specifically, the high
school growth model would be similar to the growth model proposed for
Grades 3-8 in that it focuses on students becoming proficient. Growth
would be calculated for students who were not proficient on the most
recent assessment to evaluate whether they had made sufficient growth to
be considered on track to become proficient within a certain period of
time. Specifically, NYS proposes that students who enter high school
having scored on Level 1 or at low-Level 2 on the Grade 8 ELA or
Mathematics Tests to be considered to be on track towards becoming
proficient if the student scores between 55-64 on the\
Regents Examination in Integrated Algebra and the\
Regents Comprehensive Examination in English prior to their fourth year
enrolled in high school. Prior to a fifth year would be allowed for
certain\
Limited English Proficient/English Language Learners students, certain
students with disabilities, and students who enter high school far below
standards. For purposes of the PI, schools would receive full credit for
the performance of these students.

This proposal uses an existing performance level that is quite
meaningful within the NYS context. In NYS, students must score 65 or
above on a set of designated Regents examinations in order to qualify
for a Regents high school diploma. Students who score 55-64 may receive
a local diploma. Thus, a score of 55-64 is both valued by students and
serves as an indicator to schools that students are within striking
distance of qualifying for the Regents diploma with additional
coursework and support. The proposed growth model gives schools credit
for students achieving a score of 55-64 by their next-to-last year in
school since that represents significant growth from the students'
performance in Grade 8, and represents a rate of growth that would
likely result in the student achieving a 65 or better on the Regents
examination if taken at the end of high school.

NYS did not propose a scale-score trajectory approach similar to what it
proposed be used in Grades 3-8, because there is a gap of two or more
years between assessments. Instead, NYS proposes using a value-table
approach. A value-table is especially suitable for assigning values
where the performances or their values are ordered categories rather
than interval (equi-distant) in nature. In this case, NYS proposes that
growth from a score of Level 1 or low Level 2 in Grade 8 to a score of\
55-64 on the designated Regents examination by the junior year
(next-to-last year) be assigned a value of two points in NYS's PI
system. Students who started at a higher Level 2 at the end of Grade 8
and subsequently scored 55-64 in high school would receive one point.
Any student scoring 65 or higher would earn two points for the school.
Any student scoring lower than 55 would earn zero points.

An example of the value table is provided below:

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **New York      |                 |                 |                 |
| Proposed High   |                 |                 |                 |
| School          |                 |                 |                 |
| Performance     |                 |                 |                 |
| Points**        |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| **Number of     |                 |                 |                 |
| Performance     |                 |                 |                 |
| Index Points**  |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|                 | **Score on High |                 |                 |
|                 | School Regents  |                 |                 |
|                 | Exam**          |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Initial Grade | **Less than     | **55-64**       | **65 and        |
| 8 level**       | 55**            |                 | higher**        |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1               | 0               | 2               | 2               |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 2-minus         | 0               | 2               | 2               |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 2-plus          | 0               | 1               | 2               |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 3               | 0               | 1               | 2               |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 4               | 0               | 1               | 2               |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

The High School PI is a weighted average of student performance, the
same as the PI used for Grades 3-8. The High School PI is calculated by
summing the points across all the students in the school, dividing by
the total number of students, and multiplying the result by 100. Thus,
if all of the students score less than 55 on the Regents examination,
the school will have a PI of zero. If all students score 65 or above, or
low performing students make sufficient growth (sufficient growth is
defined as students starting at Level 1 or Level 2-minus in Grade 8 who
earn a scale score of 55-64 on Regents examination prior to senior
year), the school will have a PI of 200. NYS's goal is that all schools
and school districts have a score of 200 by 2013-14.

**An Example the High School Growth Model**

Assume that Student A for some reason makes almost no progress in middle
school, and still is a low Level 2 in Grade 8. The middle school has
been held accountable for Student A's performance. But how should the
high school be held accountable for Student A's growth? This proposed
approach provides credit to high schools for helping students who left
Grade 8 with very low scores but who then scored at least at the level
of qualifying for a local diploma before their last year in school. In
the proposed high school extension, the high school gets full credit if
a student who scores at Level 1 and/or low in Level 2 in Grade 8 makes
significant growth by Grade 11. Significant growth is defined as scoring
between 55-64 on the designated Regents Examination in Integrated
Algebra or Regents Comprehensive English Examination. The amount of
credit may be two points (indicates on track to meet the Regents passing
standard) or one point (considerable growth, but not on track to
proficiency).

If Student A scored a 56---and thereby qualified for a local
diploma---by Grade 11, the school would receive credit for helping
Student A grow enough that the school would receive 200 accountability
points in the PI. The 55-64 points will be linked to qualification for a
local diploma until 2011-12, when all students will need to score at
least 65 in order to qualify for any diploma. However, growth from a low
score in Grade 8 to a score of at least 55 on the designated Regents
Examination will still represent significant growth.

# Core Principles

NYS's growth model proposal complies with the seven Core Principles
enunciated in the USED's guidance of November 18, 2005. In this section,
NYS reaffirms its compliance, and refers to appropriate sections of the
proposal for supporting detail.

**Core Principle 1: The proposed accountability system must ensure that
all students are proficient by 2013-14 and set annual goals to ensure
that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students.**

NYS's growth proposal focuses on all students becoming proficient.
Acceptable performance is defined as students scoring proficient or
above or making sufficient growth that they are on-track to become
proficient within four years. The AMOs have not changed; by 2013-14, the
annual goals increase to 100% of students proficient or on track to
become proficient.

Schools and school districts are accountable for assisting students who
are below proficient to close the gap and become proficient. Each year a
student must have made enough growth to be on track to become proficient
within a set amount of time. The growth is expected to be the same each
year; there is no "backloading" or curvilinear modeling. The maximum
amount of time a school or district has is four years of growth with
each student.

Schools and school districts that meet AYP under the proposed growth
model will close the achievement gap because all students, subgroups,
and schools/school districts will be required to have increasing
proportions of students proficient or on track to become proficient
until, by 2013-14, 100% of all students must be proficient or be
determined to be on track towards proficiency.

**Core Principle 2: The accountability system must establish high
expectations for low-achieving students that are not based on student
demographics or school characteristics.**

The NYS growth model proposal incorporates only measures of student
achievement, and does not factor in student demographics or school
characteristics. The growth targets are linear projections to
proficiency standards, not conditioned or relative to any group or other
factor. Thus, the expectations for proficiency and growth towards
proficiency are the same for all students, subject, of course, to
variation according to the amount of growth that an individual student
needs to make to achieve proficiency within the targeted period; a
student who starts lower is expected to make more absolute growth in the
same amount of time.

**Core Principle 3: The accountability system must produce separate
accountability decisions about student achievement in reading/language
arts and in mathematics.**

The NYS growth model proposal will continue to produce separate
accountability decisions about student achievement in reading/language
arts and in mathematics.

**Core Principle 4: All students in the tested grades must be included
in the assessment and accountability system; schools and districts must
be held accountable for the performance of student subgroups; and the
accountability system must include all public schools and districts in
the state.**

The NYS growth model proposal includes all students in the assessment
and accountability system. A status determination is made regarding the
performance of all students, including those for whom it is not possible
or not appropriate to make a growth determination. The same
accountability determinations are made as are currently approved for
subgroups, content areas, and all public schools and school districts in
the State.

**Core Principle 5: Annual assessments in reading/ language arts and
mathematics in each of Grades 3-8 and high school must have been
administered for more than one year, must produce comparable results
from year to year and grade to grade, and must be approved through the
peer review process for the current (2007-08) school year.**

The NYS growth model proposal builds upon the State's annual assessments
in reading/language arts and mathematics administered in Grades 3-8, and
the State's designated end of course exams in high school. These
assessments' technical documentation provides evidence and describes the
procedures carried out to ensure they produce comparable results from
year to year (equating) and from grade to grade (vertically moderated
performance standards). NYS's standards and assessment system have been
fully approved through the USED Peer Review process since February 26,
2008.

**Core Principle 6: The accountability model and State data system must
track student progress.**

The NYS growth model proposal incorporates measures of longitudinal,
individual student growth by comparing performance on successive grade
assessments in successive years (e.g., performance in Grade 5 in 2008
compared to performance in Grade 4 in 2007). The State data system
supports the required matching of individual data over time and across
grades and schools.

**Core Principle 7: The accountability system must include student
participation rates in the State\'s assessment system and student
achievement on an additional academic indicator.**

The NYS growth model proposal maintains the same requirements for
meeting AYP as its approved accountability system, including student
participation rates on the State's annual assessments and student
achievement on the additional academic indicators of science for
elementary and middle schools and of graduation rates for high schools.

# Additional Details

***What grades will be covered by the growth model?***

The growth model will apply to elementary, middle, and high schools. The
assessment data for ELA and mathematics in Grades 3-8 and the designated
Regents Examinations in Mathematics and English will be used.

***What about schools that enroll students in grades Pre-K through Grade
3, that do not have growth data?***

Schools will be held accountable for Grade 3 students only through
Status each year, since there is no available assessment data prior to
Grade 3 to measure growth.

***Are high schools included in the growth model?***

Yes. See preceding section.

***What growth will be expected of students who are below proficient?***

Students who are below proficient (i.e., score less than Level 3) will
be on track to become proficient if their (linear) projected growth is
proficient within four years or less. from entering elementary or middle
school, or "qualifies for a local diploma" by Grade 11 in high school.

***What increasing performance will be expected of schools?***

The AMOs for the State are not changed. They are:

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Assessment   2007-2008   2008-2009   2009-2010   2010-2011   2011-2012   2012-2013   2013-2014

  Grade 3-8    133         144         155         167         178         189         200
  ELA                                                                                  

  Grade 3-8    102         119         135         151         167         183         200
  Math                                                                                 
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Assessment   2007-2008   2008-2009   2009-2010   2010-2011   2011-2012   2012-2013   2013-2014

  HS ELA       165         171         177         183         188         194         200

  HS Math      159         166         173         180         186         193         200
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

***What about growth of students who already score proficient or
above?***

The NYS model for AYP focuses on "all students proficient." No credit is
given (or taken) for growth of students who score proficient or above.
Obviously, a student who was proficient in a previous year and then
scored less than proficient in the most recent year would be counted as
non-proficient. In NYS's PI, such a student would have been credited
with two points in the previous year, and then would have been credited
with one or zero points the most recent year, depending on how low
her/his performance was.

NYS recognizes that there are students who, in their most recent year,
are proficient or above, but whose growth trajectory projects them to
score less than proficient in the future. NYS will address this
important segment of student performance in its non-AYP, "high
performing" incentive component of accountability. The reason NYS
separates these two components of accountability is because NCLB
required consequences are not appropriate for schools where there are
high proportions of students who score proficient or above, but who are
not growing. For example, NYS does not think it appropriate to allocate
limited resources---especially Title I resources intended for
economically disadvantaged students---to provide tutoring services for
students who are proficient but who are not making progress towards even
higher levels of proficiency---especially if those students are in
generally more wealthy schools.

***What is known about the technical properties of the proposed growth
model?***

See sections below on the validity and reliability of the proposed
growth model. Additional technical information is provided in Appendix
A.

***Is the school AYP determination including growth valid?***

NYS views the inclusion of growth as permitting a more refined and
accurate identification of schools and school districts in need of
improvement and subject to the assistance and sanctions mandated by
NCLB. A school or school district where students are scoring proficient
or above, or where students are on track to become proficient within an
acceptable amount of time without State intervention, should not be
identified for the sanctions specified by NCLB.

A key characteristic of a growth system used for school and school
district accountability is that it should represent the population of
the school or school district. Conceptually, NYS's proposed growth model
does represent the school population and is not subject to the threats
of bias or under-representation to which most other approaches may be
subject. Preliminary data analyses confirm this conceptual analysis, and
shows that NYS's growth model is highly inclusive of students. It must
be emphasized that NYS's proposal is fundamentally different from other
states' growth model proposals of which NYS is aware. NYS does not
propose to calculate a growth performance measure separate from status
and then make a separate determination of whether the school or school
district met AYP, as other states have done. In these other state
proposals, a school or school district may meet AYP by either meeting
status or by meeting growth. In this case, it is imperative that the
performance represented by the growth determination be somewhat
representative of the school or school district as a whole. The USED's
concern with match rates over time stems from this principle. For
example, it would be of questionable representation if a school with
highly mobile students had a growth measure based on only 60% of the
students enrolled during the year. (If that were the case, the analysis
would address the question, "What was the growth of students who were
stable in the school?" rather than, "What was the performance of the
school as a whole?") Where there are many students excluded or missing
from the data set, one would then need to check how much any difference
in the AYP designation due to status or growth was due to differences in
performance (i.e., Status versus Growth) and how much was due to a
different student population. In addition, students missing data that
then have values imputed is a known thorny problem for more complex
statistical approaches in estimating student growth, and especially for
those growth models that generate a conditional statistical expectation
of what the student performance should have been given certain data.
NYS's proposal avoids these problems.

NYS proposes a single AYP determination for each school and school
district based on the PI that NYS has been using for years, as approved
by USED. Incorporating student growth within the PI has the virtue that
the AYP determination incorporating growth and status can never be based
on fewer students than would have been used for Status alone. This is
because growth is only used in addition to Status when certain
conditions hold, including that the student has sufficient valid data to
make a Growth calculation and when the student's score is not already
proficient or above. This is consistent with NYS's interpretation of
AYP: "A school or school district will not meet AYP, and will be subject
to the consequences of not meeting AYP, if it does not have a sufficient
level of student performance in terms of the percentage of students who
are proficient or on track to become proficient."

Thus, NYS's concern with inclusion as indicated by match rates, etc., is
less about whether an AYP designation based on growth might
over-represent the school's performance based on a biased sample. NYS's
concern is more about whether growth has been under-represented because
certain types of growth are not allowed in the current growth proposal,
due to technical and operational concerns, especially growth of students
who do not take the regular NYS assessment. Match rate data, then,
provide more a perspective on the capacity of NYS's data system than on
the validity of the growth proposal, since the match rate does not
affect the inclusion of students in the accountability decision.

***Is the school AYP decision including growth reliable?***

Reliability of school accountability decisions, or classification
consistency, has been shown to be mainly a function of several factors,
including the number of students and the distance of the performance
from the cut score. More students increase the classification
consistency, and any performance close to the cut score will be less
consistent. (If the true performance were exactly on the cut score, then
the maximum expected consistency of observed performances would be 50%.)
Given sufficient numbers of students, school classification consistency
is affected to a much more minor degree by reliability of individual
student scores or performance determinations.

NYS's growth proposal changes neither the number of students (see
section above on validity and inclusion) nor the cut points, and so it
is anticipated that the effect on school classification consistency will
be quite small. The reliability of student growth performance will
certainly be less than any status score, and the reliability of student
growth performance ("did or did not make sufficient growth") will be
less reliable due to the measurement error inherent in dealing with
multiple scores. However, two factors dampen the concerns due to student
measurement error and concomitant student classification error. First,
it can be assumed that the classification errors are randomly
distributed; i.e., there is a balance of false positives and false
negatives. Thus, there is less classification consistency for any
individual student, but the overall school classification consistency is
not biased. Second, there are relatively few students who meet the
conditions for sufficient growth, compared to the overall numbers of
students in the schools.

Some more complex statistical approaches to growth are designed to
increase student-level reliability and accuracy, especially of projected
performance. However, there are obvious advantages in terms of public
understanding and educator action in using observed scores to
characterize student and school growth performance. NYS has made the
policy decision that transparency in accountability currently outweighs
the use of such complex models. This decision will be evaluated over
time as NYS gets more experience with reporting, interpreting, and using
growth results.

***Will growth data be incorporated into making Safe Harbor
determinations?***

NYS proposes to continue to make the "safe harbor" determination using
the PI that integrates status and growth student data, just as the PI
will be used to make the traditional Status determination. There will no
separate determination of "Growth" or "Safe Harbor based only on
Growth."

***Does growth model or accountability system as a whole use uniform
averaging among years and grades in making AYP determinations? If so,
how?***

NYS plans to continue its current practices regarding averaging data
among years and grades. For calculation of the PI, NYS averages between
two years of data only when there are insufficient numbers of
continually enrolled students in the most current school year to
calculate a PI. For Grades 3-8, NYS combines the performance of students
in all tested grades to calculate the PI.

***What is the State\'s minimum group size for AYP purposes? Will the
growth model apply this policy?***

NYS will continue to utilize a minimum N size of 30 for calculation of
the PI for subgroups.

***Does the State use confidence intervals? Will the growth model apply
this policy?***

The State uses a confidence interval of .90 for determining whether the
PI meets or exceeds the AMO. NYS plans to continue to use this
confidence interval when making this determination.

***How will the model handle use of various assessments to assess the
same content (e.g., regular verses alternate verses native language
assessments) or a case where an individual student changes from an
assessment in one year against grade level standards to an assessment in
the next year against alternate achievement standards?***

NYS will measure growth towards proficiency in Grades 3-8 only when a
student has been administered regular State assessments in successive
years in successive grades. Otherwise, only the student's performance
level will be used in status. For high school, only low-performing
students who have participated in the regular State assessments in Grade
8, designated special education students, and late arriving LEP/ELL
students will be able to receive credit for passage of a Regents
examination prior to senior year with a score of 55-64.

***Does the model assign schools and districts credit for students
scoring above proficient, either for students who were previously below
proficient or for students who have always scored above proficient?***

> The model assigns no additional credit to students who score above
> proficient.

***How will the State report data in a transparent, understandable
manner to districts, schools, the public, and the USED?***

The State will continue to report on school and school district report
cards the level of performance of all students as at present. In
addition, the state will report data on the number of students at the
subgroup, school, and school district level for which a school or
district has received credit for being on track towards proficiency.

***What is the estimated impact of applying the proposed growth
model?***

NYS has done some data modeling to estimate the impact of applying the
proposed growth model. The results are approximate because they are
based on available data not including the current school year, and
because not all the conditions were included (e.g., uniform averaging,
etc.) (See Appendix A for a full description of conditions.)Additional
Uses of Growth

NYS is committed to holding schools and school districts appropriately
accountable for the growth of all students, including those who are
already proficient or higher on the State assessments. However, NYS
feels that having all students become proficient and reducing the
achievement gap of students who are proficient must remain a primary
focus, accompanied by appropriate consequences. NYS has implemented the
assistance and sanctions specified by NCLB, and is developing
additional, extensive differentiated supports and assistance. As part of
this overall plan of developing appropriate incentives and assistance,
NYS is redesigning its accountability program for "High Performing and
Rapidly Improving" schools and school districts. The new design will
incorporate student growth, but will not be part of AYP.

Currently, NYS has a designation for high performing schools and
district that is aimed at schools and districts that have met AYP. The
designation is based upon subgroups making AYP and schools and school
districts achieving State standards that measure the performance of all
students. However, NYS desires to incorporate growth into this
designation so that schools and school districts have an incentive to
foster continued learning for students who score proficient.

NYS does not intend to merge this "High Performing" designation with AYP
because the consequences mandated for not meeting AYP, such as offering
public school choice and supplemental educational services or moving
towards change in governance are inappropriate for schools that meet AYP
with a high proportion of students who are proficient and with
acceptable subgroup performance on AYP. In other words, NYS considers
NCLB consequences appropriate for schools and school districts that are
"low in status, low in growth." NYS does not consider NCLB consequences
appropriate for schools and school districts that are "high in status,
low in growth" or "high in status, high in growth." For these
categories, NYS is devising a way of measuring performance and assigning
appropriate rewards and consequences.

NYS's efforts are being informed by a wide range of "growth" and
"value-added" models. Most of these models have been declared as not
permissible for AYP purposes because they do not guarantee all students
becoming proficient within the NCLB timelines. However, these models may
be quite appropriate for holding schools and school districts
accountable for the continued progression of their students, including
those who are already proficient or above. Prominent among the models
NYS is examining are the system implemented in New York City; William
Sanders' EVASS model, which is being used in several districts in the
State; and the growth percentile model developed by Damian Betebenner
and implemented in Colorado.

The term "value-added" has been used in a variety of ways. One is to
indicate that student performance is higher than it was previously. A
second definition is that performance is higher than expected. A third
meaning is that changes in performance may be attributed to specific
actors (teachers) or units (schools as distinct from students). The
second usage, where growth is compared to an expectation, is where NYS
is focusing its efforts for "High Performing" schools and school
districts. Whereas NCLB systems all must focus on proficient, and
therefore AYP growth must be growth-towards-proficient, this criterion
is inappropriate for students who are already proficient. Determining an
appropriate learning target for students and schools is the aim of NYS's
efforts to devise a "High Performing/Rapidly Improving" accountability
designation. NYS will also create appropriate consequences. Currently
the consequences are public reporting and "bragging rights"---which has
proved to be highly motivational for some schools. However, NYS will
consider other appropriate consequences, such as regulatory relief. It
is not anticipated that NYS will consider financial rewards.

NYS considers this use of growth-for-all-students more appropriate than
mixing such growth with NCLB designations. In particular, NYS views it
highly inappropriate to use growth of students who are on track to
become non-proficient to identify a school as not meeting AYP. Such a
"high status, low growth" school will become subject to NCLB sanctions
when the students do, in fact, become non-proficient. But diverting
scarce Title I funds to a high status school is not appropriate. NYS
will devise a non-NCLB accountability system to deal with such
performance.

NYS is highly committed to developing this growth-centered
accountability for schools that make AYP because of the high proportion
of students who score proficient or above. The State has already begun
the process of exploring different models. The Board of Regents have
expressed high interest in this work. NYS anticipates developing this
non-NCLB growth model by the end of the 2008-09 school year for possible
approval by the Board of Regents. This effort is framed by the State
statute that directs the Board of Regents and the NYSED to develop a
"value-added" growth system by 2010-11. This same State statute directs
the education policy makers to adopt an "interim growth system" if
approved by the USED this year. NYS is pleased that State policy demands
a system integrated with NCLB, while simultaneously recognizing the need
to go beyond AYP in holding schools and school districts accountable for
students who already score proficient.

# Conclusion 

Adding measures of student longitudinal growth as proposed will help NYS
build on an already strong and fully approved accountability system. The
addition of growth will focus NCLB consequences on schools and school
districts where students are not already proficient or making sufficient
progress to become proficient within four years or fewer. This
modification not only makes AYP designations more accurate and
assignment of consequences and resources more focused, it also enhances
credibility and support for AYP determinations among the public,
policymakers, and educators. NYS's proposal provides an appropriate
means to include growth across all grade levels tested for AYP. And the
combination of AYP and State uses of growth will create a comprehensive
accountability system that maintains focus on proficiency for all
students, while adding appropriate accountability for students who are
proficient or above. The combination of these things will contribute to
raising student achievement, closing the achievement gap, and focusing
school efforts on continual student progress.

## Appendix A: Technical Notes

### 

### Discussion of Scaling

To estimate student progress, performance must be made comparable in
some way. There have been three ways scores have been compared:
developmental scales, use of z-scores, and judgmental approaches such as
value tables.

The intention of a "vertical developmental scale" with "developmental
scale scores" (DSS) is to place performance on a common scale and
facilitate interpretation across a wide span of tests that might be
administered at different grades and that may address related but
differentiated content and skills. Developmental scales have strengths
and drawbacks, and have not been entirely free from controversy among
the measurement community. Although New York State (NYS) has been
investigating the possible implementation of a developmental scale, the
current State assessments are each scaled within each grade, not across
grades.

In the absence of a developmental scale, NYS decided to make student
performance comparable across tests in Grades 3-8 by using an approach
that relies on z-scores to express comparability of performances.
Z-scores have long been used to compare performance on different tests,
with appropriate attention to measurement issues such as normality and
similarity of distributions. For interpreting growth in performance of a
construct, NYS's application also combines appropriately developmental
content standards and vertically moderated achievement standards.

NYS decided that it was appropriate to use a judgmental approach for
measuring and evaluating high school growth. The judgmental approach
identified an amount of growth from a baseline to an intermediate target
for growth on track to becoming proficient, and assigned a number of
Performance Index Points to that growth. These judgments about amounts
of growth and points are best expressed in a value table. Value tables
are most useful when there are ordinal categories of performance and/or
points for that performance.

**Using Z-Scores to Compare Performance**

A z-score essentially is a score expressed in standard deviation units
from the mean. Transforming scores from two different tests to have the
same mean and standard deviation places the scores on a common scale.
The scale of z-scores is entirely relative to the distribution of
observed scores. It is therefore possible to measure relative change,
but care must be taken in interpreting such changes.

Z-scores have been used to measure changes at the student and school
levels in operational state programs. For example, North Carolina used a
variant of a z-score approach to measure student change in its Growth
Model Pilot procedures approved by the USED. Texas used a variant of
z-scores to make determinations about high performing schools in its
state accountability system prior to NCLB. The use of z-scores to
compare performances is well-documented in the literature.

**Appropriateness of Using Z-Scores in the New York State Context**

Z-scores can be generated whether the distribution is normalized or not.
The decision was made to normalize the NYS data because the
distributions were judged to be, when smoothed, consistent with this
interpretation on the basis of the skewness and kurtosis of the
distributions.

NYS's content standards, test specifications, and achievement levels
support the interpretation of student growth. The content standards from
grade to grade were developed to represent the knowledge and skills that
are necessary in each grade to support learning at the next grade. For
example, in the development process, the content standards were reviewed
for vertical articulation across grades. The test specifications require
alignment of the tests to the content standards in a way that is
representative, and will support the judgments embodied in the
achievement level descriptors. The achievement level descriptors are
vertically moderated---that is, the achievement levels represent
differentiation between levels for the same grade, and across grades.
The "proficient" level also was compared across grades and subjected as
part of standard setting to the intentional judgment that the
achievement levels descriptions and cut scores are coherent across
grades. These elements were described in NYS's submission to the USED's
Standards and Assessment Peer Review, and evidence provided. NYS's
standards and assessments have received full approval from the USED.

**Generating Z-Scores for Use in the New York State Growth Model**

A z-score equivalent of the scale score was generated for each student.
In the base year for each content-grade, the appropriate students were
identified (e.g., alternate assessment students were eliminated because
growth would neither be calculated for these students, nor were these
students' performance status or growth interpreted in terms of the same
content or performance standards). The z-scores were generated using the
z-score function in SAS software, using the default mean of 0 and
standard deviation of 1.

What z-scores should be produced to measure student growth from one
year/grade to the next? In this instance, the appropriate z-score
transformation is to put the student performances in the second (and
subsequent) year(s) on the scale from the first year. This enables the
assessment of change from year 1 to year 2. In the NYS growth model data
analysis, the linear transformation equations were generated from the
first year's content-grade data that were then applied to the second
year of data.

The student's scale scores in each of two grade/years are thus
transformed into comparable z-scores. Two additional scores are
generated for each student in terms of growth: The difference between
the two z-scores, or "growth score," represents the change in
performance, or growth between the two assessments. NYS also generates a
projected growth score that represents the student's likely performance
in the future. This projected growth score is compared to the future
proficiency cut score to determine if the student is on track to become
proficient within the allocated time.

The growth score is calculated by subtracting the second test year
z-score from the first year z-score. The growth score is multiple by the
number of years the student has to grow to calculate the student's
projected growth score.

**Mapping Proficiency Cut Scores to the Z-Score Metric**

For the purposes of modeling, the proficiency cut score for grades 4-8
were mapped to the z-score metric by taking the z-score corresponding to
the proficient student with the lowest observed scale score, and using
the z-score that was a transformation of that scale score. It may be
desirable in the future to transform the actual scale score cut score to
increase the accuracy of projecting from observed scores to the scale,
since not every possible scale score (including the cut score) is
observed every year, depending on the test form.

For middle school students, the NYS proposal seeks to determine whether
students made enough growth each year in middle school to be on track to
score proficient on the target Regents examination. The target Regents
examinations were identified on the basis of core content standards as
Regents Mathematics A in\
Grade 10, and Regents Comprehensive English in Grade 11. Generating the
cut score for these high school Regents examinations required more
assumptions and indirect work, since the Regents examinations are end of
course examinations, and are taken by students in multiple grades. For
the purposes of modeling, the percentage of students who scored
proficient was calculated for the target grade based on three years of
available data. The average percentage of students scoring proficient or
above was calculated. For example, in mathematics, 40.9% of the students
on average over three years scored proficient or above. The cut score in
terms of the z-score metric was determined to be the z-score
corresponding to the percentile rank of all the students who took the
examination in the most recent available year.

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Cut Score for                                       
  High School                                           
  Mathematics**                                         

  Regents           Percentage of                       
  Examination in    Grade 10 Students                   
  Mathematics A                                         

                    Below Proficient  Proficient or     Z-score\*
                                      Above             

  2001              62.7              37.3              

  2002              56.1              43.8              

  2003              58.3              41.7              

  Average                             40.9              **0.283**

  \*z-score of all                                      
  students who took                                     
  the test in 2003                                      
  corresponding to                                      
  percentile rank                                       
  with 40.9% of                                         
  students above                                        
  the cut score                                         
  (rounded up to                                        
  nearest observed                                      
  percentile rank).                                     
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Cut Score for                                        
  High School                                            
  English**                                              

  Regents            Percentage of                       
  Comprehensive      Grade 11 Students                   
  Examination in                                         
  English                                                

                     Below Proficient  Proficient or     Z-score\*
                                       Above             

  2001               64.1              45.8              

  2002               57.6              42.4              

  2003               56.4              43.6              

  Average                              43.9              **0.285**

  \*z-score of all                                       
  students who took                                      
  the test in 2003                                       
  corresponding to                                       
  percentile rank                                        
  with 40.9% of                                          
  students above the                                     
  cut score (rounded                                     
  up to nearest                                          
  observed                                               
  percentile rank).                                      
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

The proficiency cut scores (Below Proficient/Proficient) expressed in
the z-score metric for ELA and mathematics for each grade are shown
below.

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  ELA Proficiency    
  Cut Scores         

  Grade              Z-score Cut Score for Proficient

  4                  -0.483

  5                  -0.443

  6                  -0.359

  7                  -0.181

  8                  -0.262

  HS                 0.283
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Mathematics      |                                                   |
| Proficiency      |                                                   |
|                  |                                                   |
| Cut Scores       |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Grade            | Z-score Cut Score for Proficient                  |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 4                | -0.817                                            |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 5                | -0.697                                            |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 6                | -0.517                                            |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 7                | -0.428                                            |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 8                | -0.284                                            |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| HS               | 0.285                                             |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

The proficiency cut scores reveal the overall coherence but "lumpiness"
inherent with any vertically moderated performance standards and
potential differential changes in performance among grades over time. It
is clear, for example, that the high school achievement cut scores take
a jump up from the Grades 3-8 performance standards. This may be due, in
part, to the way in which the high school cut scores were mapped to the
z-score metric in the limitations of a self-selected end of course
sample of students, and in part to the way the achievement levels were
initially set.

### Discussion of the Number of Years a Student has to Become Proficient and School Accountability

NYS proposes to project student observed growth up to four years into
the future. A decreasing number of years will be used each subsequent
year a student is enrolled in the same school/grade configuration. Thus,
for a student for whom growth is calculated in Grade 4, the school is
responsible for helping the student make sufficient growth that the
student will be on track to be proficient by Grade 8; the next year the
school is responsible for the student to make enough growth so the
student is still on track to become proficient by Grade 8 (one year less
than the previous year); and so on. The school is held responsible each
year for the student making enough growth to be on track, or the school
does not get any growth credit.

This focus on school accountability is why NYS proposes to give the
school up to four years when the student transitions from elementary to
middle school. It is a well known problem that allowing only three years
to become proficient means that there is no incentive or place for
growth in middle schools. That is, the growth model is largely
irrelevant to the middle school either when the student has no time
permitted to grow towards becoming proficient, or there is a very wide
gap between where the student is and proficient and only one or two
years to eliminate the gap because the elementary school did not succeed
in helping the student grow enough. NYS's proposal holds elementary
schools accountable for student growth, and holds middle schools
accountable for helping students become proficient within four years or
fewer. That is, the middle school is responsible for non-proficient
students making sufficient growth that they are on track to pass the
designated Regents Examination in English or Mathematics within four
years of entering the school. For example, when a student moves from
Grade 5 in an elementary school to Grade 6 in a middle school, the
growth the student made between Grades 5 and 6 is measured. The
student's growth is evaluated on whether the student is on track to
become proficient within four years in terms of passing the designated
Regents Examination. For each year the student makes sufficient growth
to be on track to achieve this meaningful and challenging goal, the
middle school gets growth credit. If the student does not make
sufficient growth, then the school does not receive any growth credit
for that student. NYS's proposed timelines for elementary and middle
schools do not allow a school to get credit for low student performance
where the student never becomes proficient. At the same time, NYS's
proposal makes growth a meaningful incentive for middle schools as well
as elementary schools. A similar rationale underlies the time schedule
for giving high schools credit for students who enter high school with
low scores in Grade 8, but who make significant progress in achieving a
"local diploma" score by Grade 10. Achieving the local diploma score is
meaningful and should be motivating, but it is not the long-term goal.
NYS believes that a student who makes that type of progress between
Grade 8 and Grade 10 is likely on track to pass the Regents examinations
by Grade 12.

It should be noted that a school gets credit only for observed growth
that puts the student on track to become proficient within the allocated
time. When a student has made that growth, then the school receives
credit for that growth in that year's accountability determinations. If
a student does not make enough growth to be on track to proficiency,
then the school will not get any growth credit for the student that
year. Thus, giving a school credit for helping a student grow is based
on observed results, and does not depend on establishing any "predictive
validity" in the traditional sense. In fact, if a school had a strong
Grade 4 and a weak Grade 5, for example, then the proposed system would
function as expected: the school would get growth credit based on growth
from Grade 3 to Grade 4, and would not get credit for growth from Grade
4 to Grade 5. An empirical study that showed that students did not
become proficient after Grade 5 would not invalidate the crediting of
growth in\
Grade 4, because the school received the appropriate credit each year,
no more and no less.

### Discussion of Impact of Including Growth on the Reliability and Validity of School AYP Determinations

**Effect of Including Growth on Reliability of School Accountability
Decisions**

The reliability (decision consistency) of school accountability
decisions is little connected to the reliability of student scores.
Rather, decision consistency, as shown by Hill & DePascale (2002) is
largely influenced by the metric (dichotomous such as pass/fail is least
reliable, while an index based on four levels is almost as reliable as
one based on scale scores), aggregation rules (compensatory is more
reliable than conjunctive), and numbers of students (because sampling
error of cohorts affects decision consistency much more than measurement
error of individual students).

Within the guidelines of NCLB, NYS has been approved for a PI which
helps improve the decision consistency over a purely dichotomous metric
(e.g., percent proficient/non-proficient). As explained in the body of
the proposal, NYS does not propose making a separate decision on whether
a school met AYP based on growth separate from a decision based on
status. Rather, NYS proposes incorporating growth results into its PI,
which becomes a combination of status and growth, but for which there is
only a single decision. The use of growth therefore does not increase or
decrease the number of student performances upon which the PI is based.
NYS thereby retains the maximum possible students to help make the
decision as reliable as possible, and avoids the threats to validity
that a separate growth decision might have if based on a different
sample of students.

By retaining a single decision based on its PI incorporating status and
growth, NYS also reduces the possibility that a school might make AYP
due to a classification error of "met AYP" on multiple decisions (e.g.,
status or growth). Many researchers have pointed out that errors
accumulate for decisions based on conjunctive rules.

**Effect of Including Growth on Validity of School Accountability
Decisions**

The PI provides one safeguard against a school meeting AYP by focusing
on the "bubble kids" close to the proficient cut point while ignoring
the other students; rather, by giving points for students in Level 2, it
encourages the school to have proportionally more students in Level 2
and fewer in Level 1 over time. Of course, the PI without growth is
merely a variation of a status measure; an increase reflects a change in
the distribution of scores, but not necessarily improvement of any
student's performance tracked over time. In that way, growth is
complementary but not necessarily redundant to the original PI that
incorporated only status. In any case, no school can "double dip"---a
school can only get credit for a student on growth *or*\
Level 2 on the PI. NYS's AMOs were set based on the original PI that
gave 1 point credit for Level 2 performance. The rising AMOs will
require more and more students be proficient or have made enough growth.
To meet the AMO of 200 by 2013-14, a school will need either to have all
students either proficient (or above) or have made enough growth that
year to be on track to become proficient within the allocated time.

*Use of a Confidence Interval with the Performance Index that Includes
Growth*---NYS applies a confidence interval of .9 to the determination
of whether a school's PI is significantly lower than the AMO. This
indicates that the State is willing to accept a 10% misclassification
rate of schools identified as not meeting AYP (e.g., of 100 schools
identified as not meeting AYP, odds are that 10 were identified
incorrectly when they truly qualified to meet AYP). NYS proposes to keep
this confidence interval with its PI that incorporates both status and
growth. NYS holds that it is appropriate to have a confidence interval
that largely reflects sampling error, with either status or growth. This
has been an issue which has been debated some, including by previous
Peer Reviewers, although Linn, Cronbach, and other respected authorities
have held that sampling error certainly should be considered when making
decisions about a school. Essentially, the logic is that the performance
of the school at any point in time is a sample of the school's potential
universe of students---even if all the students enrolled in the school
at that point in time are assessed. That accountability deals with
future samples of students is evident by looking at the consequences:
school consequences apply to the school and are levied in years (and for
students) often years removed from the students' whose performance did
not meet AYP. The consequences apply because policymakers believe that
the school is likely to have that same performance in the future---on a
different sample of students. Because of this logic of accountability
decisions and accountability consequences, NYS follows the view that
sampling error should be considered. Regarding growth, having multiple
observations for a single student over time does not reduce the sampling
error---it is still a limited sample of students (regardless of how many
measurements were made, longitudinally or not) upon which the
accountability decision was based at a point in time.

**Inclusion of Growth and Definition of What "Does Not Meet AYP" Means**

Including growth and status together allows NYS to make a more refined
and accurate decision in keeping with its claim about what AYP is
intended to mean: "Not meeting AYP indicates that an unacceptable
proportion of students in the school are either not proficient or not
making sufficient progress towards becoming proficient; such a school
needs support (including supplemental educational services),
interventions, and perhaps sanctions to help it achieve satisfactory
performance." A school in which students are making enough growth to
become proficient without the AYP-mandated supports, interventions, and
sanctions should not be identified as not meeting AYP.

*Dealing with growth for all students, including those already
proficient*---Similar close attention to the claim, especially regarding
consequences, informed why NYS chose not to include the growth of all
students---including those who were already proficient---into AYP
accountability decisions, but to deal with them outside of AYP.
Considering status and growth as two separate dimensions for school
accountability yields a 2x2 table describing four patterns of possible
school performance: Low status, Low growth; Low status, High growth;
High status, Low growth; and High status, High growth. (See Exhibit 1.)

Exhibit 1: Patterns of Performance, Status Crossed with Growth

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
                                      **GROWTH**        

                                      **Low**           **High**

  **STATUS**        **High**                            

                    **Low**                             
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

There is agreement in accountability about the lower left pattern of
performance (Low status, Low growth) and the upper right pattern of
performance (High status, High growth). NYS proposes that a school in
the bottom right pattern of performance---the light grey box (Low
status, High growth) be treated as an acceptable school for the purposes
of AYP.

NYS does not propose that a school with a pattern of performance in the
upper left cell---the darker grey box (High status, Low growth)---be
designated as a school that does not meet AYP, *even* if a significant
proportion of its students are making low or conceivably negative growth
such that they are on track to become non-proficient within some time in
the future. One reason for this is that the mandated AYP
consequences---including offering public school choice and supplemental
educational services---do not make sense for a High status, Low growth
school. (NYS cannot imagine it is the intent of NCLB to divert limited
Title I funds from students who are not proficient and not making enough
growth to become proficient to offer tutoring to students who are
proficient but who are growing so little they are projected to become
non-proficient at some future time.) A second reason is that if and when
the school does not meet AYP, then it will be an appropriate time to so
designate it and ensure it complies with the mandated AYP consequences.

NYS does propose reporting the school-level results of growth for all
students. NYS also is developing an accountability program not connected
with AYP for "High Performing" schools that will address the
possibilities of High status schools with either Low growth or
noteworthy High growth. For accountability to promote higher performance
of schools that meet AYP, NYS anticipates that some measure of student
longitudinal change will be included, although the indicators, rules,
criteria, and consequences may differ from those specified for NCLB
where proficiency is the focus.

### Inclusion of Students

As discussed above, because NYS's proposed accountability system
calculated a unified PI for each subgroup and school that incorporates
both status and growth data, the threat does not apply that NYS might
base a growth accountability determination on a small or upwardly biased
sample of students. That is, the "match rate" between the denominator of
students used to calculate status is 100% with the denominator of
students used to calculate growth and status.

However, NYS can demonstrate the robustness of its student data system.
The following exhibits illustrate that NYS is able to account for
students under many complex conditions. More importantly, it
demonstrates that the unified PI avoids thorny challenges that may arise
to representativeness of growth data. The exhibits include only a
representative sample of the analyses done on possible categories of
student inclusion.

**Mathematics**

1.  Total students Grades 3-8^1^ 1,284,833 (2005-06)

> 1,257,642 (2006-07)

1.  Total students missing valid score (pct of 1) ^2^ 48,090 (3.7%)
    (2005-06)

59,042 (4.7%) (2006-07)

2.  Total students present both years^3^ 1,011,166

3.  Total students with two scores^4^ 990,502

4.  Total students advanced normally^5^ 979,837

5.  Total students non-proficient^6^ 430,914 (2005-06)

336,716 (2006-07)

6.  Total students in Grade 8 in 2005-06 (no 06-07) ^7^ 225,280

7.  Total students in Grade 3 in 2006-07 (no 05-06) ^8^ 202,668

8.  Total students who took Alternate Assessment^9^ 13,928 (2005-06)

13,649 (2006-07)

9.  Total students who took AA (2005-06) and had

> regular test score (2006-07) ^10^ 612

10. Total students who had regular test score (2005-06)

> and had AA test score (2006-07) ^11^ 1,344

11. Students who might be eligible (i.e., not AA,

> not ELP, not proficient in 06-07, not retained,
>
> not Grade 3 in 06-07, not Grade 8 in 05-06) ^12^ 247, 569

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Students enrolled in Grades 3-8, all public schools in the State      |
|                                                                       |
| ^2^ Students without a valid assessment score (blank or               |
| administrative code)                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| ^3^ Students enrolled both years                                      |
|                                                                       |
| ^4^ Student has an assessment score both years                        |
|                                                                       |
| ^5^ Student enrolled one grade higher in second year (i.e., not       |
| retained, demoted, etc.)                                              |
|                                                                       |
| ^6^ Students who scored lower than proficient (might be eligible for  |
| growth calculation)                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| ^7^ Students enrolled in Grade 8 in first year (cannot calculate      |
| growth)                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| ^8^ Students enrolled in Grade 3 in second year (cannot calculate     |
| growth)                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| ^9^ Students who took Alternate Assessment for students with severe   |
| cognitive disabilities (cannot calculate growth)                      |
|                                                                       |
| ^10,11^ Students who had Alternate Assessment score one year and      |
| regular assessment score one year (cannot calculate growth)           |
|                                                                       |
| ^12^ Students eligible for growth calculation (enough valid data and  |
| performance level)                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**English language arts (ELA)**

1.  Total students Grades 3-8^1^ 1,285,092 (2005-06) 1,257,032 (2006-07)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Total students missing valid score (pct of 1) ^2^ 63,329 (4.9%)
    (2005-06)

63,532 (5.1%) (2006-07)

2.  Total students present both years^3^ 1,010,716

3.  Total students with two scores^4^ 943,841

4.  Total students advanced normally^5^ 979,345

5.  Total students non-proficient^6^ 489,522 (2005-06)

453,154 (2006-07)

6.  Total students in Grade 8 in 2005-06 (no 06-07) ^7^ 225,446

7.  Total students in Grade 3 in 2006-07 (no 05-06) ^8^ 202,595

8.  Total students who took Alternate Assessment^9^ 13,909 (2005-06)

> 13,628 (2006-07)

9.  Total students who took AA (2005-06) and had

> regular test score (2006-07) ^10^ 619

10. Total students who had regular test score (2005-06)

> and had AA test score (2006-07) ^11^ 1309

11. Students who might be eligible (i.e., not AA,

> not ELP, not proficient in 06-07, not retained,
>
> not Grade 3 in 06-07, not Grade 8 in 05-06) ^12^ 294,874

### Impact of Using Growth on School AYP Decisions

The proposed growth procedures were modeled using the two years of
available data from 2005-06 and 2006-07 for Grades 3-8. The modeling
compared the proposed growth procedures and inclusion rules to those of
status. The modeling did not include fully implementing all the rules
that NYS uses in its AYP system; notably, safe harbor was not
calculated. For these reasons, the data modeling is best interpreted as
a order of magnitude comparison between status and growth; results
especially should not be interpreted at the individual school level.

The 'Status" results reflect calculating a PI for the school and
subgroups based on the achievement levels of all students enrolled for
2006-07, except if the students did not have a valid score (blank or
administrative code) or appeared with a duplicate ID. The "Growth
Integrated with Status" results reflect calculating a PI for the school
and subgroups based on changing the performance index points for any
student who made sufficient growth (as defined). This required the
student to have two acceptable scores for growth calculations from
2005-06 and 2006-07. Student growth was projected (generally) in
elementary grades to grade 8, and in middle school (generally; actually
if student changed schools of enrollment after grade 5) to grade 10. In
both the Standard and Growth results the AMO for 2006-07 was used, with
the confidence interval from the published table from NYSED's website.

The data modeling indicated that growth combined with status would
result in 670 more schools meeting AYP overall, or approximately 20% of
the over 3,500 schools. However, these results are driven almost
exclusively by the results from ELA students with disabilities subgroup.
For the school-as-a-whole and almost every other subgroup, in both ELA
and Mathematics, the differences were much smaller because the rates of
meeting AYP with status were somewhat higher initially.

The growth model credited over 100,000 students who made sufficient
growth to be on track to become proficient within the allocated time.
The impact is especially noticeable for African-American and Hispanic
students, where less than 50% of the students were proficient on Status,
but an additional approximately 12% of the students made sufficient
growth to be on track to become proficient. (It is also clear from these
tables that projecting middle school growth against the high school
standard needs to be adjusted.)

English language arts (ELA)

**Proficiency Across All students using Standard dataset**

**(All students, [no]{.underline} growth included)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Proficiency    Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  0              413951         35.03          413951         35.03

  1              767706         64.97          1181657        100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**Proficiency Across All students using Growth dataset**

  --------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
  Proficiency-g   Frequency      Percent       Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  0               192757         21.45         192757         21.45

  1               705863         78.55         898620         100.00
  --------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 283037

**Proficiency Across All Students using Integrated Standard dataset**

**(Growth included)**

  ----------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
  Proficiency-all   Frequency      Percent       Cumulative     Cumulative
                                                 Frequency      Percent

  0                 311834         26.39         311834         26.39

  1                 869823         73.61         1181657        100.00
  ----------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------

ELA

Dataset includes all students in 2007; to "become proficient" through
growth, must have had valid data to calculate growth from 2005-06 to
2006-07.

Grade in 2006-07

Frequency

Percent

> Row Pct

Col. Pct 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

60290 39929 36164 47018 45640 82793 311834

5.10 3.38 3.06 3.98 3.86 7.01 26.39

19.33 12.80 11.60 15.08 14.64 26.55

31.56 20.98 18.57 23.90 22.42 40.32

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

0 18455 22985 22089 36895 1693 102117

0.00 1.56 1.95 1.87 3.12 0.14 8.64

0.00 18.07 22.51 21.63 36.13 1.66

0.00 9.70 11.80 11.23 18.13 0.82

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

130766 131913 135584 127592 120999 120852 767706

11.07 11.16 11.47 10.80 10.24 10.23 64.97

17.03 17.18 17.66 16.62 15.76 15.74

68.44 69.32 69.63 64.87 59.45 58.86

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total 191056 190297 194733 196699 203534 205338 1181657

16.17 16.10 16.48 16.65 17.22 17.38 100.00

Frequency **Ethnicity**

Percent

Row Pct

Col Pct Asian Blacks Hispanic Am.Indian Multi-R Pacif Whites Total

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

16075 86458 96284 1824 125 86 110982 311834

1.36 7.32 8.15 0.15 0.01 0.01 9.39 26.39

5.15 27.73 30.88 0.58 0.04 0.03 35.59

19.55 38.79 41.47 33.27 27.59 22.51 17.39

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

3342 31509 26447 746 31 21 40021 102117

0.28 2.67 2.24 0.06 0.00 0.00 3.39 8.64

3.27 30.86 25.90 0.73 0.03 0.02 39.19

4.06 14.13 11.39 13.61 6.84 5.50 6.27

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

62801 104949 109436 2913 297 275 487035 767706

5.31 8.88 9.26 0.25 0.03 0.02 41.22 64.97

8.18 13.67 14.25 0.38 0.04 0.04 63.44

76.38 47.08 47.14 53.13 65.56 71.99 76.33

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total 82218 222916 232167 5483 453 382 638038 1181657

> 6.96 18.86 19.65 0.46 0.04 0.03 54.00 100.0

Mathematics

**Proficiency Across All students using Standard dataset (no growth
included)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Proficiency    Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  0              298687         25.37          298687         25.37

  1              878504         74.63          1177191        100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Proficiency Across All students using Growth dataset only

  --------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
  Proficiency-g   Frequency      Percent       Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  0               171475         18.36         171475         18.36

  1               762639         81.64         934114         100.00
  --------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 243077

**Proficiency Across All students using Integrated Standard dataset
(growth included)**

  ----------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
  Proficiency-all   Frequency      Percent       Cumulative     Cumulative
                                                 Frequency      Percent

  0                 222593         18.91         222593         18.91

  1                 954598         81.09         1177191        100.00
  ----------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------

**Mathematics**

> Frequency Grade in 2006-07

Percent

Row Pct

Col. Pct 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

0 25445 23189 26341 34725 35187 77706 222593

2.16 1.97 2.24 2.95 2.99 6.60 18.91

11.43 10.42 11.83 15.60 15.81 34.91

13.39 12.23 13.57 17.70 17.35 38.00

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1 0 11833 16512 17702 28357 1690 76094

0.00 1.01 1.40 1.50 2.41 0.14 6.46

0.00 15.55 21.70 23.26 37.27 2.22

0.00 6.24 8.50 9.02 13.99 0.83

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2 164553 154533 151327 143781 139205 125105 878504

13.98 13.13 12.85 12.21 11.83 10.63 74.63

18.73 17.59 17.23 16.37 15.85 14.24

86.61 81.52 77.93 73.28 68.66 61.18

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total 189998 189555 194180 196208 202749 204501 1177191

16.14 16.10 16.50 16.67 17.22 17.37 100.00

Frequency **Ethnicity**

Percent

Row Pct

Col Pct Asian Blacks Hispanic Am.Indian Multi-R Pacif Whites Total

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

6333 70178 63561 1415 87 47 80972 222593

0.54 5.96 5.40 0.12 0.01 0.00 6.88 18.91

2.85 31.53 28.55 0.64 0.04 0.02 36.38

7.58 31.97 27.28 26.06 18.95 12.27 12.75

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1 1891 24265 22967 502 19 19 26431 76094

0.16 2.06 1.95 0.04 0.00 0.00 2.25 6.46

2.49 31.89 30.18 0.66 0.02 0.02 34.73

2.26 11.05 9.86 9.25 4.14 4.96 4.16

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

75306 125064 146500 3512 353 317 527452 878504

6.40 10.62 12.44 0.30 0.03 0.03 44.81 74.63

8.57 14.24 16.68 0.40 0.04 0.04 60.04

90.15 56.97 62.87 64.69 76.91 82.77 83.08

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total 83530 219507 233028 5429 459 383 634855 1177191

7.10 18.65 9.80 0.46 0.04 0.03 53.93 100.00

**ELA**

Growth results were calculated in two ways: "Same Schools" used the
Grade 8 proficiency cutb scores for all students. The "Changed schools"
condition used the high school proficiency cut scores for middle school
students when they changed schools (e.g., from elementary to middle
school).

Grade in 2006-07

Frequency

Percent

> Row Pct

Col. Pct 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

176 15025 22747 94437 33188 7673 173246

0.02 1.73 2.62 10.86 3.82 0.88 19.92

0.10 8.67 13.13 54.51 19.16 4.43

0.13 9.99 14.35 63.09 21.02 6.26

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1 130590 135343 135822 55244 124706 114872 696577

15.01 15.56 15.61 6.35 14.34 13.21 80.08

18.75 19.43 19.50 7.93 17.90 16.49

99.87 90.01 85.65 36.91 78.98 93.74

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total 130766 150368 158569 149681 157894 122545 869823

15.03 17.29 18.23 17.21 18.15 14.09 100.0

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Frequency **Ethnicity**

Percent

Row Pct

Col Pct Asian Blacks Hispanic Am.Indian Multi-R Pacif Whites Total

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12453 28363 28010 816 46 66 103492 173246

1.43 3.26 3.22 0.09 0.01 0.01 11.90 19.92

7.19 16.37 16.17 0.47 0.03 0.04 59.74

18.83 20.79 20.61 22.30 14.02 22.30 19.64

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1 53690 108095 107873 2843 282 230 423564 696577

6.17 12.43 12.40 0.33 0.03 0.03 48.70 80.08

7.71 15.52 15.49 0.41 0.04 0.03 60.81

81.17 79.21 79.39 77.70 85.98 77.70 80.36

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total 66143 136458 135883 3659 328 296 527056 869823

7.60 15.69 15.62 0.42 0.04 0.03 60.59 100.00

**Mathematics**

Grade in 2006-07

Frequency

Percent

> Row Pct

Col. Pct 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

371 15741 22948 101489 35417 7347 183313

0.04 1.65 2.40 10.63 3.71 0.77 19.20

0.20 8.59 12.52 55.36 19.32 4.01

0.23 9.46 13.67 62.85 21.14 5.79

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1 164182 150625 144891 59994 132145 119448 771285

17.20 15.78 15.18 6.28 13.84 12.51 80.80

21.29 19.53 18.79 7.78 17.13 15.49

99.77 90.54 86.33 37.15 78.86 94.21

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total 164553 166366 167839 161483 167562 126795 954598

17.24 17.43 17.58 16.92 17.55 13.28 100.00

Frequency **Ethnicity**

Percent

Row Pct

Col Pct Asian Blacks Hispanic Am.Indian Multi-R Pacif Whites Total

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

0 14238 28980 32845 816 43 73 106318 183313

1.49 3.04 3.44 0.09 0.00 0.01 11.14 19.20

7.77 15.81 17.92 0.45 0.02 0.04 58.00

18.44 19.41 19.38 20.33 11.56 21.73 19.20

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

62959 120349 136622 3198 329 263 447565 771285

6.60 12.61 14.31 0.34 0.03 0.03 46.89 80.80

8.16 15.60 17.71 0.41 0.04 0.03 58.03

81.56 80.59 80.62 79.67 88.44 78.27 80.80

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total 77197 149329 169467 4014 372 336 553883 954598

8.09 15.64 17.75 0.42 0.04 0.04 58.02 100.00

**Comparison of AYP for Mathematics and ELA Combined**

**Using Normal Model (No Growth)**

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| AYP All     | Frequency   | Percent     | Cumulative  | Cumulative  |
|             |             |             | Frequency   |             |
|             |             |             |             | Percent     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Fail        | 1246        | 35.17       | 1246        | 35.17       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Pass        | 2297        | 64.83       | 3543        | 100.00      |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Using Growth Model**

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| AYPg All    | Frequency   | Percent     | Cumulative  | Cumulative  |
|             |             |             | Frequency   |             |
|             |             |             |             | Percent     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Fail        | 806         | 22.75       | 806         | 22.75       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Pass        | 2737        | 77.25       | 3543        | 100.00      |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**ELA: Comparison of AYP for EACH Hurdle**

**[Hurdle 1: Students in the School as a whole]{.mark}**

**All students (Status Model)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP Whole      Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           380            10.73          380            10.73

  Pass           3163           89.27          3543           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**All student AYPg (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg Whole     Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           94             2.65           94             2.65

  Pass           3449           97.35          3543           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

[]{.mark}

**[Hurdles 2-8: Race/Ethnicity (Combined)]{.mark}**

**AYP Race/Ethnicity Subgroups (Status Model)**

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP              Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Race/Ethnicity                                 Frequency      Percent

  Fail             477            13.46          477            13.46

  Pass             3066           86.54          3543           100.00
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**AYPg Race/Ethnicity (Growth)**

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg             Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Race/Ethnicity                                 Frequency      Percent

  Fail             477            13.46          477            13.46

  Pass             3066           86.54          3543           100.00
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Note: AYP determinations calculated separately for six Racial/Ethnic
subgroups (African-American, Asian-American/Pacific Islander, Caucasian,
Hispanic, Multiple, and Native American). If the school did not meet AYP
for any one group, then it did not meet AYP for the combined
Race/Ethnicity shown here.

**[Hurdle 9: LEP/ELL]{.mark}**

**AYP LEP/ELL (Status Model)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP LEP/ELL    Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           563            23.43          563            23.43

  Pass           1840           76.57          2403           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 1140

**AYPg LEP/ELL (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg LEP/ELL   Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           519            21.60          519            21.60

  Pass           1884           78.40          2403           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 1140

**[Hurdle 10: Economically Disadvantaged]{.mark}**

**AYP Poverty (Status)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP Poverty    Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           443            13.21          443            13.21

  Pass           2910           86.79          3353           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 190

**AYPg Poverty (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg Poverty   Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           105            3.13           105            3.13

  Pass           3248           96.87          3353           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 190

**[Hurdle 11: Special Education]{.mark}**

**AYP Special Education**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP Spec. Ed.  Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           1101           31.56          1101           31.56

  Pass           2388           68.44          3489           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 54

**AYPg Special Ed (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg Spec. Ed. Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           499            14.30          499            14.30

  Pass           2990           85.70          3489           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 54

**ELA: AYP for ALL hurdles**

**Status Model verses Growth Integrated**

**AYP ELA (Status)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP ELA        Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           1239           34.97          1239           34.97

  Pass           2304           65.03          3543           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**AYPg ELA (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg ELA       Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           803            22.66          803            22.66

  Pass           2740           77.34          3543           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**MATHEMATICS: Comparison of AYP for EACH Hurdle**

**[Hurdle 1: Students in the School as a whole]{.mark}**

**AYP All Students (Status)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP Whole      Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           65             1.83           65             1.83

  Pass           3481           98.17          3546           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**AYPg All Student (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg Whole     Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           20             0.56           20             0.56

  Pass           3526           99.44          3546           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

[]{.mark}

**[Hurdles 2-8: Race/Ethnicity (Combined)]{.mark}**

**AYP Race/Ethnicity (Status)**

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP --           Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Race/Ethnicity                                 Frequency      Percent

  Fail             83             2.34           83             2.34

  Pass             3463           97.66          3546           100.00
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**AYPg Race/Ethnicity (Growth)**

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg --          Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Race/Ethnicity                                 Frequency      Percent

  Fail             83             2.34           83             2.34

  Pass             3463           97.66          3546           100.00
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Note: AYP determinations calculated separately for six Racial/Ethnic
subgroups (African-American, Asian-American/Pacific Islander, Caucasian,
Hispanic, Multiple, and Native American). If the school did not meet AYP
for any one group, then it did not meet AYP for the combined
Race/Ethnicity shown here.

**[Hurdle 9: LEP]{.mark}**

**AYP LEP/ELL (Status)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP -- LEP/ELL Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  (Status)                                     Frequency      Percent

  Fail           107            4.39           107            4.39

  Pass           2332           95.61          2439           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 1107

**AYPg LEP/ELL (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg --        Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  LEP/ELL                                      Frequency      Percent
  (Growth)                                                    

  Fail           25             1.03           25             1.03

  Pass           2414           98.97          2439           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 1107

**[Hurdle 10: Economically Disadvantaged]{.mark}**

**AYP Poverty**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP -- Poverty Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
                                               Frequency      Percent

  Fail           72             2.15           72             2.15

  Pass           3283           97.85          3355           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 191

**AYPg Poverty (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg --        Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Poverty                                      Frequency      Percent

  Fail           20             0.60           20             0.60

  Pass           3335           99.40          3355           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 191

**[Hurdle 11: Special Education]{.mark}**

**AYP Special Education**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP -- Spec.   Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Ed.                                          Frequency      Percent

  Fail           214            6.13           214            6.13

  Pass           3276           93.87          3490           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 56

**AYPg Special Education (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg -- Spec.  Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Ed.                                          Frequency      Percent

  Fail           53             1.52           53             1.52

  Pass           3437           98.48          3490           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Frequency Missing = 56

**Mathematics: AYP for ALL hurdles**

**Standard Model verses Growth Integrated**

**AYP Mathematics (Status)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYP --         Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Mathematics                                  Frequency      Percent

  Fail           238            6.71           238            6.71

  Pass           3308           93.29          3546           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**AYPg Mathematics (Growth)**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  AYPg --        Frequency      Percent        Cumulative     Cumulative
  Mathematics                                  Frequency      Percent

  Fail           99             2.79           99             2.79

  Pass           3447           97.21          3546           100.00
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------