**Accountability Workbook**

**Updated June 2008**

![](media/image1.pct){width="3.0in" height="2.638888888888889in"}

**Illinois State Board of Education**

# PART I

# Summary of Required Elements for State Accountability Systems

# *For each of the elements listed in the following chart, states should indicate the current implementation status in their state using the following legend:*

# *F: State has a final policy, approved by all the required entities in the state, for implementing this element into its accountability system.*

# Summary of Implementation Status of Required Elements for State Accountability Systems

  ------------------ ---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
  **Status**         **State          
                     Accountability   
                     System Element** 

  **Principle 1. All                  
  Schools**                           

  **F**              1.1              
                     Accountability   
                     system includes  
                     all schools and  
                     districts in the 
                     state.           

  **F**              1.2              
                     Accountability   
                     system holds all 
                     schools to the   
                     same criteria.   

  **F**              1.3              
                     Accountability   
                     system           
                     incorporates the 
                     academic         
                     achievement      
                     standards.       

  **F**              1.4              
                     Accountability   
                     system provides  
                     information in a 
                     timely manner.   

  **F**              1.5              
                     Accountability   
                     system includes  
                     report cards.    

  **F**              1.6              
                     Accountability   
                     system includes  
                     rewards and      
                     sanctions.       

  **Principle 2. All                  
  Students**                          

  **F**              2.1 The          
                     accountability   
                     system includes  
                     all students.    

  **F**              2.2 The          
                     accountability   
                     system has a     
                     consistent       
                     definition of    
                     full academic    
                     year.            

  **F**              2.3 The          
                     accountability   
                     system properly  
                     includes mobile  
                     students.        

  **Principle 3.                      
  Method of AYP                       
  Determinations**                    

  **F**              3.1              
                     Accountability   
                     system expects   
                     all student      
                     subgroups,       
                     public schools   
                     and districts to 
                     reach            
                     proficiency by   
                     2013-14.         

  **F**              3.2              
                     Accountability   
                     system has a     
                     method for       
                     determining      
                     whether student  
                     subgroups,       
                     public schools   
                     and districts    
                     made Adequate    
                     Yearly Progress  
                     (AYP).           

  **F**              3.2a             
                     Accountability   
                     system           
                     establishes a    
                     starting point   
                     in calculating   
                     AYP.             

  **F**              3.2b             
                     Accountability   
                     system           
                     establishes      
                     statewide annual 
                     measurable       
                     objectives.      

  **F**              3.2c             
                     Accountability   
                     system           
                     establishes      
                     intermediate     
                     goals for        
                     determining AYP. 

  **Principle 4.                      
  Annual Decisions**                  

  **F**                               4.1 The accountability system determines annually the progress
                                      of schools and districts.

  **Principle 5.                      
  Subgroup                            
  Accountability**                    

  **F**                               5.1 The accountability system includes all the required
                                      student subgroups.

  **F**                               5.2 The accountability system holds schools and districts
                                      accountable for the progress of student subgroups.

  **F**                               5.3 The accountability system includes students with
                                      disabilities.

  **F**                               5.4 The accountability system includes limited English
                                      proficient students.

  **F**                               5.5 The State has determined the minimum number of students
                                      sufficient to yield statistically reliable information for
                                      each purpose for which disaggregated data are used.

  **F**                               5.6 The State has strategies to protect the privacy of
                                      individual students in reporting achievement results and in
                                      determining whether schools and districts are making progress
                                      on the basis of disaggregated subgroups.

  **Principle 6.                      
  Based on Student                    
  Assessments**                       

  **F**                               6.1 Accountability system is based primarily on academic
                                      assessments.

  **Principle 7.                      
  Additional                          
  Indicators**                        

  **F**                               7.1 Accountability system includes graduation rate for high
                                      schools.

  **F**                               7.2 Accountability system includes an additional academic
                                      indicator for elementary and middle schools.

  **F**                               7.3 Additional indicators are valid and reliable.

  **Principle 8.                      
  Separate Decisions                  
  for Reading and                     
  Mathematics**                       

  **F**                               8.1 Accountability system holds students, schools, and
                                      districts separately accountable for reading/language arts and
                                      mathematics.

  **Principle 9.                      
  System Validity                     
  and Reliability**                   

  **F**                               9.1 Accountability system produces reliable decisions.

  **F**                               9.2 Accountability system produces valid decisions.

  **F**                               9.3 State has a plan for addressing changes in assessment and
                                      student population.

  **Principle 10.                     
  Participation                       
  Rate**                              

  **F**                               10.1 Accountability system has a means for calculating the
                                      rate of participation in the statewide assessment.

  **F**                               10.2 Accountability system has a means for applying the 95%
                                      assessment criteria to student subgroups and small schools.
  ------------------ ---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------

**SECTION A. THE ILLINOIS ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) MODEL AND
METHOD**

*States are responsible for holding schools and local educational
agencies (districts) accountable for student performance on and
participation in state assessments in at least reading/language arts
(consistent with state standards) and mathematics. States must use
assessment data from assessments administered for 2001-02 school year to
establish the system baseline, and must use their data to make AYP
decisions in 2002-03 (and thereafter).*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## A1. Does the State have, at a minimum, a definit                   |
| ion of at least three student achievement levels (basic, proficient,  |
| and advanced) in reading/language arts and mathematics (Element 1.3)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A1. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Illinois employs four levels of student achievement, as outlined.     |
|                                                                       |
| **Table 1. Levels of Student Achievement**                            |
|                                                                       |
|   --------------------------------- --------------------------------- |
|   **Illinois**                      **Equivalent to *NCLB*/NAEP**     |
|                                                                       |
|   Exceeds Standards                 Advanced                          |
|                                                                       |
|   Meets Standards                   Proficient                        |
|                                                                       |
|   Below Standards                   Basic                             |
|                                                                       |
|   Academic Warning                  (Below Basic)                     |
|   --------------------------------- --------------------------------- |
|                                                                       |
| Section 2-3.64 of the School Code was amended in 2005 to clarify that |
| for assessment and accountability purposes, \"all pupils\" includes   |
| those pupils enrolled in any public setting (see Attachment A).       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## A2. Is the State's definition of adequate y                        |
| early progress based primarily on academic assessments (Element 6.1)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A2. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Illinois is using the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) at   |
| grades 3-8; the Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE) at grade |
| 11; and the Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA) at grades 3-8 and 11. |
| The AYP decision for a K-2 school will be based on the third grade    |
| assessment results of the receiving school in which the students      |
| eventually enroll, so that all K-2 schools will receive an annual AYP |
| determination. Student adequate yearly progress or AYP will be mapped |
| from the next higher grade to the lower grade in a school not         |
| otherwise held accountable (see Section C4).                          |
|                                                                       |
| ***For what grades and content areas are any alternate assessments    |
| for students with disabilities available?***                          |
|                                                                       |
| The IAA is available at grades 3-8 and 11 to assess reading,          |
| mathematics, and science.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| ***For what grades and content areas are any native language          |
| assessments for limited English proficient students available?***     |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois does not currently utilize any native language assessments   |
| for limited English proficient students, but may be developing one in |
| the future.                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## A3. How does the State aggregate data from its academic asses      |
| sments for the purpose of calculating AYP (Elements 3.1, 3.2, & 8.1)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A3. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The State shall describe its methodological approach for calculating  |
| AYP, provide justification for its methodological choices, and        |
| evidence that it calculated AYP according to the specifications       |
| outlined in Section 1111 of NCLB and Sections 200.13-200.21 of the    |
| Final Accountability Regulations. (Element 8.1).                      |
|                                                                       |
| For a given school or school district, the percentage of scores that  |
| meet or exceed state standards for both reading and mathematics is    |
| calculated across all state assessments and across all grades in      |
| which reading and mathematics are assessed. Currently, there are      |
| three assessments that are part of the AYP calculations. The state    |
| assessments were described in A2. A single *percent meets* plus       |
| *exceeds* standards score is derived from the tests separately for    |
| reading and mathematics, and are also reported separately. Reading    |
| and mathematics are assessed in grades 3-8 and 11.                    |
|                                                                       |
| In order for a school or district to be determined as making AYP,     |
| three conditions must be met:                                         |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  All subgroups and aggregate groups must test, at a minimum, 95    |
|     percent of its students in both reading and mathematics.          |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  All subgroups (meeting or exceeding the minimum subgroup size)    |
|     and aggregate groups must meet the annual measurable objectives   |
|     in the percentage of scores that meet or exceed state standards   |
|     for reading and mathematics. **Schools must meet or exceed        |
|     standards in the same content area for two consecutive years in   |
|     order to not be in need of improvement.** A school or district    |
|     that fails to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same      |
|     content area will be classified as being in need of improvement.  |
|     Any subgroup that does not meet the annual measurable objective   |
|     in reading or mathematics can make AYP for that subgroup by       |
|     meeting the safe harbor requirements. Safe harbor targets are     |
|     based on decreasing by 10% the percentage of scores that did not  |
|     meet state standards from the previous year.                      |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  In the aggregate, schools must meet the threshold for graduation  |
|     rate for high schools and attendance rate for elementary and      |
|     middle schools.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| In addition to meeting the three conditions outlined immediately      |
| above to make AYP, as of 2005, districts will be identified for       |
| district improvement when they do not make AYP in all grade spans in  |
| the same content area for two consecutive years. Beginning with       |
| 2004-05 test data, district accountability data will be analyzed by   |
| grade spans \-- elementary (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-8), and     |
| high school (grades 9-12). Districts will be identified for           |
| improvement when they miss AYP in all three grade spans in the same   |
| content area for two consecutive years. If the district makes AYP in  |
| at least one of the grade spans, they will be considered to be        |
| ineligible for district improvement or advancement in their district  |
| improvement status.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Eligibility for district improvement status depends on the grade      |
| spans in the schools as well as the number of schools in the          |
| district:                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   For *districts with more than one school and more than one grade  |
|     span,* beginning with the 2004-05 test data, district student     |
|     data will be *aggregated up* to three grade spans \-- elementary  |
|     (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12). |
|     When a district does not make AYP in all of the grade spans that  |
|     the district has, in the same content area, for two consecutive   |
|     years, it will be identified for district improvement status. If  |
|     the district makes AYP in *at least one* of the grade spans, it   |
|     will be *ineligible for district improvement status* or *for      |
|     advancement in improvement status*.                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   For *districts with only one school or only one grade span*,      |
|     determination for district improvement status will be based on    |
|     the same criteria for school improvement status.                  |
|                                                                       |
| > ***How are reading/language arts and mathematics scores used in AYP |
| > determinations?***                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| The Illinois AYP/accountability system as of 2003 will report out     |
| separately reading performance and mathematics performance, by        |
| subgroup, by school, and by district. AYP is a separate calculation   |
| for reading (pursuant to the *Illinois Learning Standards*) and       |
| mathematics for each subgroup (of sufficient size) for each public    |
| school. The same calculation process will be applied to determine     |
| district AYP status, commencing with the 2003 assessments.            |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois will calculate separately for reading and for math the       |
| percentage of students tested who achieve the *meets* and *exceeds*   |
| levels, determine participation rates, apply the other indicator of   |
| graduation rate or of attendance rate, and, when necessary, employ    |
| the provision of safe harbor. The minimum size of the subgroups will  |
| be applied at the school and district levels as well as used for safe |
| harbor calculations.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| > ***If multiple tests or subscores are aggregated within a content   |
| > area (e.g., writing, reading) how they are combined?***             |
| >                                                                     |
| > They are not aggregated.                                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > ***Whether AYP determinations are made using the percentage of      |
| > students scoring proficient (and above), an index, or some other    |
| > method? If an index or other method is used, how are proficiency    |
| > scores related to the AYP determination?***                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > No index is used.                                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > ***If and how does the State combine data across grades?***         |
| >                                                                     |
| > Data are combined.                                                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > ***If and how does the State combine data across years?***          |
| >                                                                     |
| > Data are not combined (except, of course, as used in safe harbor).  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## A4. Did the                                                        |
|  State calculate the starting points as specified in Sections 200.13- |
| 200.21 of the Final Accountability Regulations (Elements 3.1 & 3.2a)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A4. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Describe the procedure used for calculating the starting points for   |
| reading/language arts and mathematics and enter in the table below    |
| the starting points in terms of percentage proficient and above (or   |
| index value) by content area and by grade span (if necessary).        |
|                                                                       |
| To determine the starting points for reading and mathematics, the     |
| 2002 assessment data were analyzed. First, the percentage proficient  |
| in the school enrolling the 20^th^ percentile of students was         |
| determined for reading and math. The percentage proficient for        |
| reading and math were 40.86% and 39.68%, respectively.                |
|                                                                       |
| Second, the percentage proficient of the lowest performing subgroup   |
| in reading was determined to be 24.1% for limited English proficient  |
| students. For math, the percentage proficient of the lowest           |
| performing subgroup was determined to be individuals with             |
| disabilities.                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The starting points required under NCLB are the higher of the values  |
| of the two methods. Therefore, the State Board of Education in 2002   |
| adopted use of the second methodology, and in early 2003, adopted 40% |
| proficient as the starting points for all subgroups and schools for   |
| both reading and mathematics.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| The state's annual measurable objectives are the same throughout the  |
| state for each public school, each district, and each subgroup of     |
| students (see                                                         |
| [**http://www.isbe.net/ayp/htmls/illini_equal                         |
| _steps.htm**](http://www.isbe.net/ayp/htmls/illini_equal_steps.htm)). |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## A5. Did the State calculate the annual measurabl                   |
| e objectives, and intermediate goals as specified in Sections 200.13- |
| 200.21 of the Final Accountability REGULATIONS (Elements 3.1 & 3.2a)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *A5. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES--Elementary LEVEL*           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| What are the State's annual measurable objectives and intermediate    |
| goals for determining AYP? (Elements 3.2b & 3.2c)                     |
|                                                                       |
| As stated in Element 3.2a, according to the law, setting the *NCLB*   |
| "starting points" requires that two factors are considered: (a) the   |
| lowest performance of the nine subgroups in reading and mathematics,  |
| and (b) after sorting all schools by their performance, the school    |
| should be identified which accounts for the bottom 20% of all         |
| students. It is the performance of this school that matters for       |
| *NCLB*.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Next, the higher of the values found under (a) and (b) is to be taken |
| as the starting point. The procedure is to be applied separately for  |
| reading and mathematics. The table below shows that this yields the   |
| value 40.86% for reading and 39.68% for mathematics.                  |
|                                                                       |
| **Table 3. Starting Point in Illinois from 2002 Assessment Data**     |
|                                                                       |
| <table>                                                               |
| <colgroup>                                                            |
| <col style="width: 10%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 6%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 8%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 8%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 8%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 7%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 8%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 6%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 7%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 7%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| </colgroup>                                                           |
| <tbody>                                                               |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td><strong>Col. D</strong></td>                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td><strong>Col. M</strong></td>                                      |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td>Area</td>                                                         |
| <td>20% method</td>                                                   |
| <td><strong>All</strong></td>                                         |
| <td><p>Amer.</p>                                                      |
| <p>Ind.</p></td>                                                      |
| <td>Asian</td>                                                        |
| <td>Black</td>                                                        |
| <td>Hisp.</td>                                                        |
| <td>White</td>                                                        |
| <td>IEP</td>                                                          |
| <td>Low Inc.</td>                                                     |
| <td>LEP</td>                                                          |
| <td><p>Lowest</p>                                                     |
| <p>group</p></td>                                                     |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td>Reading</td>                                                      |
| <td>40.86</td>                                                        |
| <td>59.3</td>                                                         |
| <td>59.2</td>                                                         |
| <td>68.5</td>                                                         |
| <td>36.8</td>                                                         |
| <td>37.1</td>                                                         |
| <td>72.2</td>                                                         |
| <td>27.4</td>                                                         |
| <td>38.4</td>                                                         |
| <td>24.1</td>                                                         |
| <td>24.1</td>                                                         |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td>Math</td>                                                         |
| <td>39.68</td>                                                        |
| <td>60.0</td>                                                         |
| <td>54.9</td>                                                         |
| <td>79.2</td>                                                         |
| <td>32.2</td>                                                         |
| <td>41.0</td>                                                         |
| <td>72.7</td>                                                         |
| <td>30.3</td>                                                         |
| <td>39.2</td>                                                         |
| <td>31.9</td>                                                         |
| <td>30.3</td>                                                         |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| </tbody>                                                              |
| </table>                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| *NCLB requires taking the higher of Col. D (Criterion 1) and M (the   |
| lowest performing group = Criterion 2)*                               |
|                                                                       |
| For simplicity, an overall value of 40% was adopted by the State      |
| Board at its February 2003 meeting.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| For all schools and subgroups the annual measurable objectives are    |
| shown in the Illini Plan (see Attachment B).                          |
|                                                                       |
| Enter the annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals through |
| 2013-14 for elementary schools in the tables below. Distinguish       |
| annual measurable objectives from intermediate goals.                 |
|                                                                       |
| See the Illini Plan.                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A5. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES--Middle/JR. High SCHOOL       |
| LEVELS                                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***What are the State's annual measurable objectives and intermediate |
| goals for determining AYP? (Elements 3.2b & 3.2c)***                  |
|                                                                       |
| See <http://www.isbe.net/ayp/htmls/ayp_factors.htm> It is the same    |
| across grades.                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A5. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES--High School Level            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***What are the State's annual measurable objectives and intermediate |
| goals for determining AYP? (Elements 3.2b & 3.2c)***                  |
|                                                                       |
| See <http://www.isbe.net/ayp/htmls/ayp_factors.htm>. It is the same   |
| across grades.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| ***Do all intermediate goals increase in equal intervals?***          |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois acknowledges that the federal requirement in *NCLB* is for   |
| equal increments, so that by 2013-14 all students meet or exceed the  |
| *Illinois Learning Standards*. The Congressional intention using that |
| language was to ensure that no state waited until near the end of the |
| timeline and then expected enormous, unrealistic growth in the last   |
| two or three years. Illinois concurs with that intent and indeed      |
| echoes what is stated in Principle 3, "...*expectations for growth in |
| student achievement that is continuous and substantial....*"          |
|                                                                       |
| The Illini Plan (see Attachment B) demonstrates a modified version of |
| the original document. This too reflects a reasoned approach that     |
| growth in student achievement at the beginning will be slow, that it  |
| will be difficult to make any huge achievement increases at the end,  |
| steady growth can be anticipated, and this achievement must occur     |
| over a sufficient amount of time.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| In order to follow such a scientifically based approach, planning     |
| must occur; alignment with the state standards must occur; and staff  |
| must be of high quality, serve in-field, and be prepared for focused  |
| work in reading and mathematics with students of all ages. The local  |
| curriculum must not only be initiated, but implemented fully and then |
| institutionalized consistent with the *Illinois Learning Standards*.  |
| It must be focused on "what works," and students and families must be |
| ready for that focus. As the implementation of the *Illinois Learning |
| Standards*, adopted in 1997, continues to increase and deepen, the    |
| projected growth is seen as feasible.                                 |
|                                                                       |
| The task force and State Board of Education considered the verbal     |
| suggestion of May 8, 2003 to use two equal halves with unequal        |
| increments therein as the annual measurable objectives for student    |
| achievement for AYP. That would require placing three additional      |
| points from the second half into the first half of the years between  |
| 2003 and 2014. The task force and State Board were also cognizant of  |
| the language relating to E1 within this document \[*The State shall   |
| identify the minimum values for acceptable levels of                  |
| reliability/decision consistency and provide a rationale for this     |
| determination*\] that allows for slight movement. Student assessment  |
| and AYP is not an exact science, as related previously in Section E1  |
| of this document.                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois believes very strongly that the earlier proposed Illini Plan |
| made sense, within the given years, and met the Congressional intent  |
| of neither being stagnant nor waiting until the very end to increase  |
| dramatically in a couple years before 2014. The proposal met that     |
| intent, as well as the requirement for "*continuous and substantial*" |
| growth within the context of a research-based approach.               |
|                                                                       |
| The State Board ratified on May 13, 2003, to remain with the Illini   |
| Plan as configured in May 2003. However, the Assessment and           |
| Accountability Task Force has revisited the plan more recently, and   |
| advised the State Board on June 4, 2003, that a revised version (see  |
| Attachment B) can suffice, still finding it a reasonable approach     |
| that is not back-loaded with a significant amount of growth expected  |
| in the last couple of years. The State Board revisited this issue at  |
| the June 2003 meeting, and on June 17, 2003, adopted an Illini Plan   |
| with equal increments (see Attachment B).                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A6. What is the minimum number of students ("minimum n") the State is |
| defining as a "group" for reporting, Accountability, and              |
| participation PURPOSES (*Elements 5.5 & 5.6*)?                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A6. State Evidence and State Activities FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| What is the State's definition of the minimum number of students for  |
| reporting, accountability, and participation purposes? (Elements 5.5  |
| & 5.6) What are the State's rationale, procedures, and evidence for   |
| the number?                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois requires a minimum of 45 students or more to constitute a    |
| subgroup for AYP calculation purposes. Illinois requires a minimum of |
| 10 students for reporting of performance information to protect the   |
| privacy of individual students.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Table 4. Minimum and Maximum Numbers Applied to AYP Criteria**      |
|                                                                       |
|   ------------------------------------------ -----------------------  |
|   Minimum--N                                 Number Set by State      |
|                                                                       |
|   For reporting (to ensure privacy)          10                       |
|                                                                       |
|   For AYP determination (for reliability),   45                       |
|   including safe harbor calculations                                  |
|                                                                       |
|   For participation                          45                       |
|   ------------------------------------------ -----------------------  |
|                                                                       |
| **[Rationale for AYP Group Size]{.underline}**                        |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois is modifying the subgroup size after later research          |
| indicated that the group size should be increased (see Table 4) to    |
| improve the statistical decision-making quality. The rationale for    |
| this decision is outlined below.                                      |
|                                                                       |
| All school-level assessment results are subject to variation due to   |
| measurement error, as well as errors due to sampling fluctuations in  |
| the year-to-year "supply" of students. Assessing the efforts of these |
| two variables using standard statistical methods is difficult as      |
| *NCLB* requires that 20 groups are to be considered simultaneously    |
| (in Illinois, the racial/ethnic groups, low income, students with     |
| limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, and "all").  |
| To complicate matters, a student may be a member of multiple,         |
| overlapping subgroups, and results of the student's assessment are    |
| calculated in each subgroup. For example, minority students and FRL   |
| students tend to coincide disproportionately. The dependency is       |
| further increased by the fact that students' scores in reading and    |
| mathematics are highly correlated (about 0.80 across grades).         |
|                                                                       |
| Since standard statistical approaches cannot take measurement errors  |
| and subgroup overlap into consideration simultaneously, a bootstrap   |
| resampling approach was used to obtain realistic baseline             |
| information.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| **[Bootstrap Approach]{.underline}**                                  |
|                                                                       |
| The major advantage of bootstrap resampling is that it does not       |
| require that the dependencies among the overlapping subgroups are     |
| modeled explicitly, as bootstrapping essentially recreates the        |
| sampling distribution that results from these dependencies. Since     |
| schools differ greatly in their compositions, it is not realistic to  |
| assume that all schools' results will follow the same distribution.   |
| For this reason, the bootstrap procedures were repeated for all       |
| Illinois schools separately--i.e., to accommodate its particular      |
| characteristics, each school was allowed to define its own universe   |
| or population.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| [Constructing the H]{.underline}~0~ [Distribution]{.underline}. The   |
| 2003 ISAT and PSAE data indicate that the Illinois reading and        |
| mathematics tests correlate about 0.80 statewide across grades, and   |
| that the joint distribution of the reading and mathematics scores is  |
| approximately bivariate normal. It is thus possible to compute the    |
| probability that a particular student will meet the *Illinois         |
| Learning Standards* given a particular *NCLB* requirement. To obtain  |
| the proper H~0~ for a particular *NCLB* required percentage of        |
| students to meet, it is assumed that the subset of groups among the   |
| 20 groups that meet the size requirements barely meet the *NCLB*      |
| requirements. As is illustrated in Figure 1, this is achieved by      |
| changing the group means (dotted lines) relative to the cutoff points |
| (solid lines). Identifying the appropriate cutoffs requires the       |
| computation of inverse z scores for the bivariate case, and this was  |
| achieved via a Mathcad program, which yielded values that are exact   |
| to within 0.01 standard deviation.                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Since no two schools are alike with respect to their exact student    |
| composition, it will be clear that this procedure must be repeated    |
| for each school and all students within each school. Therefore, for   |
| each school, the students' observed class memberships were taken into |
| account during the resampling process (i.e., if a student were both   |
| black and FRL, then his or her data applied in both *NCLB*            |
| categories). Plausible values were obtained by assuming normally      |
| distributed posteriors based on the standard error provided by the    |
| Rasch model.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image2.png){width="3.9763779527559056in"                    |
| height="3.252755905511811in"}                                         |
|                                                                       |
| [H~0~]{.underline}. The preceding considerations yield distributions  |
| that describe the school-specific probabilities of observing 0, 1,    |
| 2...18 subgroups that make AYP given the tests' respective errors of  |
| measurement and the overlap among the various student subgroups. An   |
| actual example distribution is shown in Figure 2. To obtain           |
| acceptable precision for each Illinois school, a total of 10,000      |
| bootstrap samples were used. To obtain a 95% Confidence Interval, the |
| upper and lower 2.5% regions of the H~0~ distributions were           |
| designated as the "critical areas." This procedure was performed for  |
| *NCLB* requirements of 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% of students   |
| meeting or exceeding.                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| [H~1~]{.underline}. To derive H~1~, the procedure outlined for        |
| deriving H~0~ is repeated using students' actual data. That is, each  |
| student in the bootstrap sample was assigned a plausible value (i.e., |
| a test score) and this value was coded as "Meeting" or "Not Meeting." |
| All groups to which the students belong were then updated, and when   |
| all students were processed, it was determined how many groups made   |
| AYP. As before, to achieve adequate precision, 10,000 bootstrap       |
| samples were used. The null hypothesis of "school makes AYP" was      |
| rejected whenever more than 2.5% of the runs yielded a number of AYP  |
| making groups that fell inside one of the critical regions discussed  |
| earlier. Naturally, as is illustrated by the various lines in Figure  |
| 3, the location of the interval varies with the *NCLB* requirement    |
| under consideration.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| **[Figure 3]{.underline}.**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="5.997916666666667in"}                                         |
|                                                                       |
| [Findings]{.underline}. The results of the bootstrapping procedure    |
| are shown in Figure 3, which plots the projected percentage of        |
| schools making AYP for *NCLB* requirements ranging from 40% to 100%.  |
| The graph includes lines for fixed group sizes ranging from 20 to 50, |
| as well as Confidence Interval derived via chi-square tests--with or  |
| without Bonferroni correction.                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Since bootstrapping is arguably the most valid approach, the          |
| classifications resulting from the other classifications were         |
| correlated with those produced by the bootstrap method. As is shown   |
| in Figure 4, the bootstrap correlates higher with fixed group methods |
| as group-size increases (see left side of figure). Further, the right |
| side of Figure 4 shows that the chi-square type Confidence Intervals  |
| computed without Bonferroni correction performed about as well as     |
| Confidence Intervals created with the use of this correction. Thus,   |
| for greatest simplicity, Illinois selects the use of the Confidence   |
| Interval method without Bonferroni correction.                        |
|                                                                       |
| **[Figure 4.]{.underline}**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
|   ---------- -----                                                    |
| - ------ --------- ------ ------ ------ --- ------------ ------------ |
|                                                                       |
|                      Minimum                            Confidence    |
|                                                                       |
|                      Group                              Interval      |
|                                                                       |
|                      Size                               Method        |
|                                                                       |
|   *NCLB*                                                              |
|                                                  With         Without |
|                                                                       |
|   Required   20                                                       |
|     30     40        50     60     75         Bonferroni   Bonferroni |
|                                                                       |
|   40                                                                  |
|    0.29   0.28   0.29      0.29   0.29   0.29       0.29         0.28 |
|                                                                       |
|   50                                                                  |
|    0.57   0.63   0.66      0.68   0.70   0.71       0.63         0.56 |
|                                                                       |
|   60                                                                  |
|    0.47   0.50   0.50      0.51   0.52   0.52       0.49         0.47 |
|                                                                       |
|   80                                                                  |
|    0.40   0.41   0.43      0.43   0.43   0.43       0.44         0.43 |
|   ---------- -----                                                    |
| - ------ --------- ------ ------ ------ --- ------------ ------------ |
|                                                                       |
| [Conclusions]{.underline}                                             |
|                                                                       |
| The Confidence Interval method clearly is the preferred route, over   |
| the bootstrap method:                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Explaining bootstrap methods to schools is probably very          |
|     difficult and schools might question the validity of the entire   |
|     *NCLB* approach.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Although the bootstrap yields superior answers, this method is    |
|     not very flexible for practical use. For instance, the results    |
|     reported here required a tailor-made Delphi program consisting of |
|     about 2,000 lines of code. To make the program usable in general  |
|     would require considerable additional effort.                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   In addition, the bootstrap approach is extremely time-consuming.  |
|     For instance, the current analyses required well over one whole   |
|     day of computer operation.                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   By its very nature, the bootstrap approach relies on simulations  |
|     using random numbers. Thus, in "close" cases, the outcome of the  |
|     bootstrap method may vary from run to run. It seems doubtful that |
|     schools would tolerate the uncertainty of such outcomes.          |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois will use a 95% confidence interval for the "all" group as    |
| well as individual subgroups as of 2006.                              |
|                                                                       |
| **[Impact]{.underline}**                                              |
|                                                                       |
| It can be seen that using a minimum subgroup size as outlined in      |
| Table 4 decreases the number of schools containing such subgroups;    |
| however, the overall decrease is quite small.                         |
|                                                                       |
| [Implementation of Confidence Interval Method]{.underline}            |
|                                                                       |
| Based on the preceding analyses, Illinois will use a Hypothesis       |
| Testing method which is equivalent to a Confidence Interval approach  |
| to determine AYP calculation for the subgroup performance.            |
| Specifically, a subgroup (g) is considered as making AYP only when it |
| can be established that there is a 95% certainty that this subgroup's |
| true percentage meets or exceeds the AYP criterion and that the size  |
| of subgroup (g) is at least the minimum subgroup size.                |
|                                                                       |
| The Confidence Interval is equivalent to a test of the one-tailed     |
| statistical hypothesis because the state is seeking to verify that    |
| the true percent proficient of the subgroup is actually lower than    |
| the AYP target.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Where $P_{g}$ represents the true proportion of students meeting or   |
| exceeding standards in subgroup g, and since Illinois' Plan requires  |
| in 2005 that 47.5% of students meet or exceed standards, this can be  |
| shown as (below):                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| H~0~: The true percent meeting/exceeding standards for the subgroup g |
| ($P_{g}$) is not lower than the AYP target (47.5% in 2005)            |
|                                                                       |
| H~1~: The true percent meeting/exceeding standards for the subgroup g |
| ($P_{g}$) is actually lower than the AYP target (47.5% in 2005)       |
|                                                                       |
| With observed percent proficient: ${\hat{P}}_{g}$ for the subgroup g  |
| and the subgroup size for subgroup g: $N_{g}$                         |
|                                                                       |
| $$\text{Statistic Z } = \frac{\                                       |
| text{AYP Target }(\text{47}\text{.}\text{5\% in 2005})\text{ - Observ |
| ed Percent Proficent }({\hat{P}}_{g})}{\sqrt{\frac{(\text{AYP Target} |
| )(\text{1-AYP Target})}{\text{Group Size for Subgroup g }(N_{g})}}}$$ |
|                                                                       |
| ***NOTE***: the above equation is simply a restatement of the basic   |
| formula after solving for observed proportion. Again, this applies    |
| only to subgroups which meet the minimum subgroup size.               |
|                                                                       |
| Accordingly, the following operationalizes the above hypothesis based |
| on 95% certainty:                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| If $\text{Observed Percent Proficient }({\hat{P}}_{g})$$$             |
|                                                                       |
| $$\text{                                                              |
|                 AYP Target }(\text{47}\text{.}\text{5\% in 2005})\tex |
| t{- 1}\text{.}\text{645} \times \sqrt{\frac{(\text{AYP Target}) \time |
| s (\text{1-AYP Target})}{\text{Group Size for Subgroup g }(Ν_{g})}}$$ |
|                                                                       |
| then subgroup g makes AYP.                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## A7. HOW DOES THE STATE MAKE ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS DETERMINATIO  |
| NS FOR BOTH "STATUS" AND "SAFE HABOR" APPROACHES (Elements 3.1-3.2b)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A7. State Evidence and State Activities FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Incorporating all of the information presented above in Sections   |
| A1-A6, the State shall present a discussion of its procedures,        |
| rationale, and evidence for determining which public schools and      |
| district have made or missed their AYP "status" targets.***           |
|                                                                       |
| For a given school or district, the percentage of scores that meet or |
| exceed state standards for both reading and math is calculated across |
| all state assessments and across all grades in which reading and math |
| are assessed. Currently, there are three assessments that are part of |
| the AYP calculation. A single percentage *meets* plus *exceeds*       |
| standards score is derived from the three tests separately for        |
| reading and math, and are also reported separately. Reading and math  |
| are assessed in grades 3-8 and 11 (see charts on assessments,         |
| Attachment C*)*.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| To meet AYP requirements under *NCLB* in Illinois, schools must meet  |
| three criteria. If schools or districts have student subgroups that   |
| do not meet the second requirement below, they can avoid consequences |
| by showing a 10% reduction in the percentage not meeting standards    |
| within the subgroup(s) over the previous year (called safe harbor).   |
| They must still meet the first and third requirements.                |
|                                                                       |
| -   All subgroups and aggregate groups must test, at a minimum, 95%   |
|     of its students in both reading and mathematics.                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   For reading and mathematics, for all student subgroups (meeting   |
|     or exceeding the minimum subgroup size) and in the aggregate,     |
|     schools and districts must meet annual targets set by the state   |
|     for the percentage of scores meeting or exceeding state standards |
|     as measured by the state assessments.                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   In the aggregate, schools must meet the minimum annual objective  |
|     for graduation rate for high schools and for attendance rate for  |
|     non-high schools:                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   For high schools: In February 2003, the State Board adopted       |
|     graduation rate as the additional academic indicator, as required |
|     by *NCLB*.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   For elementary and middle schools: In February 2003, the State    |
|     Board adopted attendance rate as the additional academic          |
|     indicator.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Additionally, districts will be identified for improvement when they  |
| do not make AYP in all grade spans for two consecutive years --       |
| elementary (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high school (grades |
| 9-12) (see Section A 3).                                              |
|                                                                       |
| ***Incorporating all of the information presented above in Sections   |
| A1-A6, the State shall present a discussion of its procedures,        |
| rationale, and evidence for determining which schools and districts   |
| have made or missed their AYP "safe harbor" goals.***                 |
|                                                                       |
| AYP decisions for each public school are made annually. The current   |
| AYP system incorporates annual student achievement scores for         |
| students in regular public schools--standards, assessments, report    |
| cards. Annual school improvement status is stated on each report card |
| as of 2002. The new definition of school districts as outlined in     |
| Public Acts 93-426 and 93-470 incorporates all public schools (e.g.,  |
| special education cooperatives and the Illinois School for the Deaf). |
|                                                                       |
| "Safe harbor" will be used in calculations of AYP as of 2003 and      |
| applies to school and district subgroups. At the high school level,   |
| graduation rate will be used as the additional academic indicator. At |
| the elementary and middle grade level, the State Board of Education   |
| has adopted the use of attendance rate as the academic indicator.     |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois will use a 75% confidence interval for safe harbor beginning |
| in 2006.                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## A8. When does the sta                                              |
| te make adequate yearly progress DETERMINATIONS (Elements 1.4 & 4.1)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A8. State Evidence and State Activities FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***The State shall present evidence showing that AYP decisions and    |
| notification about improvement status are made prior to the beginning |
| of the next school year.***                                           |
|                                                                       |
| > Illinois provides information/decisions about AYP and improvement   |
| > status in time for school districts to implement the required       |
| > provisions before the beginning of the next academic year.          |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois student assessments are currently administered between March |
| and May for all three components of the system and the allowed        |
| make-up tests. Preliminary test scores in terms of AYP are generally  |
| reported to local districts in July.                                  |
|                                                                       |
| ***The State shall present evidence** **showing that supplemental     |
| educational service providers have been approved.***                  |
|                                                                       |
| The Illinois State Board of Education approved providers each year.   |
| See the approved list at                                              |
| <http://www.isbe.net/ses/html/service_providers.htm>. The Web site    |
| also displays the application now available, seeking additional       |
| providers (<http://www.isbe.net/ses/html/application_process.htm)>.   |
| Additional providers are approved on a regular basis by the State     |
| Board of Education and posted on the Web site.                        |
|                                                                       |
| ***The State shall present evidence showing that AYP decisions are    |
| made on an annual basis*.**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| The Illinois annual report cards reflect annual assessment scores and |
| AYP decisions.                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# 

# SECTION B. Additional indicators

States are responsible for holding schools accountable for performance
on additional academic indicators. States must use high school
graduation rates at the high school level and other indicators at the
elementary and middle levels. Section B is designed to evaluate states'
evidence related to the use of high school graduation rate and these
other academic indicators in the calculation of AYP.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## B1. What is the State                                              |
|  definition for the public high school graduation RATE (Element 7.1)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| B1. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Please provide a description of the methodology for the choice of  |
| method for calculating the graduation rate in your state.             |
| Additionally, please provide the student graduation rate for the      |
| 2001-2002 school year in the aggregate and for each subgroup          |
| identified in Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v).***                            |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois already has a definition for public high school graduation   |
| rate. As stated in the Consolidated State Application in June 2002,   |
| the graduation rate used in Illinois is derived using the cohort      |
| method (i.e., the percentage of grade 9 students remaining until      |
| graduation). The School Report Card data collection effort has been   |
| modified to allow for the disaggregation of graduation rate by the    |
| major racial/ethnic categories \[including a multi-racial/ethnic      |
| group\], and by English language learning, low-income, students with  |
| disabilities, and migrant classifications**.** Details are delineated |
| in the attached report cards. As requested via the peer review        |
| process, the following descriptors elaborate upon the earlier         |
| definition.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| *Graduation Rate* is the number of current year graduates divided by  |
| the number of freshman class four years previously, less students who |
| transferred out, plus students who transferred in, multiplied by 100. |
| It is essentially a cohort rate.                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Graduation rate = (B / (A -- C + D)) \* 100                           |
|                                                                       |
| A. [Freshman Class]{.underline}, i.e., the number of students         |
| enrolled for the first time in grade 9 four years ago, (e.g.,         |
| freshman class enrollment in fall 1998).                              |
|                                                                       |
| B. [Graduates]{.underline}, i.e., the number of students who          |
| graduated in the current school year (e.g., July 2001 through June    |
| 2002). Graduates include ***only*** students who were awarded regular |
| diplomas; students with GEDs and other nonregular completion          |
| certificates are ***not*** included.                                  |
|                                                                       |
| C. [Transferred out]{.underline}, i.e., the number of students from   |
| the freshman class (A) who transferred to another school, or died,    |
| prior to graduation.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| D. [Transferred in]{.underline}, i.e., the number of graduates from   |
| among all the graduates (B) who were not members of the original      |
| freshman class (A). Included are students who transferred in from     |
| other schools in the last four years, and also students who graduated |
| in fewer or more than four years. Since these students are counted in |
| the numerator, they are also counted in the denominator to ensure     |
| that the graduation rate does not exceed 100%.                        |
|                                                                       |
| NOTE: Students from A who drop out, are expelled, or do not have      |
| enough credits to graduate, are not included in B, C, or D.           |
|                                                                       |
| 2001-02 Graduation rates                                              |
|                                                                       |
| All Students 85.2% White 89.2%                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Black 74.5%                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Male 82.5% Hispanic 74.7%                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Female 87.9% Asian/Pacific Islander 91.7%                             |
|                                                                       |
| American Indian 73.9%                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Limited English Proficient 69.9% Migrant 31.1%                        |
|                                                                       |
| Students with Disabilities 69.1% Economically Disadvantaged 80.2%     |
|                                                                       |
| ***Graduation Rate***                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| At the April 9, 2003 meeting, the task force recommended that there   |
| be a gradual increase in the threshold number for graduation rate,    |
| and not a single number used.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| The average state graduation rate in 2001-02 was 85%. Looking at 85%  |
| would mean an impact as follows:                                      |
|                                                                       |
|   ------------------- --------------------- -------------             |
| --- ------------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- |
|   **Table 5.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
|   Number/Percentage                                                   |
|                                                                       |
|   of Schools that                                                     |
|                                                                       |
|   Would *Fail* to                                                     |
|                                                                       |
|   Make AYP for the                                                    |
|                                                                       |
|   Minimum Graduation                                                  |
|                                                                       |
|   Rate Based on the                                                   |
|                                                                       |
|   Following                                                           |
|                                                                       |
|   Thresholds (2002)**                                                 |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                       **Number/Percentage                             |
|                                                                       |
|                       of Schools NOT Maki                             |
| ng                                                                    |
|                       AYP**                                           |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|   **Graduation**      **Entire State**                                |
|                     **Chicago**                    **Non-Chicago**    |
|                                                                       |
|   **Rate**            **Number**            **Percentag               |
| e**   **Number**    **Percentage**   **Number**        **Percentage** |
|                                                                       |
|   60%                 21                    3.                        |
| 29%            18            24.66%           3                 0.53% |
|                                                                       |
|   65%                 32                    5.                        |
| 02%            26            35.62%           6                 1.06% |
|                                                                       |
|   70%                 60                    9.                        |
| 40%            41            56.16%           19                3.36% |
|                                                                       |
|   75%                 89                    13                        |
| .95%           49            67.12%           40                7.08% |
|                                                                       |
|   80%                 141                   22.                       |
| 10%           57            78.08%           84                14.87% |
|                                                                       |
|   85%                 219                   34.                       |
| 33%           62            84.93%           157               27.79% |
|                                                                       |
|   **Total**           **638**                                         |
|                     **73**                         **565**            |
|   ------------------- --------------------- -------------             |
| --- ------------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- |
|                                                                       |
| **The Graduation Rate is a Valid Indicator:**                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   As defined, it is a cohort rate, following a group of students    |
|     from the time they first enter grade 9 until they graduate.       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Students who drop out, are expelled, or who do not have enough    |
|     credits to graduate, are not counted as transfer students.        |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   School districts that submit raw data on time are asked to verify |
|     their graduation rates when they are computed.                    |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Edit checks are built into the process to ensure accuracy, e.g.,  |
|     schools submitting data that result in graduation rates outside   |
|     of an acceptable range (40%-100%) are contacted for verification. |
|                                                                       |
| **The Graduation Rate is a Reliable Indicator:**                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   The same data collection process and formula have been used       |
|     since 1995. (Data collection was expanded in 2001-02 in order to  |
|     report graduation rates disaggregated for the various student     |
|     groups.)                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Results of the computation have been consistent through time; the |
|     statewide rate has been relatively stable over the years, ranging |
|     from a low of 80.5% in 1996 to a high of 85.2% in 2002.           |
|                                                                       |
| **Starting Point/Target**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| The starting point is 65% graduation rate for each school and group   |
| for 2003, with an increase of two percentage points each year to      |
| reach a target of at least 85% in 2013. To select the starting point, |
| the distribution of high schools by graduation rate was examined and  |
| consideration was given to schools and groups that face various       |
| challenges.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| At the April 9, 2003 meeting, the task force recommended that there   |
| be a gradual increase in the threshold number for graduation rate.    |
| The average state graduation rate in 2001-02 was 85%.                 |
|                                                                       |
| On April 30, 2003, the State Board of Education adopted an initial    |
| threshold of 65%, increasing to 85% in 2014, and delineated as in     |
| Figure 6.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| #                                                                     |
| [Figure 6*.*]{.underline} Proposed Annual Targets for Graduation Rate |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image5.wmf)                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## B2. What ARE the State's additional academic indicatorS fo         |
| r public elementary AND middle schools for the definition of AYP? (El |
| ement 7.2) AND Are theSE indicators valid and reliable (Element 7.3)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| B2. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***What are the additional academic indicators for:***                |
|                                                                       |
| -   ***Elementary schools?*** Attendance rate.                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   ***Middle schools?*** Attendance rate.                            |
|                                                                       |
| ***Provide a description of the methodology for this choice of method |
| for calculating these indicators in your state. In the rationale,     |
| please include evidence/justification that the selected indicators    |
| are reliable and valid for the intended use.***                       |
|                                                                       |
| Please see the following attendance rate information.                 |
|                                                                       |
| ***Additionally, please provide the starting points for these         |
| indicators for the 2001-2002 school year in the aggregate and for     |
| each subgroup identified in Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v).***              |
|                                                                       |
| ***Attendance rate*** is the aggregate days of student attendance     |
| divided by the sum of the aggregate days of student attendance and    |
| aggregate days of student absence, multiplied by 100.                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Attendance Rate** = (**A** / (**A** + **B**)\* 100                  |
|                                                                       |
| **A** = Sum of the number of students in attendance each school day   |
| of the year.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| **B** = Sum of the number of students absent each school day of the   |
| year.                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **The Attendance Rate is a Valid Indicator:**                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   As defined, it is the ratio of the number of students absent to   |
|     the number of students who would potentially be present (i.e.,    |
|     students absent plus students present) for the school year.       |
|                                                                       |
| -   School districts that submit raw data on time are asked to verify |
|     their attendance rates when they are computed.                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Edit checks are built into the process to ensure accuracy, e.g.,  |
|     schools submitting data that result in attendance rates outside   |
|     of an acceptable range (70%-99%) are contacted for verification.  |
|                                                                       |
| **The Attendance Rate is a Reliable Indicator:**                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   The same data collection process and formula have been used       |
|     since 1986. Data collection will be expanded in 2002-03 in order  |
|     to report attendance rates disaggregated for the various student  |
|     groups.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Results of the computation have been consistent through time; the |
|     statewide rate has been very stable over the years, ranging from  |
|     a low of 93.3% in 1989 to a high of 94.0% in 2002.                |
|                                                                       |
| **Starting Point/Target**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| The starting point is 88%, escalating to 92%. All schools and groups  |
| will be expected to meet or exceed this rate through 2013-14. To      |
| select these figures, the distribution of schools by attendance rate  |
| was examined and consideration was given to schools and groups that   |
| face various challenges.                                              |
|                                                                       |
| At a meeting earlier this year, the task force recommended a single   |
| attendance threshold of 88%. The State Board subsequently adopted     |
| that figure. The task force revisited the single static figure on     |
| April 18 and April 22, 2003, and made the following motion on April   |
| 22: \"...*the attendance rate threshold should begin at 88% in 2003   |
| and continue to 92% in 2014*.\" The State Board adopted this on April |
| 30, 2003.                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # ![](media                                                           |
| /image6.png){width="6.520833333333333in" height="3.6465277777777776in |
| "}[Figure 7.]{.underline} Proposed Annual Targets for Attendance Rate |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image6.png){width="6.520833333333333in"                     |
| height="3.6465277777777776in"}                                        |
|                                                                       |
| <table style="width:100%;">                                           |
| <colgroup>                                                            |
| <col style="width: 11%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| </colgroup>                                                           |
| <tbody>                                                               |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td><table>                                                           |
| <colgroup>                                                            |
| <col style="width: 100%" />                                           |
| </colgroup>                                                           |
| <tbody>                                                               |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| </tbody>                                                              |
| </table></td>                                                         |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| </tbody>                                                              |
| </table>                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**SECTION C. INCLUSION AND PARTICIPATION RATES**

*States are responsible for including all public school students in the
accountability system and for making accountability decisions for all
public schools and districts in the state. Section C is designed to
evaluate states' evidence related to inclusion and participation in
terms of calculating AYP. This evidence is solicited through the
following four criteria:*

-   *Definition of a full academic year.*

-   *Inclusion of all required subgroups.*

-   *Calculation of participation rates to ensure 95% participation of
    all subgroups.*

-   *Policies related to the inclusion of all public schools and
    districts in the accountability system.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **C1. How does the State Accountability System include all students   |
| enrolled in public schools in the State EXCEPT FOR THOSE ENROLLED FOR |
| LESS THAN A FULL ACADEMIC YEAR (*Elements 2.1 & 2.2)?***              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| C1. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Provide evidence of policies that the definitions of "public       |
| school" and "LEA" account for all students enrolled in all public     |
| school districts, regardless of program or type of public school.***  |
|                                                                       |
| Public Act 93-426 was enacted in August 2003 to amend Section 2-3.64  |
| of the School Code. The law adds language to clarify that, for        |
| assessment and accountability purposes, "all pupils" includes those   |
| pupils enrolled in a public or State-operated elementary school,      |
| secondary school, or cooperative or joint agreement with a governing  |
| body or board of control, a charter school operating in compliance    |
| with the Charter Schools Law, a school operated by a regional office  |
| of education under Section 13A-3 of the School Code, and special      |
| schools operated under the auspices of the Illinois Department of     |
| Human Services (e.g., the Illinois School for the Deaf). Public Act   |
| 93-470 was enacted in August 2003 and amends Section 2-3.25a of the   |
| School Code. The additional language makes it clear that state        |
| standards apply to all public schools, whether operated by school     |
| districts or by other public entities. "Other public entities" are    |
| defined as including cooperatives, joint agreements, charter schools, |
| regional offices of education, state agencies, local agencies, and    |
| public universities.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| ***Please define a "full academic year" for the purposes of including |
| students in the accountability system at the various levels: school,  |
| district, and state.***                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois currently collects student enrollment data on an annual Fall |
| Housing Report, which requires districts to report on students in     |
| attendance as of the last school day of September. Using that same    |
| data reporting requirement, Illinois defines a full academic year as  |
| applying to students enrolled on or before the last school day in     |
| September.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| For 2005-06 and thereafter, students who are enrolled in the district |
| on or before May 1, 2005, and who stay continuously enrolled through  |
| state testing in Spring 2006, are considered to be enrolled for a     |
| full academic year. \[Subsequent years would be similar in terms of a |
| May 1 date for the calculation of AYP for the following school        |
| year.\] This ensures that the full academic year definition is less   |
| than 365 calendar days while taking into account the varying dates of |
| state testing in Illinois. If a student withdraws from the district,  |
| and then re-enrolls at a later date, the most recent time of          |
| enrollment is used.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| ***Please provide evidence that the definition of "full academic      |
| year" is applied consistently across all schools and districts in the |
| state*.**                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| A new data collection will need to be developed and implemented for   |
| collecting May 1 data.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| ***Please describe the State's procedures (e.g., data collection      |
| methodology) for determining which students have attended schools and |
| districts in the state for a "full academic year."***                 |
|                                                                       |
| Information about whether students have been enrolled in schools and  |
| in districts a full academic year is captured on student answer       |
| documents for all tests (ISAT, PSAE, and IAA). The information is     |
| entered on answer documents in one of two ways:                       |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  The information is submitted as part of a pre-identification      |
|     label data file and labels that are produced from that file are   |
|     affixed to students' answer documents, or                         |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  The information is entered manually by being recorded on an       |
|     Enrollment Date grid that is included on students' answer         |
|     documents (instructions for completing the grid are provided in   |
|     test administration manuals).                                     |
|                                                                       |
| ***What are the State's procedures for holding districts accountable  |
| for students who have not attended any one school in the district for |
| a full academic year, but have attended schools in the district for   |
| at least a full academic year?***                                     |
|                                                                       |
| The student\'s assessment score will be included in the district      |
| composite.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| ***What are the State's procedures for holding the state accountable  |
| for students who have not attended any one school or district for a   |
| full academic year, but have attended schools in the state for at     |
| least a full academic year?***                                        |
|                                                                       |
| The student\'s assessment score will be included in the state         |
| composite.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| ***Has the State defined a full academic year such that it is less    |
| than or equal to 365 calendar days?***                                |
|                                                                       |
| For 2005-06 and thereafter, students who are enrolled in the district |
| on or before May 1, 2005, and who stay continuously enrolled through  |
| state testing in Spring 2006, are considered to be enrolled for a     |
| full academic year. \[Subsequent years would be similar in terms of a |
| May 1 date for the calculation of AYP for the following school        |
| year.\] This ensures that the full academic year definition is less   |
| than 365 calendar days while taking into account the varying dates of |
| state testing in Illinois.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| ***Is there evidence that the State is able to reliably determine     |
| which students have been enrolled in the school, district, and state  |
| for a "full academic year?"***                                        |
|                                                                       |
| The information is self-reported by the school or district. Districts |
| or schools indicate on the cover of the student\'s answer document or |
| in the pre-ID label file sent to the scoring contractor whether a     |
| student has been enrolled for a full academic year**.** The state     |
| does not determine, per se, whether a student has been enrolled for a |
| full academic year.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| ***Is there evidence that the State applies this definition           |
| consistently to all schools and districts in the state?***            |
|                                                                       |
| The definition of a full academic year will be published in relevant  |
| manuals, bulletins, web sites and documents of the Illinois State     |
| Board of Education. It has been applied consistently under the former |
| process and will be applied consistently with the new date.           |
|                                                                       |
| ***Does the State have procedures/policies to "roll" students up to   |
| the next level of analysis if the student has not been in the lower   |
| level (e.g., school, district) for a full academic year so that the   |
| student is included in the accountability system at the level for     |
| which they have been in the system for a full academic year?***       |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois ensures that the students will be rolled up to the next      |
| level of analysis so that students who are in a lower grade level in  |
| the spring are counted in the higher grade level in the fall when     |
| appropriate. Students who follow the natural progression of their     |
| academic career and feed into another school during the summer within |
| the district because of natural housing needs will not be considered  |
| a new student. Even though these students will be attending a new     |
| school, they will not be considered new students as they are enrolled |
| continuously within the district.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Any student who is continuously enrolled within the district but      |
| changes to a new school within the district for reasons other than    |
| those determined by the district (e.g., overcrowding) after May 1^st^ |
| will be counted at the district level, not at the school level.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## C2.                                                               |
|  How are public schools and District held accountable for the progre |
| ss of all student subgroups identified in Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) i |
| n the determination of adequate yearly progress? (ElementS 5.1-5.4)? |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| C2. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Please provide evidence that the State's definition of AYP        |
| provided in Section A of this document includes all student          |
| subgroups identified in Section 1111(b)(2)(c)(v) and whether this    |
| definition holds all schools and districts accountable for the       |
| performance of these subgroups in the determination of AYP.***       |
|                                                                      |
| These were described in Elements 5.1-5.4 of the original workbook.   |
|                                                                      |
| The state currently reports achievement for all required subgroups   |
| on the Illinois school, district, and state Report Cards---low       |
| income, racial/ethnic groups (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific  |
| Islander, Native American, and multiracial/ethnic), students with    |
| limited English proficiency, and students with disabilities. The     |
| school, district, and state report cards can be accessed on the      |
| Illinois State Board of Education Web site at                        |
| <ht                                                                  |
| tp://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getSearchCriteria.aspx> |
|                                                                      |
| In response to concerns from local educational agencies, the         |
| Illinois State Board of Education held discussions with              |
| representatives from USDE regarding students who are medically       |
| exempt and homebound students. As a result of those discussions, the |
| Illinois State Board of Education has determined the following       |
| regarding the participation of these students in the state           |
| assessments:                                                         |
|                                                                      |
| -   Medically Exempt. Students may be excluded from the enrollment   |
|     count in a school and from taking a state assessment if, at the  |
|     time of testing, they: (a) have been admitted on an emergency    |
|     basis to a hospital or residential facility (e.g., because of a  |
|     motor vehicle or other type of accident, emergency surgery,      |
|     psychiatric emergency) or on an emergency basis to a             |
|     drug/alcohol/psychological treatment program; and (b) are unable |
|     to be schooled.                                                  |
|                                                                      |
| -   Homebound Exempt. Students on homebound status at the time of    |
|     testing who are too ill (based upon a specific written statement |
|     from a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its        |
|     branches) to be tested may be excluded from the enrollment count |
|     in a school and from taking a state assessment.                  |
|                                                                      |
| ***Please describe how all students with disabilities are included   |
| in the State's definition of AYP, including how the results of the   |
| alternate assessment for students with disabilities are incorporated |
| into AYP determinations for public schools and districts. Please     |
| provide procedures and evidence (if possible) for these              |
| decisions.***                                                        |
|                                                                      |
| The test scores of students with disabilities go to the home school. |
| Students who are wards of the state will have their test scores      |
| counted by the district and school in which the facility they are    |
| residing or attending is located. For students who are not wards of  |
| the state that reside at or attend a facility outside of their       |
| district within Illinois, their scores will also count at their home |
| school and district. The information is then used for local AYP      |
| calculations. Former students with disabilities are not included in  |
| the students with disabilities subgroup.                             |
|                                                                      |
| While all students are to be assessed, there are occasional          |
| difficulties with students placed in unique yet appropriate          |
| settings. Students who are in jail (e.g., county detention facility) |
| or attend a school housed in a locked correctional facility in       |
| Illinois at the time of state assessment will not be tested. The     |
| security of test materials shipped to these locations and the proper |
| administration of state assessments at these locations cannot be     |
| guaranteed. These students will NOT be included in enrollment counts |
| for their home schools and districts.                                |
|                                                                      |
| As of 2004, the data for students with disabilities and calculating  |
| AYP will reflect the USDE guidance of December 2003 on 1% of the     |
| students taking IAA able to be counted as proficient. Regulations    |
| indicate that 1% of all students assessed can be counted proficient  |
| against alternate achievement standards. These calculations are made |
| at the district and state levels only, not individual school         |
| buildings.                                                           |
|                                                                      |
| In 2008-09, Illinois will continue to use the proxy process outlined |
| in the May 7, 2005 guidance from USDE regarding Transition Option    |
| #1.  Illinois will calculate a proxy to determine the percentage of  |
| special education students (as defined in the Individuals with       |
| Disabilities Education Act) that is equivalent to 2.0 percent of all |
| students assessed.   The proxy percent will be added to the actual   |
| percent of proficient scores of this subgroup to determine AYP.      |
|  This process will be followed for reading and mathematics           |
| separately and repeated at the district level, as needed.            |
|                                                                      |
| As stated to Deputy Secretary Simon on June 16, 2005, Illinois is    |
| committed to addressing the needs of students that are being met by  |
| the current 1% cap on proficient assessments for students using the  |
| IAA or by taking the ISAT or PSAE, even with accommodations. In 2007 |
| Illinois will begin the process of developing a modified assessment  |
| based on the guidance provided by the Department of Education in     |
| April, 2007.                                                         |
|                                                                      |
| ***Please describe how schools and districts are held accountable    |
| for the progress of limited English proficient students in terms of  |
| achievement relative to the state academic content and academic      |
| achievement standards.***                                            |
|                                                                      |
| Public schools and districts are held accountable for student        |
| subgroup achievement in the following areas: economically            |
| disadvantaged, major ethnic and racial groups, students with         |
| disabilities, and limited English proficient students, plus a        |
| composite, in reading and in mathematics. Each of these subgroups is |
| included for AYP purposes and in the School Report Card.             |
|                                                                      |
| Illinois currently disaggregates all of the required information.    |
| AYP in 2003 will use the 95% participation rate for the school,      |
| individual subgroup test scores (provided the subgroup meets the     |
| minimum group size requirement), and schoolwide data on the other    |
| indicators (e.g., graduation rate at the high school and attendance  |
| as the indicator at the elementary/middle grades).                   |
|                                                                      |
| Illinois has determined, and cited in the Illinois School Report     |
| Card, the status of individual schools regarding school improvement. |
| Further, schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years are |
| placed on Academic Early Warning or later on Academic Watch status   |
| if not making AYP continues.                                         |
|                                                                      |
| Membership in the subgroups remains largely constant, except for the |
| limited English proficient, low-income, and special education        |
| subgroups. One element of the discussion at the March 2003 task      |
| force meeting was how to review the assessment data from the limited |
| English proficiency subgroup, given the changeability in the         |
| membership. All limited English proficient students are included in  |
| this subgroup. Those limited English proficient students who         |
| subsequently become proficient in English--for example, as a result  |
| of participation in TBE/TPI programs--are removed from this          |
| subgroup. Therefore, although English-proficient students are more   |
| likely to meet state standards on state assessments (which are       |
| administered in English) and have a positive effect on AYP           |
| achievement, the academic performance of these *former* subgroup     |
| members is not included in AYP calculations for limited English      |
| proficient students.                                                 |
|                                                                      |
| []{.mark}                                                            |
|                                                                      |
| For purposes of calculating AYP, pursuant to the policy announced by |
| Education Secretary Rod Paige on February 19, 2004, the Illinois     |
| limited English proficient subgroup will now include:                |
|                                                                      |
| -   *all* limited English proficient students, and                   |
|                                                                      |
| ```{=html}                                                           |
| <!-- -->                                                             |
| ```                                                                  |
| -   *former* limited English proficient students who have become     |
|     proficient in English (these students will be included in AYP    |
|     calculations for this subgroup for the two years subsequent to   |
|     their attainment of English proficiency).                        |
|                                                                      |
| This definition will allow the state to demonstrate the performance  |
| of beginning English language learners and students who have become  |
| proficient in English.                                               |
|                                                                      |
| ***Please describe how all students with disabilities are included   |
| in the State's definition of AYP, including how the results of the   |
| alternate assessment for students with disabilities are incorporated |
| into AYP determinations for public schools and districts. Please     |
| provide procedures and evidence (if possible) for these              |
| decisions.***                                                        |
|                                                                      |
| The Illinois Alternate Assessment is aligned with the *Illinois      |
| Learning Standards*.                                                 |
|                                                                      |
| All students with disabilities participate in statewide assessments: |
| general assessments with or without accommodations *or* an alternate |
| assessment based on grade level standards for the grade in which     |
| students are enrolled. This means that Illinois students with        |
| disabilities take the appropriate assessments--ISAT or PSAE, with or |
| without accommodations depending on their Individual Education Plans |
| (IEPs), or the IAA as indicated in the IEP. These students are then  |
| reported on in a disaggregated fashion. Regardless of where a        |
| student with disabilities may be attending school, his or her        |
| achievement results are counted as part of the AYP for the           |
| student\'s home school. This calculation will be included in the     |
| district\'s AYP.                                                     |
|                                                                      |
| These tests are given to students whose IEPs indicate that the ISAT  |
| and/or PSAE are not appropriate. The Superintendent's Assessment and |
| Accountability Task Force has recommended that the portfolio         |
| assessments in this program be simplified and the documentation      |
| requirements reduced for the remainder of 2002-03 and for the coming |
| school years. They are contemplating additional recommendations for  |
| improving the assessments for students with disabilities.            |
|                                                                      |
| Illinois currently disaggregates all of the required information.    |
| AYP in 2003 will use the 95% participation rate for the school,      |
| individual subgroup test scores (provided the subgroup meets the     |
| minimum group size requirement and is more than 10), and schoolwide  |
| data on the other indicators (e.g., graduation rate at the high      |
| school and attendance as the indicator at the elementary/middle      |
| grades).                                                             |
|                                                                      |
| Illinois has determined, and cited in the Illinois School Report     |
| Card, the status of individual schools regarding school improvement. |
| Further, schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years are |
| placed on Academic Early Warning or later on Academic Watch status   |
| if not making AYP continues.                                         |
|                                                                      |
| ***Please describe how schools and districts are held accountable    |
| for the progress of limited English proficient students in terms of  |
| achievement relative to the state academic content and academic      |
| achievement standards.***                                            |
|                                                                      |
| For 2004, based on February 2004 guidance from USDE, limited English |
| proficient students new to the United States will have different     |
| accountability rules applied than was the case in 2003. This is      |
| being done by USDE to have a more fair role in assessing such        |
| students\' content knowledge in reading/language arts in their first |
| year of enrollment in a U.S. public school.                          |
|                                                                      |
| This will now allow limited English proficient students, during      |
| their first year of enrollment in U.S. schools, to have ***the       |
| option*** of taking the reading content assessment, in addition to   |
| taking the English language proficiency assessment. They would take  |
| the mathematics assessment, with accommodations, as appropriate.     |
| Illinois will not include performance results from the mathematics   |
| and, if given, the reading content assessments in AYP calculations   |
| under *NCLB*. This new policy by USDE is intended to ensure that     |
| states and schools continue to get the assessment information they   |
| need to target their efforts and to help all children get to grade   |
| level in reading and math.                                           |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## C3. What is the State's method for calculating partici            |
| pation rates in the State assessments and how will the state apply t |
| he 95% rule for use in AYP determinations? (Elements 10.1 and 10.2)? |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| C3. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Please provide a description of the procedure used by the State   |
| to determine the number of tested and nontested (including absent    |
| and parent refusals) in the state assessment system.***              |
|                                                                      |
| These were described in Elements 10.1 and 10.2 in the original       |
| workbook.                                                            |
|                                                                      |
| Per Element 10.1, two separate data elements are used in determining |
| participation rates. Both data elements are collected during the     |
| administration of the state assessments.                             |
|                                                                      |
| -   The first data element--the school's tested population--is       |
|     computed from the student answer documents, by grade and the     |
|     various subgroups. The tested populations of the various         |
|     subgroups are summed across grades that are assessed. This is    |
|     the numerator.                                                   |
|                                                                      |
| -   The second data element is the school's enrollment by grade and  |
|     the various subgroups on the day of the test. The enrollments of |
|     the various subgroups are summed across grades that are          |
|     assessed. This is the denominator.                               |
|                                                                      |
| Example:                                                             |
|                                                                      |
| [total low-income students who tested]{.underline}                   |
|                                                                      |
| the school's low-income students who were enrolled on the day of the |
| test                                                                 |
|                                                                      |
| ***Please describe the procedure used to determine the denominator   |
| used for calculating the participation rates. If the denominator is  |
| a number other than the total number of students enrolled in the     |
| tested grades at the time of testing, please provide a               |
| rationale/justification for using an alternate number.***            |
|                                                                      |
| School and district personnel report the school's enrollment by      |
| grade and the various subgroups on the day of the test on school and |
| district demographic sheets.                                         |
|                                                                      |
| ***Please provide evidence that the schools and districts are held   |
| accountable for including at least 95% of all students and 95% of    |
| the students in each subgroup identified in Section                  |
| 1111(b)(2)(C)(v).***                                                 |
|                                                                      |
| Per Element 10.2, regular public schools and districts will          |
| administer the state assessments to all students enrolled at the     |
| time of the tests. Schools and districts in which at least 95% of    |
| the students enrolled at the time of the assessments took the        |
| assessment, will meet this element of the AYP standard.              |
|                                                                      |
| Schools and districts in which less than 95% of any student subgroup |
| takes the state assessment will not meet the AYP standard, provided  |
| the size of the subgroup meets the minimum number required.          |
|                                                                      |
| ***If the minimum number of students constituting a subgroup for the |
| purposes of calculating participation rates is different from the    |
| minimum number required for AYP determinations, please explain and   |
| justify why the state is using different minimum group sizes.***     |
|                                                                      |
| The minimum subgroup size is used for inclusion or counting of       |
| individual groups. The participation rate for the school or subgroup |
| overall is 95%.                                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| C3. Peer Reviewer Questions                                          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***In order for a school or district to make AYP, has the State      |
| assured that it requires at least 95% of the students enrolled in    |
| each subgroup to be assessed?***                                     |
|                                                                      |
| State law requires that all public school students participate in    |
| the state tests appropriate for their grade; 95% participation is    |
| below the expectation.                                               |
|                                                                      |
| For those students who participate but for various reasons do not    |
| complete the test process (e.g., illness), they are counted as       |
| having participated.                                                 |
|                                                                      |
| ***Has the State provided evidence that it includes the total number |
| of students enrolled in the tested grades at the time of testing in  |
| the denominator for calculating participation rates?***              |
|                                                                      |
| See the District Demographic Sheets and the School Demographic       |
| Sheets (Attachment E). These forms will be used to collect           |
| enrollments of all students at the tested grades and will be used as |
| the denominator for the calculation of the participation rate.       |
|                                                                      |
| ***If the State is using different values for "minimum n," has it    |
| justified this difference in a logical manner so that it is clear    |
| that the state is meeting the intent of the law?***                  |
|                                                                      |
| The State is using the same minimums for calculation of              |
| participation rate and for the determination of AYP, including the   |
| calculation of safe harbor.                                          |
|                                                                      |
| In response to the new policy for calculating participation rates,   |
| Illinois will implement the following approach: Participation rates  |
| are calculated by dividing the number of students tested (numerator) |
| by the student enrollment on the first day of testing in the tested  |
| grades (denominator) multiplied by 100. Beginning in 2004,           |
| participation rates will be calculated first for the current year.   |
| If a school or district fails to have 95% of the students            |
| participating in the state assessments, the participation rates for  |
| the current and past years will be averaged. If a school or district |
| still does not meet the 95% threshold, then the current year will be |
| averaged with the last two years. If the school or district still    |
| does not meet the 95% threshold, then they do not make AYP for the   |
| participation rate.                                                  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## C4. How does the State Accountability System i                     |
| nclude every public school and LEA in the State (ELEMENTs 1.1 & 1.2)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| C4. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Please provide evidence that all public schools are included in    |
| the statewide AYP model, including charter schools, alternative       |
| schools, state schools for the blind/deaf, juvenile correction        |
| centers, residential centers, and schools without testing or other    |
| data (e.g., K-2, reconfigured, exceptionally small schools).***       |
|                                                                       |
| State law as of 2003 addresses all schools and all serving entities   |
| except where noted otherwise in the text of this document (e.g.,      |
| medically exempt). Public Act 93-426 addresses "all pupils" (see      |
| Attachment A).                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| The other law, Public Act 93-470 by Senator DelValle, addresses "all  |
| public entities," defining for the first time a school district or    |
| other serving entities (see Attachment A). This includes all          |
| state-chartered schools (all local-chartered schools are already      |
| included), and all state schools, such as the Illinois School for the |
| Deaf operated by the Illinois Department of Human Services. The       |
| Illinois Department of Corrections is its own school district,        |
| District #428, and so those pupils are included in the regular        |
| district/school accountability.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois has a student identification system which will be fully in   |
| place by 2006-07. With that, the state will use the practice of       |
| mapping student AYP from a higher grade (e.g., grade 3) to a lower    |
| grade (e.g., grade 2) when the lower grade school has no tested       |
| grade. For example, a K-2 building will be mapped to a counterpart    |
| elementary school containing grade 3. Grade 3 student performance in  |
| the elementary school containing grade 3 will be used as the          |
| accountability measure for the K-2 building. For those lower grade    |
| schools that merge into more than one feeder school, the feeder       |
| school with the majority of the students will be used as the basis    |
| for the lower grade school AYP status.                                |
|                                                                       |
| This process will apply to K-2 schools and other school               |
| configurations as needed.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois does have a number of schools with low enrollment. For those |
| schools that have fewer than the minimum subgroup size in total in    |
| the grades tested for reading and mathematics, the "all" number will  |
| be used for the purpose of calculating AYP separately in each subject |
| area. The AYP calculation process is then the same for all schools.   |
|                                                                       |
| ***Please provide evidence that all schools and districts are         |
| systematically judged on the basis of the same criteria when making   |
| an AYP determination.***                                              |
|                                                                       |
| All schools with tested grades are included and judged against the    |
| three criteria for AYP--95% participation, academic achievement, and  |
| the other indicator (e.g., graduation for high school).               |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  Total number of schools receiving public funds from state         |
|     [4262]{.underline}.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Total number of public schools [4262]{.underline}.                |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Total number of schools receiving Title I funds                   |
|     [2395]{.underline}.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  Total number of schools not receiving Title I funds [3 districts  |
|     have not applied]{.underline}.                                    |
|                                                                       |
| 5.  Does the state have a definition of a "public school" for         |
|     accountability purposes? Yes. It is in Public Act 93-470, the new |
|     accountability law. (See Attachment A.)                           |
|                                                                       |
| 6.  Is the definition of "public school" for accountability purposes  |
|     the same as other definitions of "public school" used by the      |
|     state, e.g., are the school ID codes the same in the state        |
|     databases? It is broader, but there will be school ID codes for   |
|     all (region/county/district school codes).                        |
|                                                                       |
| ##### Inclusion of all districts:                                     |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  Total number of districts (e.g., public school districts)         |
|     [892]{.underline}.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Total number of districts receiving Title I funds                 |
|     [802]{.underline}.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Does the state have a definition of districts for accountability  |
|     purposes? Yes. It is in Public Act 93-470, the new accountability |
|     law. (See Attachment A.)                                          |
|                                                                       |
| ***Is the definition of "public school district" for accountability   |
| purposes the same as other definitions of "public school district"    |
| used by the state, e.g., are the district ID codes the same in the    |
| state databases?***                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| It is broader, but there will be school ID codes for all              |
| (region/county/district school codes).                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# SECTION D. The full state accountability system

*States are responsible for incorporating AYP determinations into the
full accountability system and to report these results to the public.
Section D is designed to evaluate states' evidence through the following
three criteria:*

-   *The integration of AYP determinations into the full accountability
    system.*

-   *The state's approach to meeting the reporting requirements of
    NCLB.*

-   *The state's approach for incorporating proposed changes to the
    assessment system into the accountability system.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***D1. HOW IS THE CALCULATION OF AYP INTEGRATED INTO THE EXISTING (IF |
| APPLICABLE) STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM, INCLUDING REWARDS AND        |
| SANCTIONS (ELEMENT 1.6)?***                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Please provide evidence that the State has incorporated, if        |
| applicable, determinations of AYP into the existing State             |
| Accountability System.***                                             |
|                                                                       |
| [Rewards]{.underline}                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Illinois has in place a system of rewards based on criteria set by    |
| the State. These rewards are aligned with *NCLB* criteria, including  |
| AYP, and can be applied uniformly across public schools and districts |
| regardless of Title I status. Current law in 105 ILCS 5/2-3.25c       |
| requires rewards to recognize and reward schools whose students       |
| perform at high levels. Illinois law in 105 ILCS 5/2-3.25c says, "The |
| State Board of Education shall implement a system of rewards to       |
| recognize and reward schools whose students perform at high levels or |
| which demonstrate outstanding improvement." The law allows districts  |
| that are in good standing and making progress to be fully recognized. |
| This means an uninterrupted flow of General State Aid.                |
|                                                                       |
| In school year 2003-2004, the Illinois State Board of Education       |
| recognized 26 Spotlight Schools that have been at odds in proving     |
| that the gap between low income and achievement can be closed. The    |
| selection criteria include:                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   At least 50% low-income students in 2002 and 2003.                |
|                                                                       |
| -   At least 50% of students meet or exceed state standards in        |
|     reading and math in 2003.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   At least 60% of students meet or exceed state standards in        |
|     reading and math in 2003.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   AYP as prescribed by *NCLB*, 2003. This includes a 95%            |
|     participation rate in state assessments for all students and for  |
|     each subgroup, at least 40% of students meet or exceed state      |
|     standards in both reading and math, an attendance rate of at      |
|     least 88% for elementary and middle schools, and a 65% graduation |
|     rate for high schools.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| In April 2004, the State Board of Education approved criteria for     |
| schools to meet in order to receive recognition through an Academic   |
| Improvement Awards program:                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   make AYP in 2003,                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   have state test results that indicate an upward trend, and        |
|                                                                       |
| -   show at least 7.5% improvement in scores between 2002 and 2003    |
|     **or** at least 15% improvement in scores between 2001 and 2003.  |
|                                                                       |
| The 7.5% improvement increment was selected to match the projected    |
| annual academic performance targets of *NCLB*. Approximately 99       |
| schools were identified.                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year, the Illinois State Board of |
| Education recognized each school that made AYP and was removed from   |
| school improvement status by awarding certificates of recognition.    |
|                                                                       |
| [Sanctions]{.underline}                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Current law in 105 ILCS 5/2-3.25 outlines the sanctions of Academic   |
| Early Warning and Academic Watch status. Sanctions are also applied   |
| to current Title I-funded schools on those lists in terms of either   |
| public school choice, or public school choice and supplemental        |
| educational services.                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| ***Please provide evidence (e.g., legislation, State Board policies)  |
| that the State Accountability System includes rewards and sanctions   |
| for all public schools and LEAs.***                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Attachment A in the earlier documents is now Public Act 93-470 on     |
| accountability, incorporating all aspects on rewards and sanctions.   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## D2. does the state me                                             |
| et the reporting requirements of no child left behind (Element 1.5)? |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| D2. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***The State shall provide evidence that the State Report Card is    |
| available to the public and is accessible in languages of major      |
| populations in the state and districts, to the extent possible. The  |
| State shall provide evidence that the State Report Card includes all |
| of the required data elements.***                                    |
|                                                                      |
| Illinois has had an Illinois School Report Card in place since the   |
| late 1980s. Beginning with 2001, the state issued school, district,  |
| and state report cards. The report cards were modified in 2002 so    |
| that the components met the requirements of *NCLB*. Student          |
| assessment data are disaggregated for AYP purposes. Additional       |
| information, such as migrant status and gender, is reported,         |
| although this information is not included in the AYP calculations.   |
| Teacher quality information is also reported. The report cards are   |
| also available in Spanish.                                           |
|                                                                      |
| The school report card can be found at the following Web site        |
| location:                                                            |
| <htt                                                                 |
| p://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getSearchCriteria.aspx>. |
|                                                                      |
| The report cards are distributed every fall, posted on the Illinois  |
| State Board of Education Web site, and linked to all school          |
| districts. According to a 2002 state law, districts may display the  |
| report card on their Web sites in lieu of distributing a paper copy  |
| (although paper copies must be made available upon request). Since   |
| the school report cards are generally in excess of 20 pages, that    |
| process was well received in 2002.                                   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## D3. How is the calculation of ayp integrated into proposed cha     |
| nges in the state assessment and accountability system (Element 9.3)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| D3. STATE EVIDENCE and STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Indicate the schedule for introducing or revising assessments      |
| required for NCLB. M=Math, E=ELA, S=Science, O=other (explain).***    |
|                                                                       |
| Attachment C, as delineated in the original workbook, shows the       |
| current test situation for ISAT, PSAE, and IAA. Attachment C also     |
| shows the proposed testing schedule for the missing grades to meet    |
| *NCLB* testing requirements -- grades 4, 6, and 7 in reading/language |
| arts and math.                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# SECTION E. Reliability and validity of the state accountability system

*States are responsible for designing and implementing approaches for
determining AYP that meet important professional and technical criteria.
Section E is designed to evaluate states' validity and reliability
evidence and approaches.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## E1. How do AYP determination                                       |
| s meet the State's standard for acceptable reliability (Element 9.1)? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| E1. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***The State shall identify the*** ***minimum values for acceptable   |
| levels of reliability/decision consistency and provide a rationale    |
| for this determination.***                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Decisions regarding all schools and districts are based on the same   |
| valid and reliable information--95% participation, state assessments, |
| and academic indicators (graduation at the high school level and      |
| attendance at the elementary/middle school levels).                   |
|                                                                       |
| The current assessment system has evidence of the validity and        |
| reliability of the ISAT and PSAE tests (see                           |
| <http://www.isbe.net/assessment/default.htm> for external studies and |
| technical manuals for each assessment). In addition, extensive        |
| simulations were performed to estimate the reliability and power of   |
| the proposed AYP system, as based on a 95% Confidence Interval        |
| approach.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| ***The State shall present evidence of having an approach for         |
| determining the reliability (decision consistency) for AYP            |
| decisions.***                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| The rationale for selecting a 95% Confidence Interval approach as     |
| Illinois' criterion for groups' consideration for AYP was described   |
| earlier in Section A-6. The following discusses the implications for  |
| the decision consistency of classifying schools as making AYP or not  |
| making AYP as associated with this criterion.                         |
|                                                                       |
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **[Overview]{.underline}**                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Basic statistical considerations require that Illinois' (or any       |
| other) decision rule be neutral whenever all student subgroups in a   |
| school just make AYP. In other words, given that we recognize the     |
| existence of student sampling fluctuations and measurement errors,    |
| this requirement implies that the probability (P) of deciding AYP vs. |
| no-AYP should be 0.5 in this case. The following notation is          |
| introduced:                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   *[NCLB]{.underline}* represents the proportion of meeting         |
|     students required by *NCLB* in each of the subgroups.             |
|                                                                       |
| -   [act]{.underline} represents the assumed actual proportion of     |
|     students meeting in ***each*** of the subgroups which meet        |
|     minimum size (see Table 4).                                       |
|                                                                       |
| The preceding can thus be restated as:                                |
|                                                                       |
| P(AYP\| *NCLB* = act) = P(no-AYP\| *NCLB* = act) = 0.5 (Eq. 1)        |
|                                                                       |
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Moreover, for the decision to be unbiased, it is desirable that the   |
| decision rule should conclude that schools made AYP or did not make   |
| AYP [regardless]{.underline} of the direction of the difference       |
| between *NCLB* and act (i.e., falling short or exceeding *NCLB* by    |
| the same percentage meeting students should affect the decisions      |
| identically). In other words, it is desirable to identify "false      |
| positives" and "false negatives" with similar probabilities.          |
| Accordingly, it should be true for all positive differences "d":      |
|                                                                       |
| P(AYP\| *NCLB*-act = d) = P(no-AYP\| act-*NCLB* = d) (Eq. 1)          |
|                                                                       |
| Since AYP depends essentially on the weakest subgroup, it is to be    |
| expected that Eq. 1 will be violated. For this reason, we also        |
| consider:                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| P(AYP\| v-d) = 1- P(AYP\| v+d), (Eq. 2)                               |
|                                                                       |
| where v = act-*NCLB*, and d is an offset correction factor.           |
|                                                                       |
| **[Procedure and Results]{.underline}**                               |
|                                                                       |
| The probabilities P(AYP\| *NCLB*, act) were estimated for *NCLB* and  |
| act ranging from 0.1, 0.2,..., 0.9, thus yielding 81 combinations.    |
| This was achieved by assigning to each student a probability act of   |
| meeting standards, and requiring that the proportion of meeting       |
| students per group equals the value *NCLB* in all such groups. As     |
| before, it was assumed throughout that reading and mathematics follow |
| a bivariate normal distribution with r = 0.80. Within each school,    |
| students' actual group memberships were used, provided they met the   |
| minimum subgroup size, based on bootstrap resampling. For each        |
| school, the procedure was repeated 1,000 times, thus yielding         |
| reasonably stable estimates of P(AYP\| act, *NCLB*). The statewide    |
| results (i.e., averaged over all Illinois schools) are summarized in  |
| Figure 8, in which each line represents a particular level act of     |
| student achievement, while the proportion of meeting students as      |
| required by *NCLB* varies along the X-axis.                           |
|                                                                       |
| **[Figure 8.]{.underline}**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image7.wmf)                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| It can be seen that, contrary to our requirements, P(AYP\| act =      |
| *NCLB*) differs from 0.5 (labeled "Most desirable"), and in fact the  |
| overall value for this probability is about ¼. Thus, in cases where   |
| schools should have a 50% chance of making AYP, their actual chance   |
| of doing so is far smaller. Accordingly, decisions might be *severely |
| biased **against** borderline schools*, regardless of any additional  |
| decision criteria being used.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **[Correcting Decision Bias]{.underline}**                            |
|                                                                       |
| To facilitate dealing with the decision bias, it is convenient to use |
| a mathematical approximation to the empirical curves in Figure 8.     |
| Already the shapes of these curves suggest a logistic equation, and   |
| hence an equation of this type was fitted using all of the 81 points  |
| using nonlinear methods. This approach proved to be highly successful |
| as the equation:                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image8.wmf) (Eq. 3)                                         |
|                                                                       |
| provides an excellent fit to the data *(R^2^ = 0.99962, RSM \<        |
| 0.001).*                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Given that Equation 3 provides a close approximation to the curves in |
| Figure 8, this fact implies that it is possible to derive an          |
| approximate correction to arrive at a less biased decision rule. In   |
| particular, to avoid the decision-making bias described above, the    |
| lower bound of the Confidence Interval **must be lower** than the     |
| *NCLB* criterion (i.e., π~Scheduled~).                                |
|                                                                       |
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| [Conclusion]{.underline}                                              |
|                                                                       |
| The preceding indicates that using null hypotheses of the type:       |
|                                                                       |
| H~0~: π~g~ \> π~Schedule~ (i.e., for each subgroup in a school)       |
|                                                                       |
| introduces bias at the school level by rejecting this H~0~ more often |
| than is actually warranted. However, it was also found that using **a |
| smaller value**, π~Schedule,~ largely corrects for this bias in the   |
| aggregate. Since the size of the Confidence Interval "shrinks" with   |
| increasing subgroup size, **one might ask if** this factor has to be  |
| taken into consideration.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **[Figure 9.]{.underline}**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image9.wmf)                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| As illustrated in Figure 9, for the case of π~Scheduled~ = 0.475, the |
| lower bound on this parameter falls below π~Scheduled~ -- 0.03 =      |
| 0.437 for subgroups up to subgroup sizes of about 740. Stated         |
| differently, at least for subgroups up to about 740 students, our use |
| of a 95% Confidence Interval is unbiased and decreasing the lower     |
| bound has little if any further beneficial effects. Accordingly, the  |
| use of a standard Confidence Interval approach will not lead to       |
| noticeably biased decisions.                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## E2. is the state accountability system v                          |
| alid for the uses required under no child left BEHIND (Element 9.2)? |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| E2. STATE EVIDENCE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***The State shall provide evidence that its proposed methods for    |
| calculating AYP were developed and are being implemented to maximize |
| the validity of the inferences being derived from the system. The    |
| State shall provide a plan for evaluating its proposed               |
| accountability system.***                                            |
|                                                                      |
| A recommendation was made in the Peer Review Process of March 27,    |
| 2003, that there be a written appeals policy that explicitly deals   |
| with errors in identification of schools. There are two practices in |
| place in Illinois at this time:                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Technical errors. \[In the original application\], attached were |
|     several items in one document--the Guidelines to Verify          |
|     Individual Student ISAT Scores, Verifying Individual Student     |
|     Scores on the Illinois Alternate Assessment, Score Verification  |
|     Reviews that Change School or District Results (on one or more   |
|     state assessments), and Requests for Reprints of Writing         |
|     Essays--all of August 2, 2002.                                   |
|                                                                      |
| 2.  Correcting errors of placing the school or district in the       |
|     Academic Early Warning or Academic Watch status incorrectly.     |
|     Past practice, as evidenced in State Board minutes again in      |
|     2003, showed that when a school (or district) is stated to be in |
|     either status incorrectly, they can be removed after a review of |
|     the data. Sometimes the scores have been verified as noted       |
|     above; on other occasions the school configuration data are      |
|     different from previous years, or some other factual matter has  |
|     changed but the state educational agency was not informed.       |
|                                                                      |
| In addition to the \"technical corrections\" processes currently in  |
| place and described above, Public Act 93-470 of 2003 establishes a   |
| representative advisory committee to hear school and district        |
| appeals of their Academic Early Warning or Academic Watch status.    |
| This committee forwards their recommendations to the State           |
| Superintendent of Education, who in turn forwards his                |
| recommendations to the State Board of Education for its              |
| consideration and disposition of appeals.                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Attachment A**

**Public Act 93-426 of 2003 and**

**Public Act 93-470 of 2003**

**Public Act 093-0426**

**Public Act 93-0426**

HB2352 Enrolled LRB093 03343 NHT 03361 b

AN ACT to implement the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

WHEREAS, The General Assembly supports enhancement of the current State
assessment system in order to develop an appropriate, high-quality,
statewide K-12 assessment system, based on the Illinois Learning
Standards; and

WHEREAS, This enhanced statewide assessment system must have a high
level of credibility, reliability, and validity and must provide
continuity with the assessment system in place prior to the changes made
by this amendatory Act of the 93rd General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, A credible, reliable, and valid assessment system should allow
school districts to reduce local assessments; once the State assessment
system is fully implemented in the 2005-2006 school year, school
districts are encouraged and expected to reduce the local assessments of
students in the grades and subjects assessed by the State; and

WHEREAS, The changes in the assessment system made by this amendatory
Act of the 93rd General Assembly are a direct result of the federal No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), which requires the
testing of all students as well as enhancements to the system in order
to provide timely results that are meaningful and educationally useful
for educators, parents, and the broader community; therefore

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the
General Assembly:

Section 5. The School Code is amended by changing Section 2-3.64 as
follows: (105 ILCS 5/2-3.64) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.64)

Sec. 2-3.64. State goals and assessment.

\(a\) Beginning in the 1998-1999 school year, the State Board of
Education shall establish standards and periodically, in collaboration
with local school districts, conduct studies of student performance in
the learning areas of fine arts and physical development/health.

Beginning with the 1998-1999 school year until the 2005-2006 school year
at the latest, the State Board of Education shall annually test: (i) all
pupils enrolled in the 3rd, 5th, and 8th grades in English language arts
(reading, writing, and English grammar) and mathematics; and (ii) all
pupils enrolled in the 4th and 7th grades in the biological and physical
sciences and the social sciences (history, geography, civics, economics,
and government). The maximum time allowed for all actual testing
required under this paragraph shall not exceed 25 hours, as allocated
among the required tests by the State Board of Education, across all
grades tested.

Beginning no later than the 2005-2006 school year, the State Board of
Education shall annually test: (i) all pupils enrolled in the 3rd, 4th,
5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades in reading and mathematics; (ii) all
pupils enrolled in 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 8th grades in writing; (iii) all
pupils enrolled in the 4th and 7th grades in the biological and physical
sciences; and (iv) all pupils enrolled in 5th and 8th grades in the
social sciences (history, geography, economics, civics, and government).
The State Board of Education shall sample student performance in the
learning area of physical development and health in grades 4 and 7
through the science tests and in the learning area of fine arts in
grades 5 and 8 through the social sciences tests. After the addition of
subjects and grades as delineated in this paragraph and including
whatever other tests that may be approved from time to time no later
than the 2005-2006 school year, the maximum time allowed for all State
testing in grades 3 through 8 shall not exceed 38 hours across those
grades.

The State Board of Education shall establish the academic standards that
are to be applicable to pupils who are subject to State tests under this
Section beginning with the 1998-1999 school year. However, the State
Board of Education shall not establish any such standards in final form
without first providing opportunities for public participation and local
input in the development of the final academic standards. Those
opportunities shall include a well-publicized period of public comment,
public hearings throughout the State, and opportunities to file written
comments. Beginning with the 1998-99 school year and thereafter, the
State tests will identify pupils in the 3^rd^ grade or 5th grade who do
not meet the State standards.

If, by performance on the State tests or local assessments or by teacher
judgment, a student\'s performance is determined to be 2 or more grades
below current placement, the student shall be provided a remediation
program developed by the district in consultation with a parent or
guardian. Such remediation programs may include, but shall not be
limited to, increased or concentrated instructional time, a remedial
summer school program of not less than 90 hours, improved instructional
approaches, tutorial sessions, retention in grade, and modifications to
instructional materials. Each pupil for whom a remediation program is
developed under this subsection shall be required to enroll in and
attend whatever program the district determines is appropriate for the
pupil. Districts may combine students in remediation programs where
appropriate and may cooperate with other districts in the design and
delivery of those programs. The parent or guardian of a student required
to attend a remediation program under this Section shall be given
written notice of that requirement by the school district a reasonable
time prior to commencement of the remediation program that the student
is to attend. The State shall be responsible for providing school
districts with the new and additional funding, under Section 2-3.51.5 or
by other or additional means, that is required to enable the districts
to operate remediation programs for the pupils who are required to
enroll in and attend those programs under this Section. Every
individualized educational program as described in Article 14 shall
identify if the State test or components thereof are appropriate for
that student. The State Board of Education shall develop rules and
regulations governing the administration of alternative tests prescribed
within each student\'s individualized educational program which are
appropriate to the disability of each student.

All pupils who are in a State approved transitional bilingual education
program or transitional program of instruction shall participate in the
State tests. Any student who has been enrolled in a State approved
bilingual education program less than 3 cumulative academic years may
take an accommodated State test, to be known as the Illinois Measure of
Annual Growth in English (IMAGE), if the student\'s lack of English as
determined by an English language proficiency test would keep the
student from understanding the regular State test. If the school
district determines, on a case-by-case individual basis, that IMAGE
would likely yield more accurate and reliable information on what the
student knows and can do, the school district may make a determination
to assess the student using IMAGE for a period that does not exceed 2
additional consecutive years, provided that the student has not yet
reached a level of English language proficiency sufficient to yield
valid and reliable information on what the student knows and can do on
the regular State test.

Reasonable accommodations as prescribed by the State Board of Education
shall be provided for individual students in the testing procedure. All
test procedures prescribed by the State Board of Education shall
require: (i) that each test used for State and local student testing
under this Section identify by name the pupil taking the test; (ii) that
the name of the pupil taking the test be placed on the test at the time
the test is taken; (iii) that the results or scores of each test taken
under this Section by a pupil of the school district be reported to that
district and identify by name the pupil who received the reported
results or scores; and (iv) that the results or scores of each test
taken under this Section be made available to the parents of the pupil.
In addition, in each school year the highest scores attained by a
student on the Prairie State Achievement Examination administered under
subsection (c) of this Section and any Prairie State Achievement Awards
received by the student shall become part of the student\'s permanent
record and shall be entered on the student\'s transcript pursuant to
regulations that the State Board of Education shall promulgate for that
purpose in accordance with Section 3 and subsection (e) of Section 2 of
the Illinois School Student Records Act. Beginning with the 1998-1999
school year and in every school year thereafter, scores received by
students on the State assessment tests administered in grades 3 through
8 shall be placed into students\' temporary records.

The State Board of Education shall establish a period of time, to be
referred to as the State test window, in each school year for which
State testing shall occur to meet the objectives of this Section.
However, if the schools of a district are closed and classes are not
scheduled during any week that is established by the State Board of
Education as the State test window the school district may (at the
discretion of the State Board of Education) move its State test window
one week earlier or one week later than the established State test
window, so long as the school district gives the State Board of
Education written notice of its intention to deviate from the
established schedule by December 1 of the school year in which falls the
State test window established by the State Board of Education for the
testing.

(a-5) All tests administered pursuant to this Section shall be
academically based. For the purposes of this Section \"academically
based tests\" shall mean tests consisting of questions and answers that
are measurable and quantifiable to measure the knowledge, skill, and
ability of students in the subject matters covered by tests. The scoring
of academically based tests shall be reliable, valid, unbiased and shall
meet the guidelines for test development and use prescribed by the
American Psychological Association, the National Council of Measurement
and Evaluation, and the American Educational Research Association.
Academically based tests shall not include assessments or evaluations of
attitudes, values, or beliefs, or testing of personality, self-esteem,
or self-concept. Nothing in this amendatory Act is intended, nor shall
it be construed, to nullify, supersede, or contradict the legislative
intent on academic testing expressed during the passage of HB 1005/P.A.
90-296. Nothing in this Section is intended, nor shall it be construed,
to nullify, supersede, or contradict the legislative intent on academic
testing expressed in the preamble of this amendatory Act of the 93rd
General Assembly.

The State Board of Education shall monitor the use of short answer
questions in the math and reading assessments or in other assessments in
order to demonstrate that the use of short answer questions results in a
statistically significant improvement in student achievement as measured
on the State assessments for math and reading and is justifiable in
terms of cost and student performance. (b) It shall be the policy of the
State to encourage school districts to continuously test pupil
proficiency in the fundamental learning areas in order to: (i) provide
timely information on individual students\' performance relative to
State standards that is adequate to guide Instructional strategies; (ii)
improve future instruction; and (iii) complement the information
provided by the State testing system described in this Section. Each
district\'s school improvement plan must address specific activities the
district intends to implement to assist pupils who by teacher judgment
and test results as prescribed in subsection (a) of this Section
demonstrate that they are not meeting State standards or local
objectives. Such activities may include, but shall not be limited to,
summer school, extended school day, special homework, tutorial sessions,
modified instructional materials, other modifications in the
instructional program, reduced class size or retention in grade. To
assist school districts in testing pupil proficiency in reading in the
primary grades, the State Board shall make optional reading inventories
for diagnostic purposes available to each school district that requests
such assistance. Districts that administer the reading inventories may
develop remediation programs for students who perform in the bottom half
of the student population. Those remediation programs may be funded by
moneys provided under the School Safety and Educational Improvement
Block Grant Program established under Section 2-3.51.5. Nothing in this
Section shall prevent school districts from implementing testing and
remediation policies for grades not required under this Section.

\(c\) Beginning with the 2000-2001 school year, each school district
that operates a high school program for students in grades 9 through 12
shall annually administer the Prairie State Achievement Examination
established under this subsection to its students as set forth below.
The Prairie State Achievement Examination shall be developed by the
State Board of Education to measure student performance in the academic
areas of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social sciences.
The State Board of Education shall establish the academic standards that
are to apply in measuring student performance on the Prairie State
Achievement Examination including the minimum examination score in each
area that will qualify a student to receive a Prairie State Achievement
Award from the State in recognition of the student\'s excellent
performance. Each school district that is subject to the requirements of
this subsection (c) shall afford all students 2 opportunities to take
the Prairie State Achievement Examination beginning as late as practical
during the second semester of grade 11, but in no event before March 1.
The State Board of Education shall annually notify districts of the
weeks during which these test administrations shall be required to
occur. Every individualized educational program as described in Article
14 shall identify if the Prairie State Achievement Examination or
components thereof are appropriate for that student. Each student,
exclusive of a student whose individualized educational program
developed under Article 14 identifies the Prairie State Achievement
Examination as inappropriate for the student, shall be required to take
the examination in grade 11. For each academic area the State Board of
Education shall establish the score that qualifies for the Prairie State
Achievement Award on that portion of the examination. Any student who
fails to earn a qualifying score for a Prairie State Achievement Award
in any one or more of the academic areas on the initial test
administration or who wishes to improve his or her score on any portion
of the examination shall be permitted to retake such portion or portions
of the examination during grade 12. Districts shall inform their
students of the timelines and procedures applicable to their
participation in every yearly administration of the Prairie State
Achievement Examination. Students receiving special education services
whose individualized educational programs identify the Prairie State
Achievement Examination as inappropriate for them nevertheless shall
have the option of taking the examination, which shall be administered
to those students in accordance with standards adopted by the State
Board of Education to accommodate the respective disabilities of those
students. A student who successfully completes all other applicable high
school graduation requirements but fails to receive a score on the
Prairie State Achievement Examination that qualifies the student for
receipt of a Prairie State Achievement Award shall nevertheless qualify
for the receipt of a regular high school diploma.

\(d\) Beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, all schools in this
State that are part of the sample drawn by the National Center for
Education Statistics, in collaboration with their school districts and
the State Board of Education, shall administer the biennial State
academic assessments of 4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics under
the National Assessment of Educational Progress carried out under
Section m11(b)(2) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20
U.S.C. 9010) if the Secretary of Education pays the costs of
administering the assessments.

\(e\) Beginning no later than the 2005-2006 school year, subject to
available federal funds to this State for the purpose of student
assessment, the State Board of Education shall provide additional tests
and assessment resources that may be used by school districts for local
diagnostic purposes. These tests and resources shall include without
limitation additional high school writing, physical development and
health, and fine arts assessments. The State Board of Education shall
annually distribute a listing of these additional tests and resources,
using funds available from appropriations made for student assessment
purposes.

\(f\) For the assessment and accountability purposes of this Section,
all pupils\" includes those pupils enrolled in a public or
State-operated elementary school, secondary school, or cooperative or
joint agreement with a governing body or board of control, a charter
school operating in compliance with the Charter Schools Law, a school
operated by a regional office of education under Section 13A-3 of this
Code, or a public school administered by a local public agency or the
Department of Human Services. (Source: P.A. 91-283, eff. 7-29-99;
92-604, eff. 7-1-02.)

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

**Effective Date:** 08/05/03

**Public Act 093-0470**

**Public Act 93-0470**

AN ACT to implement the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the
General Assembly:

Section 5. The School Code is amended by changing Sections 2-3.25a,
2-3.25b, 2-3.25c, 2-3.25d, 2-3.25e, 2-3.25f, 2-3.25g, 2-3.25h, 2-3.25i,
2-3.25j, 7-8, 7A-15, 11A-17, 11B-14, 11D-12, and 21-27 and adding
Sections 2-3.25m and 2-3.25n as follows:

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25a) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25a)

Sec. 2-3.25a. \"School district\" defined; additional standards.

\(a\) For the purposes of this Section and Sections 3.25b, 3.25c, 3.25d,
3.25e, and 3.25f of this Code, \"school district\" includes other public
entities responsible for administering public schools, such as
cooperatives, joint agreements, charter schools, special charter
districts, regional offices of education, local agencies, and the
Department of Human Services.

\(b\) In addition to the standards established pursuant to Section
2-3.25, the State Board of Education shall develop recognition standards
for student performance and school improvement in all public schools
operated by school districts. The indicators to determine adequate
yearly progress shall be limited to the State assessment of student
performance in reading and mathematics, student attendance rates at the
elementary school level, graduation rates at the high school level, and
participation rates on student assessments. The standards shall be
designed to permit the measurement of student performance and school
improvement by schools and school districts compared to student
performance and school improvement for the preceding academic years.
(Source: P.A. 89-398, eff. 8-20-95.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25b) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25b)

Sec. 2-3.25b. Recognition levels. The State Board of Education shall,
consistent with adopted recognition standards, provide for levels of
recognition or nonrecognition. The State Board of Education shall
promulgate rules governing the procedures whereby school districts may
appeal a recognition level.

The State Board of Education shall have the authority to collect from
schools and school districts the information, data, test results,
student performance and school improvement indicators as may be
necessary to implement and carry out the purposes of this Act. (Source:
P.A. 89-398, eff. 8-20-95.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25c) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25c)

Sec. 2-3.25c. Rewards and acknowledgements. The State Board of Education
shall implement a system of rewards for school districts, and the
schools themselves, whose students and schools consistently meet
adequate yearly progress criteria for 2 or more consecutive years and a
system to acknowledge schools and districts that meet adequate yearly
progress criteria in a given year as specified in Section 2-3.25d of
this Code~~.~~

If a school or school district meets adequate yearly progress criteria
for 2 consecutive school years, that school or district shall be exempt
from review and approval of its improvement plan for the next 2
succeeding school years. (Source: P.A. 87-559.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25d) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25d)

Sec. 2-3.25d. Academic early warning and watch status
~~[list]{.underline}~~.

\(a\) Those schools that do not meet adequate yearly progress criteria,
as specified by the State Board of Education, for 2 consecutive annual
calculations, shall be placed on academic early warning status for the
next school year. Schools on academic early warning status that do not
meet adequate yearly progress criteria for a third annual calculation
shall remain on academic early warning status. Schools on academic early
warning status that do not meet adequate yearly progress criteria for a
fourth annual calculation shall be placed on initial academic watch
status. Schools on academic watch status that do not meet adequate
yearly progress criteria for a fifth or subsequent annual calculation
shall remain on academic watch status. Schools on academic early warning
or academic watch status that meet adequate yearly progress criteria for
one annual calculation shall be acknowledged for making improvement and
shall maintain their current statuses for the next school year. Schools
on academic early warning or academic watch status that meet adequate
yearly progress criteria for 2 consecutive annual calculations shall be
considered as having met expectations and shall be removed from any
status designation.

The school district of a school placed on either academic early warning
status or academic watch status may appeal the status to the State Board
of Education in accordance with Section 2-3.25m of this Code.

A school district that has one or more schools on academic early warning
or academic watch status shall prepare a revised School Improvement Plan
or amendments thereto setting forth the district\'s expectations for
removing each school from academic early warning or academic watch
status and for improving student performance in the affected school or
schools. Districts operating under Article 34 of this Code

may prepare the School Improvement Plan required under Section 34-2.4 of
this Code. The revised School Improvement Plan for a school that is
initially placed on academic early warning status or that remains on
academic early warning status after a third annual calculation must be
approved by the school board (and by the school\'s local school council
in a district operating under Article 34 of this Code, unless the school
is on probation pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 34-8.3 of this
Code). The revised School Improvement Plan for a school placed on
initial academic watch status after a fourth annual calculation must be
approved by the school board (and by the school\'s local school council
in a district operating under Article 34 of this Code, unless the school
is on probation pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 34-8.3 of this
Code) and the State Superintendent of Education.

The revised School Improvement Plan for a school that remains on
academic watch status after a fifth annual calculation must be approved
by the school board (and by the school\'s local school council in a
district operating under Article 34 of this Code, unless the school is
on probation pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 34-8.3 of this Code)
and the State Superintendent of Education. In addition, the district
must develop a school restructuring plan for the school that must be
approved by the school board (and by the school\'s local school council
in a district operating under Article 34 of this Code) and subsequently
approved by the State Superintendent of Education.

A school on academic watch status that does not meet adequate yearly
progress criteria for a sixth annual calculation shall implement its
approved school restructuring plan beginning with the next school year,
subject to the State interventions specified in Section 2-3.25f of this
Code.

\(b\) Those school districts that do not meet adequate yearly progress
criteria, as specified by the State Board of Education, for 2
consecutive annual calculations, shall be placed on academic early
warning status for the next school year. Districts on academic early
warning status that do not meet adequate yearly progress criteria for a
third annual calculation shall remain on academic early warning status.
Districts on academic early warning status that do not meet adequate
yearly progress criteria for a fourth annual calculation shall be placed
on initial academic watch status. Districts on academic watch status
that do not meet adequate yearly progress criteria for a fifth or
subsequent annual calculation shall remain on academic watch status.
Districts on academic early warning or academic watch status that meet
adequate yearly progress criteria for one annual calculation shall be
acknowledged for making improvement and shall maintain their current
statuses for the next school year.

Districts on academic early warning or academic watch status that meet
adequate yearly progress criteria for 2 consecutive annual calculations
shall be considered as having met expectations and shall be removed from
any status designation.

A district placed on either academic early warning status or academic
watch status may appeal the status to the State Board of Education in
accordance with Section 2-3.25m of this Code.

Districts on academic early warning or academic watch status shall
prepare a District Improvement Plan or amendments thereto setting forth
the district\'s expectations for removing the district from academic
early warning or academic watch status and for improving student
performance in the district.

The District Improvement Plan for a district that is initially placed on
academic early warning status must be approved by the school board.

The revised District Improvement Plan for a district that remains on
academic early warning status after a third annual calculation must be
approved by the school board.

The revised District Improvement Plan for a district on initial academic
watch status after a fourth annual calculation must be approved by the
school board and the State Superintendent of Education.

The revised District Improvement Plan for a district that remains on
academic watch status after a fifth annual calculation must be approved
by the school board and the State Superintendent of Education. In
addition, the district must develop a district restructuring plan that
must be approved by the school board and the State Superintendent of

Education.

A district on academic watch status that does not meet adequate yearly
progress criteria for a sixth annual calculation shall implement its
approved district restructuring plan beginning with the next school
year, subject to the State interventions specified in Section 2-3.25f of
this Code.

\(c\) All revised School and District Improvement Plans shall be
developed in collaboration with staff in the affected school or school
district. All revised School and District Improvement Plans shall be
developed, submitted, and approved pursuant to rules adopted by the
State Board of Education. The revised Improvement Plan shall address
measurable outcomes for improving student performance so that such
performance meets adequate yearly progress criteria as specified by the
State Board of Education.

\(d\) All federal requirements apply to schools and school districts
utilizing federal funds under Title I, Part A of the federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (Source: P.A. 89-398, eff. 8-20-95;
89-698, eff. 1-14-97.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25e) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25e)

Sec. 2-3.25e. School and district improvement panels. A school or school
district on academic watch status shall have a school or district
improvement panel appointed by the State Superintendent of Education.
Members appointed to the panel shall include, but not be limited to,
individuals who are familiar with educational issues. The State
Superintendent of Education shall designate one member of the panel to
serve as chairman. Any panel appointed for a school operated under
Article 34 of the School Code shall include one or more members selected
from the school\'s subdistrict council and one or more members from the
school\'s local school council. The school or district improvement panel
shall (1) assist the school or district in the development and
implementation of a revised Improvement Plan and amendments thereto
and~~,~~ (2) make progress reports and comments to the State
Superintendent of Education pursuant to rules promulgated by the State
Board of Education

(Source: P.A. 89-398, eff. 8-20-95; 89-698, eff. 1-14-97.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25f) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25f)

Sec. 2-3.25f. State interventions.

\(a\) A school or school district must submit the required revised
Improvement Plan pursuant to rules adopted by the State Board of
Education. The State Board of Education shall provide technical
assistance to assist with the development and implementation of the
improvement plan.

Schools or school districts that fail to make reasonable efforts to
implement an approved Improvement Plan may suffer loss of State funds by
school district, attendance center, or program as the State Board of
Education deems appropriate.

\(b\) In addition, if after 3 years following its placement on academic
watch status a school district or school remains on academic watch
status , the State Board of Education shall take one of the following
actions for the district or school:

\(1\) The State Board of Education may authorize the State
Superintendent of Education to direct the regional superintendent of
schools to remove school board members pursuant to Section 3-14.28 of
this Code. Prior to such direction the State Board of Education shall
permit members of the local board of education to present written and
oral comments to the State Board of Education. The State Board of
Education may direct the State Superintendent of Education to appoint an
Independent Authority that shall exercise such powers and duties as may
be necessary to operate a school or school district for purposes of
improving pupil performance and school improvement. The State
Superintendent of Education shall designate one member of the
Independent Authority to serve as chairman. The Independent Authority
shall serve for a period of time specified by the State Board of
Education upon the recommendation of the State Superintendent of
Education. (2) The State Board of Education may (A) change the
recognition status of the school district or school to nonrecognized or
(B) authorize the State Superintendent of Education to direct the
reassignment of pupils or direct the reassignment or replacement of
school district personnel who are relevant to the failure to meet
adequate yearly progress criteria. If a school district is nonrecognized
in its entirety, it shall automatically be dissolved on July 1 following
that nonrecognition and its territory realigned with another school
district or districts by the regional board of school trustees in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 7-11 of the School
Code. The effective date of the nonrecognition of a school shall be July
1 following the nonrecognition.

\(c\) All federal requirements apply to schools and school districts
utilizing federal funds under Title I, Part A of the federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (Source: P.A. 89-398, eff. 8-20-95;
89-698, eff. 1-14-97.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25g) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25g)

Sec. 2-3.25g. Waiver or modification of mandates within the School Code
and administrative rules and regulations. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this School Code or any other law of this State to the
contrary, school districts may petition the State Board of Education for
the waiver or modification of the mandates of this School Code or of the
administrative rules and regulations promulgated by the State Board of
Education. Waivers or modifications of administrative rules and
regulations and modifications of mandates of this School Code may be
requested when a school district demonstrates that it can address the
intent of the rule or mandate in a more effective, efficient, or
economical manner or when necessary to stimulate innovation or improve
student performance. Waivers of mandates of the School Code may be
requested when the waivers are necessary to stimulate innovation or
improve student performance. Waivers may not be requested from laws,
rules, and regulations pertaining to special education, teacher
certification, or teacher tenure and seniority or from compliance with
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110).

School districts, as a matter of inherent managerial policy, and any
Independent Authority established under Section 2-3.25f may submit an
application for a waiver or modification authorized under this Section.
Each application must include a written request by the school district
or Independent Authority and must demonstrate that the intent of the
mandate can be addressed in a more effective, efficient, or economical
manner or be based upon a specific plan for improved student performance
and school improvement. Any district requesting a waiver or modification
for the reason that intent of the mandate can be addressed in a more
economical manner shall include in the application a fiscal analysis
showing current expenditures on the mandate and projected savings
resulting from the waiver or modification. Applications and plans
developed by school districts must be approved by each board of
education following a public hearing on the application and plan and the
opportunity for the board to hear testimony from educators directly
involved in its implementation, parents, and students. The public
hearing must be preceded by at least one published notice occurring at
least 7 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation
within the school district that sets forth the time, date, place, and
general subject matter of the hearing. The school district must notify
in writing the affected exclusive collective bargaining agent of the
district\'s intent to seek approval of a waiver or modification and of
the hearing to be held to take testimony from educators. The affected
exclusive collective bargaining agents shall be notified of such public
hearing at least 7 days prior to the date of the hearing and shall be
allowed to attend such public hearing.

A request for a waiver or modification of administrative rules and
regulations or for a modification of mandates contained in this School
Code shall be submitted to the State Board of Education within 15 days
after approval by the board of education. Following receipt of the
request, the State Board shall have 45 days to review the application
and request. If the State Board fails to disapprove the application
within that 45 day period, the waiver or modification shall be deemed
granted. The State Board may disapprove any request if it is not based
upon sound educational practices, endangers the health or safety of
students or staff, compromises equal opportunities for learning, or
fails to demonstrate that the intent of the rule or mandate can be
addressed in a more effective, efficient, or economical manner or have
improved student performance as a primary goal. Any request disapproved
by the State Board may be appealed to the General Assembly by the
requesting school district as outlined in this Section.

A request for a waiver from mandates contained in this School Code shall
be submitted to the State Board within 15 days after approval by the
board of education. The State Board shall review the applications and
requests for completeness and shall compile the requests in reports to
be filed with the General Assembly. The State Board shall file reports
outlining the waivers requested by school districts and appeals by
school districts of requests disapproved by the State Board with the
Senate and the House of Representatives before each May 1 and October 1.
The General Assembly may disapprove the report of the State Board in
whole or in part within 30 calendar days after each house of the General
Assembly next convenes after the report is filed by adoption of a
resolution by a record vote of the majority of members elected in each
house. If the General Assembly fails to disapprove any waiver request or
appealed request within such 30 day period, the waiver or modification
shall be deemed granted. Any resolution adopted by the General Assembly
disapproving a report of the State Board in whole or in part shall be
binding on the State Board.

An approved waiver or modification may remain in effect for a period not
to exceed 5 school years and may be renewed upon application by the
school district. However, such waiver or modification may be changed
within that 5-year period by a local school district board following the
procedure as set forth in this Section for the initial waiver or
modification request. If neither the State Board of Education nor the
General Assembly disapproves, the change is deemed granted.

On or before February 1, 1998, and each year thereafter, the State Board
of Education shall submit a cumulative report summarizing all types of
waiver mandates and modifications of mandates granted by the State Board
or the General Assembly. The report shall identify the topic of the
waiver along with the number and percentage of school districts for
which the waiver has been granted. The report shall also include any
recommendations from the State Board regarding the repeal or
modification of waived mandates. (Source: P.A. 89-3, eff. 2-27-95;
89-626, eff. 8-9-96; 90-62,eff. 7-3-97; 90-462, eff. 8-17-97; 90-655,
eff. 7-30-98.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25h) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25h)

Sec. 2-3.25h. Technical assistance; State support services. Schools,
school districts, local school councils, school improvement panels, and
any Independent Authority established under Section 2-3.25f may receive
technical assistance that the State Board of Education shall make
available. Such technical assistance shall include without limitation
assistance in the areas of curriculum evaluation, the instructional
process, student performance, school environment, staff effectiveness,
school and community relations, parental involvement, resource
management, leadership, data analysis processes and tools, school
improvement plan guidance and feedback, information regarding
scientifically based research-proven curriculum and instruction, and
professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators.
(Source: P.A. 87-559.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25i) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25i)

Sec. 2-3.25i. Rules. The State Board of Education shall promulgate rules
and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of Public Act
87-559 and this amendatory Act of the 93rd General Assembly. The State
Board of Education may waive any of its rules or regulations which
conflict with Public Act 87-559 or this amendatory Act of the 93rd
General Assembly except those requirements for special education and
teacher certification. (Source: P.A. 87-559.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25j) (from Ch. 122, par. 2-3.25j)

Sec. 2-3.25j. Implementation. Commencing with the 1992-93 school year
and thereafter the provisions of this amendatory Act and any rules
adopted hereunder shall be implemented on a schedule identified by the
State Board of Education and incorporated as an integral part of the
recognition process of the State Board of Education. (Source: P.A.
89-398, eff. 8-20-95.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25m new)

Sec. 2-3.25m. Appeals. The appeals process outlined in this Section
applies to all appeals from school districts pertaining to school or
district status levels, recognition levels, or corrective action. The
State Board of Education shall provide notice and an opportunity for
hearing to the affected school district. The hearing shall take place
not later than 30 calendar days following receipt of the written appeal.
The appeals advisory committee created as specified in this Section may
extend the hearing under special circumstances, in consultation with the
State Superintendent of Education. The State Board of Education may take
into account exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances.

The State Board of Education shall process school and district appeals
through an appeals advisory committee. The committee shall be composed
of 9 members appointed by the State Superintendent of Education as
follows:

\(1\) One representative of each of 2 professional teachers\'
organizations.

\(2\) Two school administrators employed in the public schools of this
State who have been nominated by an administrator organization.

\(3\) One member of an organization that represents school principals.

\(4\) One member of an organization that represents both parents and
teachers.

\(5\) One representative of the business community of this State who has
been nominated by a statewide business organization.

\(6\) One representative of City of Chicago School District 299.

\(7\) One member of the public.

Five members of the committee shall serve for terms of 2 years, and 4
members shall serve for terms of 3 years. The State Superintendent of
Education shall appoint initial members on or before July 1, 2003. The
committee shall annually elect one member as chairperson.

The committee shall hear appeals and, within 30 calendar days after a
hearing, make recommendations for action to the State Superintendent of
Education. The committee shall recommend action to the State
Superintendent of Education on all appeals. The State Board of Education
shall make all final determinations.

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25n new)

Sec. 2-3.25n. No Child Left Behind Act; requirements and construction.
(a) The changes in the State accountability system made by this
amendatory Act of the 93rd General Assembly are a direct result of the
federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), which
requires that each state develop and implement a single, statewide
accountability system applicable to all schools and school districts.

\(b\) As provided in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(Public Law 107-110), nothing in this amendatory Act of the 93rd General
Assembly shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the rights,
remedies, and procedures afforded school district or school employees
under federal, State, or local law (including applicable rules,
regulations, or court orders) or under the terms of collective
bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements
between such employees and their employers.

(105 ILCS 5/7-8) (from Ch. 122, par. 7-8)

Sec. 7-8. Limitation on successive petitions. No territory, nor any part
thereof, which is involved in any proceeding to change the boundaries of
a school district by detachment from or annexation to such school
district of such territory, and which is not so detached nor annexed,
shall be again involved in proceedings to change the boundaries of such
school district for at least two years after final determination of such
first proceeding unless during that 2 year period a petition filed is
substantially different than any other previously filed petition during
the previous 2 years or if a school district involved is placed on
academic watch status or the financial watch list by the State Board of
Education or is certified as being in financial difficulty during that 2
year period or if such first proceeding involved a petition brought
under Section 7-2b of this Article 7. (Source: P.A. 87-1139; 88-386.)

(105 ILCS 5/7A-15) (from Ch. 122, par. 7A-15)

Sec. 7A-15. Limitation on successive petitions. No unit school district
that is involved in any proceeding under this Article to be dissolved
and converted into an elementary school district (with all territory
within the unit school district proposed to be so dissolved to be
concurrently annexed to a contiguous high school district), and which is
not so dissolved or converted into an elementary school district, shall
be again involved in proceedings under this Article to dissolve and
convert into an elementary school district for at least two years after
final determination of such first proceeding unless during that 2 year
period a petition filed is substantially different than any other
previously filed petition during the previous 2 years or if a school
district involved is placed on academic watch status or the financial
watch list by the State Board of Education or is certified as being in
financial difficulty during that 2 year period. (Source: P.A. 87-1139.)

(105 ILCS 5/11A-17)

Sec. 11A-17. Limitation on successive petitions. No territory or any
part thereof that is not included within any unit school district and
that is involved in a proceeding under this Article to be organized into
a community unit school district, and that is not by that proceeding
organized into a community unit school district, shall be again involved
in proceedings under this Article to be organized into a community unit
school district for at least two years after final determination of such
first proceeding unless during that 2 year period a petition filed is
substantially different than any other previously filed petition during
the previous 2 years or if a school district involved is placed on
academic watch status or the financial watch list by the State Board of
Education or is certified as being in financial difficulty during that 2
year period.

No unit school district that is involved in any proceeding under this
Article to be organized along with any other unit school district or
districts or territory into a community unit school district and that is
not by that proceeding so organized into a community unit school
district, and no unit district that is involved in any proceeding under
this Article to be divided into 2 or more parts and as divided included
in 2 or more community unit school districts and that is not by that
proceeding so divided and included in other community unit school
districts, shall be again involved in proceedings under this Article to
be organized into a community unit school district or divided and
included in other community unit school districts for at least two years
after final determination of such first proceeding unless during that 2
year period a petition filed is substantially different than any other
previously filed petition during the previous 2 years or if a school
district involved is placed on academic watch status or the financial
watch list by the State Board of Education or is certified as being in
financial difficulty during that 2 year period. (Source: P.A. 87-1139;
88-45; 88-555, eff. 7-27-94.)

(105 ILCS 5/11B-14) (from Ch. 122, par. 11B-14)

Sec. 11B-14. Limitation on successive petitions. No elementary or high
school district that is involved in any proceeding under this Article to
be formed into and included as part of a combined school district to be
established in that proceeding, and that is not so formed into and
included as part of a combined school district in that proceeding, shall
be again involved in proceedings under this Article for at least two
years after final determination of such first proceeding unless during
that 2 year period a petition filed is substantially different than any
other previously filed petition during the previous 2 years or if a
school district involved is placed on academic watch status or the
financial watch list by the State Board of Education or is certified as
being in financial difficulty during that 2 year period. (Source: P.A.
87-1139.)

(105 ILCS 5/11D-12) (from Ch. 122, par. 11D-12)

Sec. 11D-12. Limitation on successive petitions. No unit or high school
district that is involved in any proceeding under this Article to be
dissolved and formed into a new high school district and new elementary
school districts, and that is not by those proceedings so dissolved and
formed into a new high school district and new elementary school
districts, shall be again involved in proceedings under this Article to
be dissolved and formed into a new high school district and new
elementary school districts for at least two years after final
determination of such first proceeding unless during that 2 year period
a petition filed is substantially different than any other previously
filed petition during the previous 2 years or if a school district
involved is placed on academic watch status or the financial watch list
by the State Board of Education or is certified as being in financial
difficulty during that 2 year period. (Source: P.A. 87-1139; 88-45.)

(105 ILCS 5/21-27)

Sec. 21-27. The Illinois Teaching Excellence Program. The Illinois
Teaching Excellence Program is hereby established to provide categorical
funding for monetary incentives and bonuses for teachers who are
employed by school districts and who hold a Master Certificate. The
State Board of Education shall allocate and distribute to each school
district an amount as annually appropriated by the General Assembly from
federal funds for the Illinois Teaching Excellence Program. Unless
otherwise provided by appropriation, each school district\'s annual
allocation shall be the sum of the amounts earned for the following
incentives and bonuses:

\(1\) An annual payment of \$3,000 to be paid to each teacher who
successfully completes the program leading to and who receives a Master
Certificate and is employed as a teacher by a school district. The
school district shall distribute this payment to each eligible teacher
as a single payment or in not more than 3 payments.

\(2\) An annual incentive equal to \$1,000 shall be paid to each teacher
who holds a Master Certificate, who is employed as a teacher by a school
district, and who agrees, in writing, to provide 60 hours of mentoring
during that year to classroom teachers. This mentoring may include,
either singly or in combination, (i) providing high quality professional
development for new and experienced teachers, and (ii) assisting
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) candidates
through the NBPTS certification process. The school district shall
distribute 50% of each annual incentive payment upon completion of 30
hours of the required mentoring and the remaining 50% of the incentive
upon completion of the required 60 hours of mentoring. Credit may not be
granted by a school district for mentoring or related services provided
during a regular school day or during the total number of days of
required service for the school year.

\(3\) An annual incentive equal to \$3,000 shall be paid to each teacher
who holds a Master Certificate, who is employed as a teacher by a school
district, and who agrees, in writing, to provide 60 hours of mentoring
during that year to classroom teachers in schools on academic early
warning status or in schools in which 50% or more of the students
receive free or reduced price lunches, or both. The school district
shall distribute 50% of each annual incentive payment upon completion of
30 hours of the required mentoring and the remaining 50% of the
incentive upon completion of the required 60 hours of mentoring. Credit
may not be granted by a school district for mentoring or related
services provided during a regular school day or during the total number
of days of required service for the school year.

Each regional superintendent of schools shall provide information about
the Master Certificate Program of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and this amendatory Act of the 91st General
Assembly to each individual seeking to register or renew a certificate
under Section 21-14 of this Code. (Source: P.A. 91-606, eff. 8-16-99;
92-796, eff. 8-10-02.)

(105 ILCS 5/2-3.25k rep.)

Section 10. The School Code is amended by repealing Section 2-3.25k.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

**Effective Date:** 8/8/2003

**Attachment B**

**Illini Plan**

**(a revised picture)**

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="4.442361111111111in"}

**Attachment C**

**State Assessments**

**(updated to 2008)**

2008 Illinois State Assessments 

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td> </td>
<td colspan="15"><strong>ISAT<br />
</strong>(Illinois Standards Achievement Test)</td>
<td colspan="11"><strong>PSAE<br />
</strong>(Prairie State Achievement Examination)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Test Dates</strong></td>
<td colspan="15"><strong>March 3-14, 2008</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><strong>April 23-24, 2008</strong><br />
<strong>Makeup May 7-8, 2008</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>October 25 &amp; 28, 2008</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Grade</strong></td>
<td colspan="2">3</td>
<td colspan="3">4</td>
<td colspan="2">5</td>
<td colspan="3">6</td>
<td colspan="2">7</td>
<td colspan="3">8</td>
<td colspan="7">11</td>
<td colspan="4">12<sup>1</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Reading</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Mathematics</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Science</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Writing</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="27"><strong>IAA<sup>2<br />
</sup></strong>(Illinois Alternate Assessment)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Test Dates</strong></td>
<td colspan="26"><strong>March 10-April 11, 2008</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Grade</strong></td>
<td colspan="3">3</td>
<td colspan="5">4</td>
<td colspan="5">5</td>
<td colspan="4">6</td>
<td colspan="2">7</td>
<td colspan="4">8</td>
<td colspan="3">11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Reading</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Mathematics</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Science</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Writing</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="27"><strong>ACCESS for ELLs™</strong><br />
(For English Language Learners Only)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Test Dates</strong></td>
<td colspan="26"><p><strong>Speaking and Kindergarten: January 14 –
February 22, 2008</strong></p>
<p><strong>Reading, Writing, and Listening: January 14 – February 1,
2008</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Grade</strong></td>
<td>K</td>
<td colspan="3">1</td>
<td colspan="2">2</td>
<td colspan="3">3</td>
<td colspan="2">4</td>
<td colspan="3">5</td>
<td colspan="2">6</td>
<td colspan="2">7</td>
<td colspan="2">8</td>
<td>9</td>
<td colspan="3">10</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Speaking</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Listening</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Reading</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Writing</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

 indicates that an assessment will be given

**[Important News About Writing Assessment]{.underline}\
**Writing will be assessed at the following grades in spring 2008 and
spring 2009:

-   Spring 2008: Grades 5, 6, 8, and 11

-   Spring 2009: Grades 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11

Information about test format and rubrics is posted on
[www.isbe.net/assessment/writing.htm](http://www.isbe.net/assessment/writing.htm).

^1^Voluntary PSAE retake for grade 12 students.\
^2^IAA is given to students with severe cognitive disabilities in place
of ISAT, IMAGE, or PSAE, if appropriate.