# Summary of Implementation Status for Required Elements of

# State Accountability Systems

+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| * |    | **State Accountability System Element**                      |
| * |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| * |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| 1 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| h |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system includes *all schools and districts in |
|   | .1 | the state*.                                                  |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system holds *all schools to the same         |
|   | .2 | criteria*.                                                   |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system incorporates the *academic achievement |
|   | .3 | standards*.                                                  |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system provides *information in a timely      |
|   | .4 | manner*.                                                     |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system includes *report cards*.               |
|   | .5 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system includes *rewards and sanctions*.      |
|   | .6 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 2 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 2  | The accountability system includes *all students*            |
|   | .1 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 2  | The accountability system has a consistent definition of     |
|   | .2 | *full academic year*.                                        |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 2  | The accountability system properly includes *mobile          |
|   | .3 | students*.                                                   |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 3 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| M |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| h |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| f |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| Y |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| D |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3  | Accountability system expects *all student subgroups, public |
|   | .1 | schools, and LEAs to reach proficiency by 2013-14*.          |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3  | Accountability system has a method for determining whether   |
|   | .2 | *student subgroups, public schools, and LEAs made adequate   |
|   |    | yearly progress.*                                            |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3. | Accountability system establishes a *starting point*.        |
|   | 2a |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3. | Accountability system establishes *statewide annual          |
|   | 2b | measurable objectives*.                                      |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3. | Accountability system establishes *intermediate goals*.      |
|   | 2c |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 4 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| D |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 4  | The accountability system *determines annually the progress* |
|   | .1 | of schools and districts.                                    |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+

**STATUS Legend:**

**F** -- Final state policy

**P** -- Proposed policy, awaiting State approval

**W** -- Working to formulate policy

+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 5 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| b |    |                                                              |
| g |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| b |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| y |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The accountability system *includes all the required student |
|   | .1 | subgroups*.                                                  |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The accountability system holds *schools and LEAs            |
|   | .2 | accountable for the progress of* *student subgroups*.        |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The accountability system includes *students with            |
|   | .3 | disabilities*.                                               |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The accountability system includes *limited English          |
|   | .4 | proficient students*.                                        |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The State has determined the minimum number of students      |
|   | .5 | sufficient to yield statistically reliable information for   |
|   |    | each purpose for which disaggregated data are used.          |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The State has strategies to protect the privacy of           |
|   | .6 | individual students in reporting achievement results and in  |
|   |    | determining whether schools and LEAs are making adequate     |
|   |    | yearly progress on the basis of disaggregated subgroups.     |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 6 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| B |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 6  | Accountability system is based *primarily on academic        |
|   | .1 | assessments*.                                                |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 7 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| I |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 7  | Accountability system includes *graduation rate for high     |
|   | .1 | school*s.                                                    |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 7  | Accountability system includes an *additional academic       |
|   | .2 | indicator for elementary and middle school*s.                |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 7  | Additional indicators are valid and reliable.                |
|   | .3 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 8 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| D |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| f |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| R |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| g |    |                                                              |
| / |    |                                                              |
| L |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| g |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| g |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| M |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| h |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 8  | Accountability system holds students, schools and districts  |
|   | .1 | separately accountable for *reading/language arts* and       |
|   |    | *mathematics*.                                               |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 9 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| y |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| V |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| y |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| R |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| b |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| y |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 9  | Accountability system produces *reliable decisions*.         |
|   | .1 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 9  | Accountability system produces *valid decisions*.            |
|   | .2 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 9  | State has a plan for addressing *changes in assessment and   |
|   | .3 | student population*.                                         |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 1 |    |                                                              |
| 0 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| R |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 10 | Accountability system has a means for calculating the *rate  |
|   | .1 | of participation* in the statewide assessment.               |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 10 | Accountability system has a means for *applying the 95%      |
|   | .2 | assessment criteria to student subgroups* *and small         |
|   |    | schools.*                                                    |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+

**STATUS Legend:**

F -- Final policy

P -- Proposed Policy, awaiting State approval

W-- Working to formulate policy

**PRINCIPLE 1. A single Statewide Accountability System applied to all
public schools and LEAs.**

**CRITICAL ELEMENT**

1.  **How does the State Accountability System include every public
    school and LEA in the State?**

Rhode Island\'s State Assessment Program (RISAP) is a statewide program
established in state law. It is conducted annually, assessing students
at grades 4, 8 and 10 in reading, writing and mathematics using the *New
Standard Reference Exam* and a state-developed writing assessment. Until
this year therefore every school and district in the State has been
included in the State Accountability System based on assessment results
[except]{.underline} those schools that do not have a State tested grade
level (K, K-1, K-2). These early elementary schools represent only 25 of
our 339 schools statewide. Those early elementary schools which do
\"house\" a grade three (3) have been held accountable only through the
Rhode Island Writing Assessment if they do not have grade 4 in the
school configurations.

We will be adding the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS)
and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) assessments in grades K-2.
The approximately 25 schools will be required to use these assessments.
These assessments will be administered to these schools for the first
time in the 2003-2004 school year. For mathematics in grades K-2 the
State will select an appropriate assessment in the next 60-90 days. The
selected assessment will monitor student progress to gain information
for needed teaching strategies and possible early intervention. Both
English language arts and mathematics assessments will be aligned to our
State early childhood standards [and]{.underline} content standards. The
test results from both the reading assessments and math assessments
referred to above will be reported to the State by the districts.

These added early elementary test results will supplement additional
student performance data already being collected. We already collect
data on grade level performance in reading and math on all students in
grades K-3 and will continue to use this information to include those
public schools that do not have a State tested grade level in our
accountability system. We are utilizing the Teacher Student Rating Scale
(TSRS) to gather this student performance data in reading and math at
this time.

All publicly funded students are accounted for. Regardless of their
school placement, all students are tested and their student performance
results are assigned back to their school district of residence if they
are outplaced from district schools.

All schools K-12, receive \"Learning Support Indicator\" (LSI) results,
which includes attendance. This system will continue. The Learning
Support Indicators provide a valuable context for the above enumerated
accountability categorizations. The attendance rates are part of the
information that is used to categorize schools in the accountability
system.

For the purposes of Accountability, the" Other Academic Indicator",
Attendance, will be used to measure all K-2 schools. This is a one-year
only provision ***(2003)*** because assessment data will be available
for these schools in the following year. Grade 3 schools will use the
Rhode Island Writing Test and all other K-12 schools will use the New
Reference Examination in English Language Arts and Mathematics for
Accountability purposes.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   **\"Testing Guidelines for Rhode Island\'s State Assessment
    Program,\" 2003**

-   **Statutory Citation for the State Assessment Program**

-   **Timeline for changes in RISAP (October 2003)**

-   **Transition Plan for RISAP**

-   **\"Learning Support Indicators, Technical Assistance Bulletin\"**

-   **\"School Performance Categories, Technical Assistance Bulletin\"**

-   **Training Materials for PALS**

-   **DRA Materials**

-   **SALT Survey Instructions for the TSRS**

-   **Definitions of Public School, District**

**1.2 How are all public schools and LEAs held to the same criteria when
making an AYP**

**determination?**

Rhode Island has preserved the core values of its accountability system
while designing modifications to meet the requirements of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB). By doing this Rhode Island is able to maintain a
unified accountability system for all schools. Schools in Rhode Island
will continue to be held to identical criteria for achieving high,
moderate, low status. Improvement is also defined for all schools in a
consistent manner. However, the provisions of the NCLB accountability
guidelines on AYP will be incorporated into the Rhode Island
Accountability system to achieve compliance. Learning Support Indicators
(LSI) are another feature of the current accountability system. (See
attachments: ***School Performance Categories and Learning Support
Indicators Technical Assistance Bulletins).*** These indicators do not,
however, affect a school\'s performance category except for graduation
rate and attendance rate. To capture accurately all levels of student
achievement, an indexing of proficiency is used. The indexing system
increases reliability and validity of the school accountability system
because it includes the performance levels of all students within the
educational system. An \"Index Proficiency\" approach will be used to
make AYP determinations on categorizing schools. Baselines will be
established for every school and LEA this Spring, based on assessment
data combined for 2000, 2001 and 2002.

**[BUSINESS RULES]{.underline}**

**[[Definition of \"public school\" for accountability
purposes]{.underline}:]{.smallcaps}**

The definition of public school for accountability purposes is the same
definition as public school for general purposes in Rhode Island, to
whit: \"A publicly funded school, operated by a local city or town
school committee or school board, or operated by the State through a
Board of Trustees, or a public charter school established pursuant to
Chapter 77 of Title 16 of the General Laws, or a school program operated
by the Department for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF).\"

**[[Definition of "LEA" for accountability
purposes]{.underline}:]{.smallcaps}**

For accountability, reporting and other purposes the State\'s definition
of LEA is \"any city, town, state or regional school district or the
School for the Deaf, the Williams M. Davies, Jr. Career and Technical
High School, the Metropolitan Career and Technical Center, any public
charter schools established pursuant to Chapter 77 of Title 16 of the
General Laws, or the Department for Children, Youth and Families
(DCYF)\" R.I.G.L. 40-8-18 (c)(4).

**Refer to Rhode Island General Laws:**

1.  Establishment of Regional School Districts

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
9.  General Powers and Duties of School Committees

    11. Urban Collaborative

16-7-16(5) Definition of community as any city, town or regional schools
district and DCYF for

> purposes of State aid

2.  Accountability (of districts and schools) for student performance

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Private schools

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Regional vocational schools

16-45-6(a)(2) Establishment of Davies Career and Technical and
Metropolitan Career and Technical

1.  Establishment of Charter Public Schools

16-77-6(e) Charter school operates as though a district

40-8-18(c)(4) Definition of LEA for Medicaid purposes

42-72-5(b)(22) DCYF authorized to provide public education

**[[The following categories of schools receive public funds from the
state]{.underline}:]{.smallcaps}**

-   Public schools operated by local school districts

-   Public schools operated by the State through Board of Trustees

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Davies Career and Technical

-   Metropolitan Career and Technical

-   Rhode Island School for the Deaf

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Public schools operated by the State through the State Department of
    Children Youth and Families

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rhode Island Training School for Youth and affiliated educational
    programs

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Public charter schools

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Operated by local school districts

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Textron/Chamber

-   Times2

-   Cranston/Laborers International

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Operated by non-profit entities

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Kingston Hill

-   Cuffee

-   CVS/Highlander

-   Compass

-   International

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  ***Category of School***            ***Number of School in Category***

  Public schools                      339

  Public schools operated by local    328
  school districts                    

  Public schools operated by the      3
  State through Board of Trustees     

  Public schools operated by the      3
  State through DCYF                  

  Public charter schools operated by  5
  local school districts              

  Schools receiving public funds from 340 (all public schools plus Hasbro
  the State                           Children\'s Hospital which receives
                                      a direct grant from the legislature
                                      to educate hospitalized students)

  Public schools receiving Title I    150
  funds                               

  Public schools not receiving Title  186
  I funds                             
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Total number of LEAs**          | 46=                               |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 36 public school districts        |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 4 \"State LEAs\" (MET, Davies,    |
|                                   | Deaf, DCYF)                       |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 6 \"Charter LEAs\"                |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | **(North Smithfield School        |
|                                   | District, Kingstown Hill Charter, |
|                                   | and Compass Charter do not        |
|                                   | receive Title I funds)**          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Total number of LEAs receiving  | 43                                |
| Title I funds**                   |                                   |
|                                   | **(Includes 36 public school      |
|                                   | districts, MET, Davies, Deaf and  |
|                                   | 4 Charter LEAs)**                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

3.  **Does the State have, at a minimum, a definition of basic,
    proficient and advanced student achievement levels in
    reading/language arts and mathematics?**

The Assessment System for Accountability is aligned to the standards
which are available for districts to adopt. These assessments are
required by State law (Article 31 - 1997). The assessments in both
English language arts (ELA) and mathematics report student results in
the following categories: Achieved the Standard with Honors (5),
Achieved the Standard (4), Nearly Achieved the Standard (3), Below the
Standard (2), Little Evidence of Achievement (1), and No Score (0).
Achieving the Standard also corresponds to Proficient on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

The state adds a sixth level to the performance levels called "No
Score." This level assigns a zero for these students who were required
to take the test but for some reason (e.g. illness, failure to make up
some portion of the test, total lack of effort) did not receive a score
on the test. ***When a school fails to meet the required participation
rate indicator, additional zero scores are added to the school's
proficiency index score until at least 95% of students are represented
in the index score. Notwithstanding the addition of zero scores, the
school will still be flagged as not meeting the participation rate
indicator.*** This reflects the "All Kids" focus of both state education
policy and law that requires all public school students to participate
in the State Assessment Program.

To increase the reliability and validity of our accountability system,
we define an \"Index Proficiency\" of a student as follows:

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  ***NSRE Score***                   ***Index Proficiency***

  Achieved the Standards with Honors 100

  Achieved the Standard              100

  Nearly Achieved the Standard       75

  Below Standard                     50

  Little Evidence                    25

  No Score                           0
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

The Index Proficiency will be used as a measure of proficiency for our
accountability system.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   NSRE (New Standards Reference Exams Criteria/Score Reports, etc.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   NAEP Chart -- American Institute for Research NAEP Comparison to
    Statewide Assessment

> Results

-   January 19, 2001, letter from Michael Cohen indicating full approval
    of Rhode Island\'s final Assessment System

    3.  **How does the State provide accountability and Adequate Yearly
        Progress decisions and information in a timely manner?**

Rhode Island has moved its state assessment administration from late in
the school year to the late winter in order to comply with NCLB
requirements. The preliminary assessment results, with the exception of
the writing assessment results, will, as of 2003, be made available in
July. Based on the release of this information those schools that will
be responsible to provide choice and supplemental services will be
provided notice of that fact during August of each year. School
categories will be released on October 1^st^. The timelines for
administering the New Standards Reference Exam Assessments, scoring and
returning the results to the schools have thus been reworked to
incorporate the NCLB timeline provisions of notification to the public
for public school choice or supplemental services.

**[[TIMELINE FOR AYP NOTIFICATION AND
APPEALS]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**[March 2003]{.underline} Testing Window**

**[July 1-15, 2003]{.underline} Analysis of assessment data for accuracy
and**

> **application of processing rules (e.g., disaggregating, October 1^st^
> enrollment checks, etc.).**

**[August 18 - September 17, 2003]{.underline} Appeal process occurs for
all schools and districts**

> **especially those low performing schools in jeopardy**
>
> **of not meeting AYP.**

**[October 1, 2003]{.underline} Final release of proficiency index to
all schools and**

> **districts.**

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   Agreements with the Testing Contractor stipulating that student
    results will be provided to us by July

-   Memo from Deputy Commissioner changing the testing dates

    3.  **Does the State Accountability System produce an annual State
        Report Card?**

*Information Works*! is Rhode Island's state report card. In the
2003-2004 school year, it will include assessment data, teacher quality
information, disaggregations, and all other data elements required by
NCLB of the state report card. *Information Works*!
([www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu](http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/)) will
also include all data elements required of district and school report
cards. These report cards will be presented to the public through a
major statewide media event in September. They will be presented to all
state newspapers and other media outlets. The state, district, and
school report cards will be available on line and will be presented in a
form suitable for printing and dissemination by each district and
school. Districts and schools will be responsible for distributing their
report cards, by mail, e-mail, and at "school report night," which is
required by the state's accountability regulations.

The *Information Works*! website will be expanded and kept up to date
through the course of the school year, with extensive additional
information to be added on such topics as school finances, school
demographics, data on discipline and grievances, and results of parent,
teacher, and student surveys. The report also includes "value-added"
(predictability bands) information, which compares the assessment
results for each school with the results of similar students statewide;
this is a way by which one can determine how each school is performing
in relation to the challenges that its students face (e.g., high
poverty, LEP). The state report card updates will culminate in March
with the publication of the Commissioner's annual address to the General
Assembly.

The forthcoming *Information Works*! contains, all data elements
required for state, district, and school report cards, as well as all
the additional information described above. Because of the timeline of
our current assessment system these report cards will not be published
in a downloadable, printable form until Spring. This timeline will
change, beginning with the 2003-2004 school year.

Both the annual report on education and the Commissioner's address to
the General Assembly are required by state law (16-7.1-4). Current and
previous editions of *Information Works*! are available on the
department's Web site, [www.ridoe.net](http://www.ridoe.net/). Our State
report card captures value added by presenting a graphic representation
of predictable results for students in a similar school and indicating
whether a school is "beating the odds" with their students.

The State will translate the report card into Spanish. Districts will be
responsible for translating this information into the other languages
called for by the district's demographics and for disseminating this
information through parent information sessions.

This meets the requirements of the act in the following way:

1.  Assessment results are released to districts in the summer.

2.  Teacher quality information for *Information Works*! is posted
    online for all interested parties to refer to. The online posting is
    updated throughout the year.

3.  All State School and District Performance Categories are released to
    the public in November and published in the *Information Works*!
    volume in the following March.

**[STATE REPORT CARD - *INFORMATION WORKS*! 2003]{.smallcaps}**

**[[DISTRIBUTION PLAN]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

The State Report Card: *Information Works*! 2003 will be published in
booklet form by the University of Rhode Island\'s National Center on
Public Education and Social Policy (NCPE) and published on its own
website,
[www.infoworks.ride.rui.edu](http://www.infoworks.ride.rui.edu/), with
links to the RI Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (RIDE)
website, [www.ridoe.net](http://www.ridoe.net/). As in the past, the
State Report Card will be released in conjunction with a public event,
either the Commissioner\'s annual State of Education Address to the
General Assembly or at a news conference called by the Commissioner
explicitly for release of the report.

The report will be distributed to all media statewide, in electronic
format suitable for downloading and publication, along with background
explanatory information.

The report will be sent in electronic format and in published format to:

-   All school districts

-   All public schools

The report will be sent in published format to:

-   All public libraries

-   Key state agencies and nonprofit agencies concerned with education

-   Key legislators and public officials, including all members of the
    General Assembly

All communications regarding the State Report Card will note that copies
are available free of charge from both RIDE and NCPE and that the entire
report, along with all district and school reports and reports from the
previous five years, are posted on the RIDE website.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}**:

-   *Information Works*! and Users Guide

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Timeline for when a) Graduation Rate and b) Attendance Rates are
    available (see 7.1 and 7.2)

-   Teacher Quality information

-   Technical report explaining \"value added\" bands in *Information
    Works*!

    3.  **How does the State Accountability System include rewards and
        sanctions for public schools and LEAs?**

Rewards for schools who reach their improvement targets for two
consecutive years exist through the Rhode Island \"[Regents Commended
Schools]{.underline}\" and Blue Ribbon Schools identification system.
These schools\' names are released to the public (26 schools in 2002)
and received commended school status at a Regents\' meeting.

Schools and Districts which fail to perform
(Low-Performing/Non-Improving) are designated as Progressive Support and
Intervention (PS&I) status schools/ districts. These schools/districts
are required to meet with the Commissioner of Education (or his
designee) in a \"Face-to-Face\" meeting. These "Face to Face" meetings
are part of the Rhode Island Progressive Support and Intervention
continuum and are used to both diagnose the district and school
challenges and to enter into agreements with districts for remediation
of the barriers to improving student performance in those schools.
Subsequently schools must report on the status of the strategies
outlined in the \"Face-to-Face\" meeting prior to the opening of the
next school year. The Commissioner of Education also has the authority
through Progressive Support and Intervention to control set-asides
allocated by the General Assembly, which target resources in specific
ways. In a similar effort to align school improvement goals, low
performing schools must incorporate their improvement plans into their
Consolidated Resource Plans/District/School Strategic Plans which are
due May 1^st^ of each year.

NCLB sanctions call for school categorization, choice and supplemental
services. Rhode Island has implemented each of those remedies. In
addition, in Rhode Island, schools identified as in need of improvement
are largely clustered in a very small number of (approximately seven)
districts. These districts are assigned support teams by the SEA and
must interact with the SEA support team throughout the year to implement
agreements for improvement of student performance in the schools. (See
Progressive Support and Intervention, May 2000, process). The
Commissioner also retains authority under state law to require remedial
action in districts and schools and to restructure a school as a
necessary element of Progressive Support and Intervention particularly
if their assessment data and Learning Support Indicators (LSI) are
continuously flat. Rhode Island is currently developing a \"Framework
for Accountability\" with the Annenberg Institute for School Reform
which will specify protocols and sanctions for Title I and non-Title I
schools. This work will be completed by June 2003.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   Regents\' Commended School Protocol in \"School Performance
    Categories\" (October 2002)

-   Consolidated Resource Application

-   \"Progressive Support and Intervention\" (May 2000)

-   Learning Support Indicators Bulletin

-   \"School Performance Categories\" Technical Assistance Bulletin
    (October 2002)

-   Face-to-Face Meeting Reports (Spring 2002)

-   Title 16, The Rhode Island Student Investment Initiative Statute

-   Approved Supplemental Education Service Providers

**PRINCIPLE 2. All students are included in the State Accountability
System.**

**CRITICAL ELEMENT**

1.  **How does the State Accountability System include all students in
    the State?**

All students in the State are tested according to statewide policy.
Students may participate with or without accommodations and special
needs students who qualify may take the Rhode Island Alternate
Assessment (less than 1% of the student population). Rhode Island
already includes these results in its accountability system. Students
who have been in the State prior to the [October 1^st^]{.underline}
enrollment count will be [included]{.underline} in the State Assessment
and [included]{.underline} in the Accountability System. Students who
arrive in a district/school after the [October 1^st^]{.underline}
enrollment count will be [included]{.underline} in the State Assessment
but [excluded]{.underline} from the Accountability System.

**Note:** See 5.4 for ***revised*** policy on LEP students

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   \"Testing Guidelines for Rhode Island\'s State Assessment Program,\"
    2003

-   *Information Works*!
    ([www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu](http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/))

    1.  **How does the State define \"full academic year\" for
        identifying students in AYP decisions?**

The criterion for defining what constitutes \"a full academic\" year is
applied consistently statewide. It is set at the October 1^st^
enrollment count date (this is the date designated in state law to
calculate state aid to districts), prior to the administration of the
Spring Assessments of the same school year and with the conclusion of
the academic year being the 180^th^ day of instruction. Students who
have been continuously enrolled are counted. Students who have not been
continuously enrolled at the school but have remained in the district
(in another school) will be counted in the district AYP. A student who
is not in the school for a continuous entire school year will not be
counted for school level accountability but will be reported in the
state and district results. (see also 10.1)

2.  **How does the State Accountability System determine which students
    have attended the same**

**public school and/or LEA for a full academic year?**

Schools/districts are required by regulation to submit October 1^st^
enrollments to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) each
year. Schools also are required to re-submit enrollments at the State
tested grade levels as of the beginning of the State testing window
(e.g. March 3, 2003).

-   The March enrollments, together with the assessment results are used
    to account for all students in the system.

-   Students who migrate from one school to another school within the
    district are tested and included in the district AYP provided they
    were in the district prior to October 1^st^.

-   Students who migrate from a school in a district to another school
    in a different district will be tested and included in the state
    AYP.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   Student Demographic Forms (header sheets) for the State Assessment
    Program

**PRINCIPLE 3. State definition of AYP is based on expectations for
growth in student achievement that is continuous and substantial, such
that all students are proficient in reading/language arts and
mathematics no later than 2013-2014.**

1.  **How does the State\'s definition of Adequate Yearly Progress
    require all students to be proficient in reading/language arts and
    mathematics by the 2013-2014 academic year?**

**[Methods: Incorporating the NCLB Accountability System into Rhode
Island\'s Model]{.underline}**

Rhode Island has redesigned its current accountability system as a
single system that merges the NCLB requirements and the Rhode Island
Comprehensive Education All-Kids Strategy (CES) based on the 1997
Article 31 law. This single system will serve as the basis for
categorizing school performance beginning with the 2003 testing cycle.
All schools, districts and targeted subgroups are expected to achieve
100% proficiency by the 2014 school year.

Using the federal guidelines for establishing Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) is the first step in making determinations for school performance.
Rhode Island will continue to use assessments in a three-year averaging
system that will result in placing schools into categories. These
calculations will be done separately for English-language arts and
mathematics for grades 4, 8, and 10 using the New Standards Reference
Exam (NSRE) for those grade levels. Results are disaggregated by the
required sub-groups outlined in NCLB. The Rhode Island Writing
Assessment at grade 3 will be used to evaluate schools with a 3^rd^
grade but not a 4^th^ grade. A mathematics assessment for grade 3 will
be added in FY \'04.

**A RATIONALE FOR AN INDEXING SYSTEM**

Since Rhode Island\'s State Assessment, the New Standards Reference
Examinations in mathematics and English language arts, are at certain
grades the most demanding in the nation (see AIR study), simply tallying
students meeting the standard does not acknowledge the progress many
schools are making as students move from showing no or little evidence
of understanding to nearly meeting the standard. Rhode Island has
devised an indexing system to recognize the progress schools are making
in moving students from the bottom categories to nearly meeting the
standards. In a sense, credit is being given for demonstrated
improvement towards meeting the standards.

Getting all students to meeting the standards is an arduous task because
it is dependent upon a multitude of factors relating to the classroom
change process. Another way of stating this is that change takes time
because of internal and external factors to teaching and learning in the
classroom. Knowing that the single most important factor in student
achievement is the quality of the teacher, it is imperative that
teachers engage in professional development that will enhance their
knowledge, skills, and ability to teach students content and process
skills and how to apply them to solve problems as demanded by the
standards-based classroom.

Standards-based classrooms require students to know more than memorizing
facts and using rules. Standards are asking students to organize data,
think critically, analyze information, communicate ideas, critique ideas
and materials, apply knowledge, use technology, predict results, and
solve problems to name a few demands. The New Standards Reference
Examinations require students to demonstrate evidence of standards based
instruction. These demands for higher levels of thinking skills require
a classroom environment filled with opportunities for students to
experience situations requiring these skills and abilities.

Since teaching in a standards-based classroom is very different from how
teachers were trained to teach, teachers need to engage in professional
development over time to develop their expertise and ability to create a
standards-based environment. Changes in teacher beliefs and practice
have to occur before change in student performance is seen. Both changes
in teacher beliefs and practice and student performance will require
time. Since dramatic changes in student performance will not be
immediate, giving schools credit for incremental changes through an
index system acknowledges the efforts made by schools in striving to get
all students to perform at high standards.

Creating a cohesive school where all teachers work on a consistent
curriculum aimed at having all students meet the standards takes
effective leadership and a unified faculty. This task too takes time and
requires ongoing commitment by all school staff. These examples of
systematic change to enhance teaching and learning and student
achievement are all indicators of schools making strides towards
improvement. Without the state indexing system, schools showing gradual
improvement would not be credited for their growth. This lack of
recognition for improved teaching and learning may contribute to a loss
of enthusiasm for changing and enhancing teaching practices.

**[REVISED ACCOUNTABILITY DESIGN]{.smallcaps}**

The Assessment System for Accountability is aligned to standards which
are available for districts to adopt. These assessments are required by
State law (Article 31 - 1997). The assessments in both English language
arts and mathematics report student results in the following categories:
Achieved the Standard with Honors (5), Achieved the Standard (4), Nearly
Achieved the Standard (3), Below the Standard (2), Little Evidence of
Achievement (1), and No Score (0). Achieving the Standard also
corresponds to Proficient on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP).

The State adds a sixth level to the performance levels called \"No
Score.\" This level assigns a zero for any students who were required to
take the test but for some reason (e.g. illness, failure to make up some
portion of the test, total lack of effort) did not receive a score on
the test. ***When a school fails to meet the required participation rate
indicator, additional zero scores are added to the school's proficiency
index score until at least 95% of students are represented in the index
score. Notwithstanding the addition of zero scores, the school will
still be flagged as not meeting the participation rate indicator.***
This process reflects the \"All Kids\" focus of both state education
policy and law that requires all public school students to participate
in the State Assessment Program (SAP).

To increase the reliability and validity of our accountability system,
we define an \"Index Proficiency\" (figure 2) of a student as follows:

**[FIGURE 2]{.underline}**

  -------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
  **NSRE Score**             **Index Proficiency  **Old Proficiency
                             Scale**              Scale**

  **Achieved the Standard    **100**              **100**
  with Honors**                                   

  **Achieved the Standard**  **100**              **100**

  **Nearly Achieved the      **75**               **0**
  Standard**                                      

  **Below Standard**         **50**               **0**

  **Little Evidence**        **25**               **0**

  **No Score**               **0**                **0**
  -------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------

The Index Proficiency measure is valuable because it encourages
continuous improvement for students and teachers in terms of making
progress toward achieving the standard. Given the very high
\"proficiency bar\" on the Rhode Island assessments, schools can measure
and be given credit for making progress toward our final goal of 100%
proficiency.

**[EFFECT OF IMPROVEMENT OF NON-PROFICIENT STUDENTS ON INDEX
PROFICIENCY]{.underline}**

One of the purposes of using an Index Model is to recognize efforts made
by schools to improve the performance of all their students. We realize
that some of these schools start from low proficiency rates and that
they need to get their students to improve gradually to proficiency
status. While we recognize this graduated improvement and reward the
schools for this, we also know that it is not sufficient. At the same
time, schools must also steadily increase the percent of students who
are proficient in order to meet their Annual Measurable Objective (AMO).

The Chart below lists the 33 elementary schools, which have proficiency
rates below the baseline for 2002. Data are from 2000 to 2002 aggregate
English language arts at grade 4. To test the effect of improvements
limited to non-proficient students on our Index Proficiency, we
implemented an exaggerated growth rate model. The AMO for 2003 for this
subject and grade has been set at 76%. Under the column "50% Improv", we
have held the number of students who are proficient fixed at their
current numbers and projected a 50% growth for all the other performance
levels which are not proficient. These are performance levels 1, 2, 3
and No Scores. This is a generous growth rate that does not reflect our
expected gains for these schools since they are at varying stages of
schools reform. Corresponding results for 30% improvement in the
non-proficient students are shown under the column "30% Improv". As
shown on the table, most of the schools still fail to meet the Annual
Measurable Objective of 76%. Out of 33 schools, 26 schools fail to meet
their AMO when there is 30% improvement and 20 schools fail to meet
their AMO when there is a 50% improvement within the low performing
students. As the growth rate decreases and becomes more realistic, the
number of schools that fail to meet their AMO increases. This clearly
shows that schools must increase the number of students who are
proficient in order to meet their AMO. The Index Model gives schools
credit for moving students along to proficiency but this credit is not
enough to get the schools to meet their AMO. The only way a school will
meet its AMO is to get more students into the proficiency category.

  ---------------- -------- --------------------- -------- -------- ---------
                   SCHOOL                         Index %\ 30%\     50%\
                                                  Prof     Improv   Improv

  DISTRICT         CODE     NAME                                    

                                                                    

  WOONSOCKET       39116    Second Avenue School  47.92    53.67    57.50

  PROVIDENCE       28156    Robert L. Bailey, IV  57.88    62.05    64.83

  PROVIDENCE       28180    The Sergeant Cornel   58.08    61.88    64.41

  PROVIDENCE       28121    Alfred Lima, Sr. El   58.74    62.51    65.03

  CENTRAL FALLS    4109     Alan Shawn Feinstein  63.93    67.49    69.86

  CVS HIGHLANDER   28601    CVS HIGHLANDER        64.51    67.52    69.53

  PROVIDENCE       28165    Pleasant View School  64.96    68.29    70.50

  PROVIDENCE       28134    Laurel Hill Avenue S  65.28    68.48    70.61

  PAWTUCKET        26119    Henry J. Winters Sch  65.70    68.63    70.59

  PROVIDENCE       28162    The Charlotte Woods   66.67    69.84    71.95

  PROVIDENCE       28148    Windmill Street Scho  66.88    69.92    71.94

  PROVIDENCE       28130    Veazie Street School  68.11    71.47    73.71

  PROVIDENCE       28160    Mary E. Fogarty Scho  68.75    71.77    73.78

  WOONSOCKET       39109    Social Street School  69.39    72.44    74.48

  PROVIDENCE       28102    West Broadway School  69.72    72.56    74.45

  PROVIDENCE       28122    Charles Fortes El. S  70.04    72.75    74.56

  PROVIDENCE       28127    Webster Avenue Schoo  70.17    73.08    75.03

  PROVIDENCE       28116    Alan Shawn Feinstein  70.22    73.27    75.29

  CENTRAL FALLS    4105     Robertson School      70.30    73.28    75.27

  CENTRAL FALLS    4101     Ella Risk School      70.75    73.69    75.66

  PROVIDENCE       28161    Harry Kizirian Eleme  72.04    74.78    76.61

  NEWPORT          21110    Sullivan School       72.05    74.77    76.58

  NEWPORT          21105    Sheffield School      72.59    75.02    76.65

  PROVIDENCE       28158    Edmund W. Flynn Scho  72.90    75.15    76.65

  PROVIDENCE       28140    Carl G. Lauro School  72.98    75.57    77.30

  PROVIDENCE       28135    George J. West Schoo  73.19    75.64    77.27

  WOONSOCKET       39128    Kevin K. Coleman Sch  74.10    76.43    77.99

  PAWTUCKET        26115    Flora S. Curtis Scho  74.68    76.71    78.06

  PROVIDENCE       28153    William D\'Abate Scho 74.82    77.02    78.48

  PROVIDENCE       28181    Anthony Carnevale El  75.27    77.70    79.32

  WOONSOCKET       39117    Citizens Memorial Sc  75.61    77.83    79.32

  WOONSOCKET       39110    Pothier School        75.93    77.97    79.32

  NEWPORT          21103    Carey School          76.09    78.17    79.56
  ---------------- -------- --------------------- -------- -------- ---------

  ------------------ ------ ---------------------- ----------- -----------
                                                               

  ------------------ ------ ---------------------- ----------- -----------

**[adequate yearly progress]{.smallcaps}**

Rhode Island\'s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) calculation will
determine the performance of schools using the Index Proficiency in
English language arts and mathematics and the results of the \"other
academic indicators.\"

Baseline - Rhode Island\'s baseline was calculated by averaging 2000,
2001, and 2002 statewide assessment results. Baselines were established
for English language arts and mathematics at each of three levels - -
elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12). In
each instance the baseline was the percentage of proficient students in
the school building in which is the student at the 20^th^ percentile of
Rhode Island\'s total enrollment.

The English language arts and mathematics baselines will be applied to
each school, district, as well as to each subgroup at the school,
district and State levels to determine AYP status. Figure 3 presents
Rhode Island\'s baseline scores on its proficiency index.

**[FIGURE 3]{.underline}**

**[RHODE ISLAND\'S BASELINE SCORES (STARTING POINTS)]{.underline}**

**English Language Arts Mathematics**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Elementary**          **76.1**                **61.7**

  **Middle**              **68.0**                **46.1**

  **High**                **62.6**                **44.8**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**INTERMEDIATE GOALS** - The Intermediate Goals for elementary, middle
and high schools will increase in five equal increments over the 12-year
timeline (figure 4). These are separate intermediate goals for English
language arts and mathematics at each of the grade levels (elementary,
middle and high schools). These goals will be applied to each school and
district, as well as to each subgroup at the school, district and
statewide levels to determine AYP status. Most Intermediate Goals are
concentrated to take effect in the later years, as the grade level
standards, assessment, teacher practices and schools culture align and
respond to improvement initiatives tracked and assessed by Rhode
Island\'s SALT Accountability Process, In\$ight Data, and our Learning
Support Indicators. The Intermediate Goals provide time for school
reform efforts to be fully implemented.

**[FIGURE 4]{.underline}**

**[RHODE ISLAND\'S INTERMEDIATE GOALS]{.underline}**

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH

  -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                 **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**

  **2014**       **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**

  **2013**       **96.1**   **93.7**   **94.5**   **91.1**   **93.6**   **90.8**

  **2012**       **92.1**   **87.3**   **89.2**   **82.1**   **87.4**   **81.6**

  **2011**       **88.1**   **80.9**   **83.9**   **73.1**   **81.2**   **72.4**

  **2008**       **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**

  **2005**       **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**

  **Baseline**   **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**
  -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

Rhode Island has based our school improvement trajectory of annual
measurable objectives and intermediate goals on the principles of change
theory in organizations (Elmore, 2002; Cohen et al.; November 2000), and
we have confirmed such an approach by our own theory-testing. Schools
that embrace new performance goals and focus their energies, for
example, their improvement plans and professional development
activities, on priority areas make more progress improving the
performance of all of their students after three to five years of
sustained efforts. Within our model of using three years of data, this
is a conservative test of progress since there is not an emphasis on a
single year of data.

Especially because Rhode Island has not tested students in language arts
and mathematics at grades K-3, 5, 6, 9 and 11 and because we have not
had grade level expectations as a part of our State frameworks, there is
much work to be done to bring all staff to an understanding of how to
align their curricula and their teaching strategies to these new
expectations. This will occur over time and simultaneously with
additional support being provided to all teachers in understanding how
the new State and State-required assessments are related to their daily
work. Recognizing that people are at different levels of acceptance,
implementation and comfort with the needed changes required for improved
performance for every student, our trajectory for more and sustained
improvement in student performance after several years is realistic and
consistent with how long it takes to truly implement change.

Cohen, D.K., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (November 2000).

*Resources, Instruction and Research*. A working paper from the Center
for Teaching Policy

Elmore, Richard F. (2002). Testing Trap.

*Harvard Magazine*, 105 (1), 35+.

**THE ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES**: Likewise, using Index Proficiency,
Rhode Island will establish a system of annual measurable objectives
which is the basis for making yearly determinations of Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) using the NCLBA guidelines. The entire system of
Intermediate Goals and Annual Measurable Objectives for Rhode Island is
identified in Figure 5.

**[FIGURE 5]{.underline}**

**[RHODE ISLAND\'S ANNUAL MEASURABLE GOALS]{.underline}**

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                  **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**

  **2013-2014**   **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**5^th^ Intermediate Goal**

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **20112-2013**   **96.1**   **93.7**   **94.5**   **91.1**   **93.6**   **90.8**

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**4^th^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2011-2012**   **92.1**   **87.3**   **89.2**   **82.1**   **87.4**   **81.6**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**3^rd^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2010-2011**   **88.1**   **80.9**   **83.9**   **73.1**   **81.2**   **72.4**

  **2009-2010**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**

  **2008-2009**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**2^nd^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2007-2008**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**

  **2006-2007**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**

  **2005-2006**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**1^st^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2004-2005**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**

  **2003-2004**   **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**

  **2002-2003**   **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**

  **Baseline**    **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

The annual measurable objectives will utilize the same proficiency index
score as the most recent Intermediate Goal. For example, the annual
measurable objectives in 2003 and 2004 are the same as the baseline.
Rhode Island\'s application of intermediate goals and annual measurable
objectives is consistent with our theory of change. We anticipate that
the strongest academic gains will take place in the latter end of the
twelve-year timeline. The earlier years will recognize growth from lower
levels of performance toward reaching proficiency. These low performing
schools and districts will need time to adjust curriculum, improve
teachers\' knowledge base and instructional practices, and organize
their resources to support all students. Trajectories illustrating this
progression are found in Graphs 1 through 6 following this page. The
charts compare the progression of the Index Proficiency with the
Proficiency Rate that is calculated by counting the number of students
who are proficient (Levels 4 and 5). Even though the trajectories are
different, they are equivalent and each gets to the 100% rate by the
year 2014.

Schools (and school districts) will be designated as high performing,
moderately performing and low performing. In addition, each school and
district that is low or moderately performing will be classified as
improving or not improving, and districts that are high performing will
be designated as sustaining or improving. This is comparable to
terminology used in the last two cycles of school classifications in
Rhode Island.

For the 2003 and future classifications of schools and districts, the
formula for classification will have the following elements:

-   Comparison of test score results against the official state first
    annual measurable objective in 2002-2003 and against the projected
    track of change in future years to reach 100 percent proficiency by
    2013-2014.

-   The same requirements of performance for disaggregated subgroups of
    the student population where the number of students reliably
    supports such an analysis.

-   Separate analysis for English language arts performance and
    mathematics performance.

-   A final check to determine if \"annual measurable objectives\" have
    been met for the graduation rate (high schools) or the attendance
    rate (elementary and middle schools).

-   Proper participation rates are required by NCLBA.

The Rhode Island system uses multiple years of data to evaluate schools.
Thus, each year a school\'s performance is considered to be the average
of the most recent three years of assessment data. For example, to test
whether a school has met its 2003-2004 annual measurable objective, the
analysis will combine test scores from 2002, 2003 and 2004 to compare
against the statewide annual measurable objective for 2003-2004.

Experience with three year averaging has taught us that occasionally a
school will show strong improvement in the current year that is diluted
using a three-year average to the point where the improvement is
completely obscured. Thus, the Rhode Island system will allow a second
comparison option. If a current (single year) score would improve the
classification of a school, a single year will represent current data
rather that a three-year average. This option cannot be used for very
small schools (less than 45 students at a tested grade).

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.780555555555556in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in" height="4.0125in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

**SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS**

Rhode Island uses a process for Safe Harbor review that is more
stringent than the statutory definition. An entire school (or district)
or any of the designated subgroups within the schools (or district) may
fail to meet their Annual Measurable Objective (AMO). Such a school (or
district) is considered to have failed \"status review\" and may be
identified for improvement. However, the provisions of NCLBA give this
schools (or district) and many others like it the opportunity for
further review of their performance before a final decision is made on
their status. The first of these reviews is Safe Harbor. Safe Harbor
review is available for schools as well as districts. To benefit from
this review the school or district must:

a)  Have a graduation rate (high schools) or an attendance rate
    (elementary and middle schools) at

> or above the annual measurable objective or improving at an adequate
> rate of progress, and

b)  Have an assessment participation rate of at least 95 percent.

Just as in status review, three years of aggregate data will be used and
minimum N condition will be imposed for reliability purposes. If current
year\'s data provides information more favorable to the school, then one
year of data will be used instead of the three-year aggregated data.
Aggregate data for 2000, 2001 and 2002 is used to set starting points
for this year. Next year, aggregate data for 2001, 2002 and 2003 will be
used if a three-year aggregate is required. This is just for Safe Harbor
review only. The school will still be assigned its three-year aggregated
data for historical purposes.

For a school to pass the third test of Safe Harbor review it must:

> Decrease the percent of students who are not proficient by 10 percent.
> If in the prior year a district, school or subgroup has an Index
> Proficiency equal to P, then the Safe Harbor target score in the
> current year required by the group in order to meet Safe Harbor
> provisions is given by: T=P+0.1\*(100-P). Rhode Island, like many
> other states, uses an Index score to measure school and subgroup
> proficiency rates. There is no direct translation from the number of
> students required in the original Safe Harbor definition in the
> statute and the Index Proficiency score. Simulations using different
> models of Safe Harbor were carried-out before settling on our current
> method. Our aim has been to select a model that closely identifies
> schools and subgroups, which are identified by the definition of Safe
> Harbor in the statute and regulations. To illustrate that our method
> yields similar results to the definition in statute, we have applied
> both definitions to aggregate English language arts test data from
> 1999 to 2001 and to 2002. Out of a total of 111 schools identified by
> statute for meeting Safe Harbor provisions, 97 were identified by our
> procedure. That is an 87% success rate.
>
> A final provision for further review of schools and districts, which
> have failed both status
>
> review and Safe Harbor review, is the appeal process. Schools and
> districts have 30 days from
>
> the date of notification to challenge their proposed placement due to
> data errors and statistical
>
> reasons.

1.  **How does the State Accountability System determine whether each
    student subgroup, public school and LEA makes AYP?**

The State Assessment Exams have a demographic component, in which each
student provides his or her racial category, IEP status, LEP status and
free and reduced lunch status. This enables us to determine the
proficiency levels of each student subgroup. Because the State does not
have individual student identifier, the denominator in calculating
proficiency levels of subgroups is the number of students who
self-identify themselves as belonging to that subgroup. Students who
complete the demographic component but do not take the test are included
in the denominator but not in the numerator for determining the
participation rates and proficiency levels. We are thus able to
calculate the proficiency levels and participation rates of
disaggregated subgroups within the school or district. The accuracy of
this process will be improved when we implement individual student
identifier by 2004.

We have set the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) for each subgroup,
school and district to be the same for each grade and subject.
Subgroups, schools and districts that fail to meet their AMO are
subjected to Safe Harbor provisions before a final determination is made
on their status. After Safe Harbor review, if a school or district meets
its AMO but one of the subgroups within the school or district fail to
meet its AMO, then the school or district has not met its AMO and is a
subject for corrective action.

**3.2a What is the State\'s starting point for calculating Adequate
Yearly Progress?**

All current data collected under the existing system will be used to
develop baseline starting points for ELA and mathematics (see 3.2
table). Baselines for mathematics and ELA were created at the school
level for elementary, middle and high schools. Rhode Island will
continue to use a three-year averaging system to determine both actual
performance [and]{.underline} improvement. This method will be applied
uniformly to all public schools, LEAs, and subgroups within the State.
For the 2002 starting point, data from 2000, 2001, and 2002 will be used
as the basis for establishing starting points for ELA and mathematics at
the elementary, middle, and high school using the NCLB guidance
regarding the setting of starting points, intermediate goals, and annual
measurable objectives culminating in 100% proficiency in 2014. Safe
Harbor provisions will be granted to any school or districts who
decreases by 10% the percent of students who are not proficient on the
Index Proficiency Score.

Rhode Island has identified six starting points for calculating AYP. The
starting points are for each separate assessment (ELA/Math) and at three
levels \-- elementary, middle and high schools. In each case the
baseline is the Index Proficiency of the school building which enrolls
the student at the 20^th^ percentile of Rhode Island\'s total
enrollment. Limited English proficient students who were exempted from
State testing for one year were not included in determining the
baseline. The index is calculated by assigning a point value to each
level of performance on the State assessment using the aggregated
results of the 2000, 2001, 2002 State assessments (graphs 3.2a). All
schools will have their aggregated results [and]{.underline}
disaggregated results compared to the annual measurable objectives for
determinations of AYP.

**NCLB STARTING POINT CALCULATION**

Starting points are determined for the subjects English language arts
and mathematics at grades 4, 8 and 10. For each grade and subject, we
combine 3 years of New Standards data from 2000 to 2002. Subtests are
also aggregated over the three-year interval to get cumulative results
for the subject.

The proficiency index in each subject at a grade level is calculated by
summing over three years and over all subtests the index value of all
students and dividing that number by the grade level enrollments which
are summed over three-years and over the subtests.

The schools are then ranked by grade and the proficiency index for each
subject. We also calculate 20 percent of the total enrollment described
above. The proficiency index of the school that is within the 20^th^
percentile of enrollment is defined as the baseline or starting point of
the grade level for that subject.

**BASELINES**

**GRADE LEVEL ELA/READING MATH**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Elementary**          **76.1**                **61.7**

  **Middle**              **68.0**                **46.1**

  **High**                **62.6**                **44.8**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   \"Making valid and reliable decisions in achieving Adequate Yearly
    Progress\" developed by Council of Chief State School Officers

-   NCLBA \"Rules\" for establishing baseline/starting points

**3.2b What are the State\'s annual measurable objectives for
determining adequate yearly progress?**

Rhode Island has established its annual measurable objective based on
the proficiency index using the assessment data from 2000, 2001, and
2002 school years. To make AYP, schools and student subgroups must meet
the annual measurable objectives for that particular year or show
improvement based on the \"safe harbor\" provisions. Rhode Island has
established separate ELA and mathematics annual measurable objectives
for three levels \-- elementary, middle, and high schools that must meet
the index proficiency at each intermediate goal. The ELA and mathematics
annual measurable objectives will be applied to each school building and
district, as well as to each subgroup at the school, district and state
levels to determine AYP status.

**[RHODE ISLAND\'S ANNUAL MEASURABLE GOALS]{.underline}**

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                  **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**

  **2013-2014**   **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**5^th^ Intermediate Goal**

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **20112-2013**   **96.1**   **93.7**   **94.5**   **91.1**   **93.6**   **90.8**

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**4^th^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2011-2012**   **92.1**   **87.3**   **89.2**   **82.1**   **87.4**   **81.6**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**3^rd^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2010-2011**   **88.1**   **80.9**   **83.9**   **73.1**   **81.2**   **72.4**

  **2009-2010**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**

  **2008-2009**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**2^nd^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2007-2008**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**

  **2006-2007**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**

  **2005-2006**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**1^st^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2004-2005**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**

  **2003-2004**   **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**

  **2002-2003**   **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**

  **Baseline**    **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   3.2 Table

-   Baseline Tables and example of School Profiles for all schools and
    districts

**3.2c What are the State\'s intermediate goals for determining Adequate
Yearly Progress?**

Rhode Island has established Five Intermediate Goals based on the
Proficiency Index using the assessment data from 2000, 2001, and 2002
school years. The Intermediate Goals for elementary, middle and high
school will increase in five equal increments over the 12-year timeline.
The first Intermediate Goal will take effect in the 2004-2005 school
year (see below). We anticipate that the strongest academic gains will
be seen in later years, as the grade level expectations, assessments,
teacher practices and school culture align and respond to improvement
initiatives tracked and assessed by RI\'s SALT Accountability Process,
In\$ight Data, and our Learning Support Indicators. The Intermediate
Goals provide time for school reform efforts to take hold. (see also
3.1)

**SEQUENCE OF SIX INTERMEDIATE GOALS**

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH

  -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                 **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**

  **2014**       **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**

  **2013**       **96.1**   **93.7**   **94.5**   **91.1**   **93.6**   **90.8**

  **2012**       **92.1**   **87.3**   **89.2**   **82.1**   **87.4**   **81.6**

  **2011**       **88.1**   **80.9**   **83.9**   **73.1**   **81.2**   **72.4**

  **2008**       **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**

  **2005**       **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**

  **Baseline**   **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**
  -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   Learning Support Indicators Technical Assistance Bulletin

-   In\$ight Data

-   SALT Accountability Process

-   \"Progressive Support and Intervention\" (May 2000)

**PRINCIPLE 4. State makes annual decisions about the achievement of all
public schools and LEAs.**

1.  **How does the State Accountability System make an annual
    determination of whether each**

**public school and LEA in the State made AYP?**

State Assessments are offered annually to all students at grades 4, 8
and 10 in mathematics and English language arts. From the results of
these tests, we determine the proficiency levels of all schools,
districts, and disaggregated subgroups within schools and districts.
Experience with three-year averaging has taught us that occasionally a
school will show strong improvement in the current year that is diluted
using a three-year average to the point where the improvement is
completely obscured. Thus, the Rhode Island system will allow a second
comparison option. If a current (single year) score would improve the
classification of a district or school, the single year\'s results will
represent the current data rather than the three-year average. The
following table illustrates the difference between the three-year versus
single year comparison.

**[IN YEAR]{.underline} [3-YEAR AGGREGATE]{.underline} [OR]{.underline}
[1-YR OPTION]{.underline}**

**2002 2000-2002 2002**

**2003 2001-2003 2003**

**2004 2002-2004 2004**

This option can only be used when the ***minimum "N" size is met for the
current year (N=45). Historical data for Safe Harbor purposes continues
to be a three-year average.***

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   **Annual State Assessment Data**

**PRINCIPAL 5. All public schools and LEAs are held accountable for the
achievement of individual**

**subgroups.**

1.  **How does the definition of Adequate Yearly Progress include all
    the required student subgroups?**

The Rhode Island Accountability System has already included all of the
NCLB required student sub-groups, disaggregated the achievement data for
those groups and reported their progress in the report on schools and
districts in *Information Works*! Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) and
intermediate goals have been set-up for schools, districts, the State
and all disaggregated subgroups.

Under our Accountability System, every NCLB identified disaggregated
group must have achieved the growth required in its AMO in order for the
school and district to meet its AYP.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   October 1^st^ Collection System

-   Header Sheets (Demographic Sheets)

-   Test Administration Manuals for Each Test

-   Information Works!
    ([www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu](http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/))
    Charts

-   June Report Forms

-   Limited English Proficient and Special Education Student Census

-   *Information Works*!
    ([www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu](http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/))

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   RI Department of Education Website
    ([www.ridoe.net](http://www.ridoe.net/))

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Statewide Disaggregations for 2002

    1.  **How are public schools and LEAs held accountable for the
        progress of student subgroups in the determination of Adequate
        Yearly Progress?**

The State Assessment Exams have a demographic component, in which each
student provides his or her racial category, IEP status, LEP status and
free-reduced lunch status. This enables us to determine the proficiency
levels of each student subgroup. Because the State does not have
individual student identifier, the denominator in calculating
proficiency levels of subgroups is the number of students who
self-identify themselves as belonging to that subgroup. Students who
complete the demographic component but do not take the test are included
in the denominator but not in the numerator for determining the
participation rates and proficiency levels. We are thus able to
calculate the proficiency levels and participation rates of
disaggregated subgroups within the school or district. The accuracy of
this process will be improved when we implement individual student
identifier by 2004.

We have set the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) for each subgroup,
school and district to be same for each grade and subject. Subgroups,
schools and districts that fail to meet their AMO are subjected to Safe
Harbor provisions before a final determination is made of their status.
After Safe Harbor review, if a school or district meets its AMO but one
of the subgroups within the school or district fail to meet its AMO,
then the school or district has not met its AMO and is a subject for
corrective action.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   \"School Performance Categories\" Technical Assistance Bulletin
    (October 2002)

-   *Information Works*!
    ([www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu](http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/))

-   Progressive Support and Intervention (May 2000) Technical Bulletin

-   Statewide disaggregations for 2002

    1.  **How are students with disabilities included in the State\'s
        definition of Adequate Yearly Progress?**

All students with disabilities participate fully in the Statewide
Assessments with or without accommodations or they are tested using the
Alternate Assessment System if they meet the eligibility criteria. Less
than 1% of all students are eligible to participate in the Alternate
Assessment System. Thus, all students with special needs are included in
the State accountability system.

Assuming a universal identifier system is in place (2004) we will assign
test results of students who have exited special education, (those
students who carry an Individualized Education Plan) to this subgroup
for purposes of disaggregation in determining AYP for that group.
Students who receive section 504 services are not included in
determining IEP disaggregations. The assignment of exited students to
the special needs disaggregated group is for that year only and not for
subsequent years. The introduction of a universal identifier system will
ensure even greater accuracy in Rhode Island\'s ability to account for
all students.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}**

-   \"Testing Guidelines for Rhode Island\'s State Assessment Program\"
    pp. 2&4 and Appendix B

-   Special Education Regulations

-   Individualized Education Program Guidebook

-   Alternate Assessment Manual

    1.  **How are students with limited English proficiency included in
        the State\'s definition of Adequate Yearly Progress?**

Rhode Island mandates the assessment of all students including students
who have limited English language abilities. Rhode Island has adopted
the definition of a Limited English Proficient student in Title IX of
NCLB, Part A Definitions, Section 9101. A limited English proficient
student is defined as a student who is enrolled or preparing to enroll
in an elementary or secondary school; who was not born in the United
States or whose native language is a language other than English; who is
a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying
areas; and who comes from an environment where a language other than
English has had a significant impact on the individual\'s level of
English language proficiency; or who is migratory, whose native language
is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment
where a language other than English is dominant; and whose difficulties
is speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may
be sufficient to deny the individual the ability to meet the State\'s
proficient level of achievement on State assessments; the ability to
successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is
English; or the opportunity to participate fully in society. Students
who are learning English are assessed in the New Standards Reference
Examination in English Language Arts and Mathematics, with
accommodations as needed, just like those who do not receive Limited
English Proficient (LEP) services. And, they are assessed in their
English language proficiency at all grade levels - K through 12.

Rhode Island selected the Maculatis II (MAC II) as its statewide measure
of English language acquisition for all students in Kindergarten through
grade 12 enrolled in ESL or bilingual programs. It was administered for
the first time in Spring 2003. The results of this assessment will be
used to monitor the growth of all English language learners statewide.
Schools and districts will establish AYP targets for their students on
this exam. The second use of the test is to set statewide standards that
establish the English proficiency levels. The standard setting process
for the MAC II will be conducted in the summer of 2003.

Students who receive LEP services, like all other students, take the New
Standard Reference Examination in English Language Arts and Mathematics
for Accountability purposes. In addition to this, LEP students take the
MAC II for the reasons stated above.

Rhode Island is developing English language proficiency standards in
partnership with the New England Compact. This process will begin in May
of 2003 and will be finalized by the Summer. Rhode Island will ensure
that there is alignment between its newly developed English language
proficiency standards and the MAC II. Finally, Rhode Island also plans
to develop an Alternate Assessment model in English language arts and
mathematics for English language learner students that measures content
standards measured by the regular State assessments. This assessment
will be aligned with Rhode Island\'s grade level expectations in
mathematics and English language arts.

Assuming a universal identifier system is in place (2004) we will assign
the test results of students who have exited LEP services to this
subgroup for purposes of disaggregation in determining AYP for that
group. The assignment of exited students to the LEP disaggregated group
is ***for two years subsequent to exit from program services in
accordance with federal guidance.*** The introduction of a universal
student identifier system will ensure even greater accuracy in Rhode
Island\'s ability to account for all students. ***The LEP census system
is the first program subsystem to be fully integrated into the new
universal identifier system. In accordance with federal guidance, LEP
students in the United States less than one year (meaning, enrolled
after June 30 for March testing) will not be included in the
accountability analyses. They must, however, take the mathematics
assessment, but may be exempted from the ELA assessment.***

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   \"Testing guidelines for Rhode Island\'s State Assessment Program,\"
    pg. 3 and Appendix B

    1.  **What is the State\'s definition of the minimum number of
        students in a subgroup required for reporting purposes? For
        accountability purposes?**

The process of identifying schools meeting their annual goals, and the
resulting sanctions associated with such decisions is full of pitfalls
that can lead to spurious conclusions and render the entire
accountability system meaningless. These decisions are thus subject to
standard statistical evaluations. Variations in school proficiency rates
can be attributed to actual improvement over time, as well as to
measurement and sampling errors. While it is not possible to eliminate
the errors completely, we can at a minimum measure the effects of the
errors and take that into consideration in our decision-making process.
Several studies 1\'2\'3 have shown that measurement and sampling errors
can be counted for by the standard error associated with the school
proficiency rate. These studies and our own analyses indicate that
variation of the standard error with N is small for similar size schools
if a minimum value of N is selected. The schools at elementary, middle
and high levels meet this condition and it makes sense to attach a
common standard error for each school or subgroup.

Hypothesis testing is the tool we choose to determine whether a school
or subgroup has met its Annual Measurable Objective (AMO). Type I
Errors - wrongly identifying schools for expensive corrective measures
when the schools have actually met their annual measurable goals, and
Type II Errors - failing to identify low performing schools for
corrective measures are the two errors we encounter here. Marion and
others ² have offered a method to overcome these and we have adopted
their approach here. We have subjected our system to the process
described below to minimize these errors and improve its reliability and
validity.

A school with N students within a population of mean, π, has an
accompanying standard error, z, given:

z=(σ/N)¹ ² =(π(1-π)/N)¹ ² \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1

Using a two-tail z-statistic at 95% confidence level, we have determined
the variation of standard errors with N for different subgroups, grades
and subjects. The errors decrease as N increases, thereby increasing the
reliability of our decisions. However, for large values of N, the number
of schools included in our accountability system decreases, thereby
decreasing the validity of the system. Students with IEPs produce the
highest standard error at about 2% points in proficiency level when
N=45. ***However, all schools regardless of size will be classified.***
For other subgroups, comparable errors are obtained at lower values of
N. However, we have decided to use one value of N in all groups,
subjects and grades. We find this single value of N to be simple and
easier to explain to our constituents. We compromise on these competing
variables by selecting N=45.

To further address this, we have also aggregated data over a three-year
period to increase the value of N. Due to the small size of our state,
one and two year data results in a significant number of schools being
excluded from our system. No accountability decision will be made on any
subgroup unless its population is 45. ***However, all schools regardless
of size will be classified.*** The value of N=10 will continue to be
used for reporting purposes. All new tests will be subjected to similar
analyses to determine the minimum value of N that will yield a
corresponding standard error of about 2% points or less.

How is Equation 1 applied to schools? The three-year enrollments of our
schools vary from 5 to 764. If π in Equation 1 is the school mean score
instead of the population mean, then school level variances do not
depend upon the size of the school 1. Arguably, our schools are not
similar in size and placing all of them in one group penalizes those
with high populations (low standard errors) and rewarding those with low
populations (high standard errors). To minimize these effects, we have
divided the schools into different groups based on their sizes. The
groups for elementary grade level are shown below.

> GROUP \# POPULATION

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  1                                   45-100

  2                                   101-150

  3                                   151-200

  4                                   201-250

  5                                   251-300

  6                                   301-350

  7                                   351-400

  8                                   401+
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

If schools are grouped based on population, the variances from one group
to the other is the most importance variable from one group to the
other. In determining the reliability of our assessment measurements, we
have evaluated the Index Proficiency scores of all schools in English
language arts and mathematics at the elementary, middle and high school
levels. The schools within each of the three levels are then divided
into different groups based on their sizes. A school in a specified
group has a standard error associated with the Index Proficiency score,
which is defined as the square root of the group variance divided by the
number of students in the school. The result is multiplied by a factor
of 1.96 to convert the degree of confidence to 95% using a two-tail
z-statistic. Using this approach at grade 4, all schools in our
accountability system have standard errors less than 0.5% points. The
standard errors for each school are doubled if we placed all the schools
at a grade level into one group. The population variations of subgroups
are not as dramatic as the school level. As a result of this, we have
placed all schools at each grade level in a single group in determining
the standard errors of the subgroups. Graphs 7 and 8 below show the
variation of the standard error of the Proficiency Index with N for
students with IEPs.

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.035416666666666in"}

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

We have also carried out analysis on the effect of N=45 on student
participation in our accountability system. The three charts below show
the percent of the disaggregated subgroups who are included in the
system when N=45. At the State level, every student is accounted for and
we have 100 in each cell. At the school level, there are many schools in
which the population of the disaggregated subgroups fall below 45. This
explains why the participation rates at the school level are much lower.
There is considerable improvement in participation rates at the district
level.

## SCHOOL LEVEL ANALYSIS

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><h5 id="ela-analysis">ELA ANALYSIS</h5></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>GRADE</td>
<td>ALL<br />
GROUPS</td>
<td>LUNCH</td>
<td>AMERICAN<br />
INDIAN</td>
<td>ASIAN</td>
<td>BLACK</td>
<td>HISPANIC</td>
<td>WHITE</td>
<td>IEP</td>
<td>LEP</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>4</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>67</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>78</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>73</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 colspan="3"><strong><u>MATH ANALYSIS</u></strong></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>GRADE</td>
<td>ALL<br />
GROUPS</td>
<td>LUNCH</td>
<td>AMERICAN<br />
INDIAN</td>
<td>ASIAN</td>
<td>BLACK</td>
<td>HISPANIC</td>
<td>WHITE</td>
<td>IEP</td>
<td>LEP</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>4</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>66</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>71</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>73</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## **[DISTRICT LEVEL ANALYSIS]{.underline}**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><h1 id="ela-analysis-1">ELA ANALYSIS</h1></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>GRADE</strong></td>
<td><strong>ALL<br />
GROUPS</strong></td>
<td><strong>LUNCH</strong></td>
<td><strong>AMERICAN<br />
INDIAN</strong></td>
<td><strong>ASIAN</strong></td>
<td><strong>BLACK</strong></td>
<td><strong>HISPANIC</strong></td>
<td><strong>WHITE</strong></td>
<td><strong>IEP</strong></td>
<td><strong>LEP</strong></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>4</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>94</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>88</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>81</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 colspan="3"><h1 id="math-analysis"><u>MATH ANALYSIS</u></h1></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>ALL<br />
GROUPS</strong></td>
<td><strong>LUNCH</strong></td>
<td><strong>AMERICAN<br />
INDIAN</strong></td>
<td><strong>ASIAN</strong></td>
<td><strong>BLACK</strong></td>
<td><strong>HISPANIC</strong></td>
<td><strong>WHITE</strong></td>
<td><strong>IEP</strong></td>
<td><strong>LEP</strong></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>4</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>94</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>87</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>80</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## STATE LEVEL ANALYSIS

  ------- -------- ------- ------------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ------- ------- -------
                           **[ELA                                                               
                           ANALYSIS]{.underline}**                                              

  GRADE   ALL\     LUNCH   AMERICAN\                 ASIAN   BLACK   HISPANIC   WHITE   IEP     LEP
          GROUPS           INDIAN                                                               

                                                                                                

  4       100      100     100                       100     100     100        100     100     100

  8       100      100     100                       100     100     100        100     100     100

  10      100      100     100                       100     100     100        100     100     100

                                                                                                

                           **[MATH                                                              
                           ANALYSIS]{.underline}**                                              

                                                                                                

  GRADE   ALL\     LUNCH   AMERICAN\                 ASIAN   BLACK   HISPANIC   WHITE   IEP     LEP
          GROUPS           INDIAN                                                               

                                                                                                

  4       100      100     100                       100     100     100        100     100     100

  8       100      100     100                       100     100     100        100     100     100

  10      100      100     100                       100     100     100        100     100     100
  ------- -------- ------- ------------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ------- ------- -------

**[RHODE ISLAND\'S MINIMUM-N SIZE]{.underline}**

+----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------+
| **[Repo              | **[                | **[Parti                |
| rting]{.underline}** | AYP]{.underline}** | cipation]{.underline}** |
|                      |                    |                         |
| **10**               | **45**             | **45**                  |
+----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------+

[Schools With Population Less Than Minimum N=45.]{.underline}

Studies ¹´², including our own analysis have shown that school level
variances of student proficiency rates do not depend upon the size of
the school. However, if schools are grouped based on population, then
the school level proficiency variances from one group to the other
become distinctively different. In determining the reliability of our
assessment measurements, we have evaluated the Index Proficiency scores
of all schools and subgroups in English Language Arts and Mathematics at
the Elementary, Middle and High School levels. The schools within each
of the three levels are then divided into different groups based on
their sizes. A school in a specified group has a standard error
associated with the Index Proficiency score, which is defined as the
square root of the group variance divided by the number of students in
the school. The result is multiplied by a factor of 1.96 to convert the
degree of confidence to 95% using a two-tail z-statistic. If all the
schools with varying populations are placed in one group, we find that
the standard error for each school is doubled. Thus, AYP decisions made
with the grouping of schools based on size are found to be more
reliable.

Using a process similar to the one described above, we have defined our
minimum N to be 45. One of the main reasons for the choice of 45 is that
the resulting standard error is less than the expected growth targets in
student performances over time. This enables us to make AYP decisions
involving student proficiency levels with a certain degree of confidence
(95%).

Rhode Island has a few schools with population less than 45. For these
schools, the process described above will lead to large standard errors
since the standard error is inversely proportional to the square root of
N. These schools with small populations are not in sufficient numbers to
constitute a group by themselves. To obtain comparable error bands for
these schools, student level records within each school will be used to
calculate the associated standard error for that school. The standard
error, then, is the square root of the variance of the individual
student scores within the school divided by the number of students in
the school. This does not take into consideration the scores of other
schools with similar populations and the results need to be interpreted
very carefully. Even though the corresponding standard errors are
relatively larger, they are still less than the annual growth expected
from the school in order for the school to meet its Annual Measurable
Objective (AMO). Thus, actual growth can be distinguished from
measurement and sampling errors.

Thus, all schools, even those with a population of less than 45, will be
included in our Accountability system; the manner in which we measure
the reliability of our decisions depends on the size of the school.

**[References]{.underline}:**

1.  Richard, Hill (2000) The Reliability of California\'s API, The
    National Center for the

> Improvement of Educational Assessment.

2.  Marion, S.F., White, C., Carlson, D., Erpenbach, W.J., Rabinowitz,
    S., Sheinker, J. (2002)

> making valid and reliable decisions in the determination of Adequate
> Yearly Progress: A pater
>
> in the series: Implementing The State Accountability System
> Requirements Under the No
>
> Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief
> State Schools Officers.

3.  Robert, Lee (2003) Massachusetts Department of Education, Personal
    Communication.

4.  Richard, Hill (2002) Determining the Reliability of School Scores,
    The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   ASR-CAS Joint Study Group on Adequate Yearly Progress: *Making Valid
    and Reliable Decisions in Determining Adequate Yearly Progress
    (2002)*, Prepared for the Council of Chief State School Officers
    with support from the U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Blischke, W R. and Muphy, D.N. P (2000). *Reliability: Modeling,
    Prediction and Optimization,* Wiley, New York.

    1.  **How does the State Accountability System protect the privacy
        of students when reporting results**

**and when determining AYP?**

The Rhode Island Accountability System does not reveal personally
identifiable information in any public reports. Our policy does not
permit us to report student results in groups of less than ten so as to
not create a situation in which an individual student can be identified
from context. (See also 5.5)

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   *Information Works*!
    ([www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu](http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/))
    User\'s Guide in beginning of document

**PRINCIPLE 6. State definition of AYP is based primarily on the
State\'s academic assessments.**

1.  **How is the State\'s definition of Adequate Yearly Progress based
    primarily on academic assessments?**

Rhode Island\'s existing State Assessment Program (RISAP) is implemented
statewide and legislatively mandated through Article 31. It is conducted
annually, assessing students at grades 4, 8 and 10 in reading, writing
and mathematics using the *New Standards* Reference Examinations; and at
grades 3, 7 and 11 in writing using a state-developed process writing
assessment.\" The *New Standards* Reference Examinations provide scores
for both basic skills and higher order thinking, aligned to our State
frameworks in mathematics and in language arts (both reading and
writing).

To meet the State assessment system requirements of No Child Left
Behind, a number of changes, adaptations and additions will be required
in RISAP. As these are implemented, beginning this Spring (2002) and
continuing over the next several years, many technical details will be
addressed so that assessment results will continue to reflect the
improved teaching and learning which is occurring in Rhode Island\'s
schools. Some adjustments in trend lines (i.e., baselines, starting
points, goals, objectives, AYP) may be required, however, given the
changes and additions to RISAP. Nevertheless, such changes will be in
keeping with our Index Proficiency system, which includes the design of
our Intermediate Goals, Annual Measurable Objectives and determinations
of Adequate Yearly Progress, as explained elsewhere in this Technical
Bulletin.

**Language Arts and Mathematics**

Through Rhode Island\'s partnership in the New England Compact, work on
grade level standards and student expectations for grades 3-8 will be
completed for language arts and mathematics by May 2003. District
Standards Teams meet with stakeholders beginning in June 2003, to align
curriculum and instruction. Over the Summer, the high school grade of
focus for State assessment will be determined and teams will work to
extend the grade level standards and student expectations for language
arts and mathematics into the high school grades.

In Summer and Fall 2003, an assessment blueprint in each content area
will be created based on the grade level student expectations grades 3-8
and high school. Each blueprint will align with grade level standards,
establish priority expectations across grade levels, and delineate how
frequently and to what extent the other expectations will be measured.
The blueprints will also incorporate universal design concepts, define
the balance between selected-response and constructed response items,
and provide linkages with the content and cognitive complexity
expectations that have been embedded in the *New Standards* Reference
Examinations. Such an approach embraces the requirements of No Child
Left Behind to assess higher order thinking as well as basic skills
while also providing for a logical and a technically feasible transition
from the *New Standards* exams to the new grade level assessments.

By late Fall 2003 and continuing into 2004, the first cycle of item
development will occur in accordance with the stipulations of the
relevant assessment blueprint. The development process will incorporate
classroom tryouts to provide information to item writers about item
clarity, purpose (does the item measure what it was written to measure),
and accessibility for all students (universal design). Bias reviews will
precede more formal field testing. Because of the volume of field
testing required at all grades, items will be embedded and spiraled in
the existing State assessments each year. As test forms are created,
they will undergo alignment analyses to ensure that each form in each
content area meets the requirements of the blueprint.

Assessment data from 2004 and 2005 on existing and field-tested items
will be used to help inform the initial standard setting and equating
processes for the newly developed test forms. Some targeted
field-testing will also need to be done in grades not yet a part of the
State Assessment Program through 2005, to assist with vertical linking.
This timeline will ensure that new language arts and mathematics
assessments will be ready for full implementation in Spring 2006.

Informed by initial field testing in Spring 2004, the next cycle of item
development will occur and the entire development process will be
replicated. Since all grades will be tested each year in both language
arts and mathematics, new items and test forms will be required
annually. Thus, item development and the entire development process will
be ongoing in annual cycles.

Rhode Island\'s blueprints will designate certain grade levels as
benchmarks requiring extensive on-demand State testing (for example,
grades 4 and 8). The other grade levels (for example, grades 3, 5, 6 and
7) would have less extensive on-demand testing coupled with required
periodic classroom-embedded tasks, the results of which will be
submitted by districts to the State for incorporation with each
school\'s on-demand results. Two approaches to scoring are currently
being considered: 1) \"Read-behinds\" of randomly selected tests/tasks
for a designated percentage of student responses would provide
information about the reliability of classroom scoring; or, 2)
Cross-school or cross-district scoring teams could be convened
periodically throughout the year to score the classroom-embedded tasks.
This multiple assessment approach makes it possible to measure a broader
array of standards and expectations, thereby increasing the validity of
judgments made about the degree of language arts or mathematics
achievement in schools.

The Rhode Island Writing Assessment at grades 3, 7 and 11 will continue
at those grades until Spring 2006, when the new language arts components
take effect encompassing both reading and writing at all grades 3-8 and
one grade in high school.

**Assessment in the Early Grades**

To establish a comprehensive system that includes every public school in
the State, additional classroom- embedded State assessments in language
arts and mathematics will be implemented, beginning in 2003-2004, for
[schools serving only one or more of the early grades]{.underline} -
Kindergarten, 1, 2 and 3. These schools currently do not participate in
the reading and mathematics portions of RISAP because they do not have
4^th^ grades.

The Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) and Developmental
Reading Assessment (DRA) assessments will be implemented at each of
these grades in these schools for reading. PALS and DRA will provide
screening, on-going monitoring and summative evaluations of progress.
Teachers record the PALS assessment observations as they occur, using
Palm Pilot technology. These results are then uploaded to the district
and to the State to be summarized and reported.

The State has a process underway to select appropriate mathematics
assessments/tasks for grades K-3, also to be implemented for the first
time in 2003-2004. For writing in the K-2 schools, a decision will be
made in this Spring whether to develop assessments or select from those
already published. Two approaches to scoring are currently being
considered for mathematics and for writing: 1) \"Read-behinds\" of
randomly selected tests/tasks for a designated percentage of student
responses would provide information about the reliability of classroom
scoring; or, 2) Cross-school or cross-district scoring teams could be
convened periodically throughout the year to score the
classroom-embedded tasks. The results of these classroom assessments
will also be submitted by districts to the State for incorporation with
each school\'s DRA results.

**Science Assessment**

In preparation for the Spring 2008 implementation of science assessments
at one grade each in span of grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12, work will begin
in Fall 2003 with a committee of science practitioners to revisit/
revise Rhode Island\'s science standards and to create grade level or
grade span expectations. By Spring 2005, grades in which assessment will
occur will have been selected and student expectations written. An
assessment blueprint will be developed in Summer 2005 to guide the item
development for these on-demand assessments in the three selected
grades. The blueprint will also incorporate universal design concepts,
define the balance between selected-response and constructed response
items, define the number and extent of \"hands-on\" assessment
circumstances/stations/labs, and address content and cognitive
complexity for different types of items. Test development tasks, as
enumerated for language arts and mathematics above, will then be carried
out so that science assessments are ready for full implementation in
Spring 2008. As with language arts and mathematics, item development and
the entire development process will be ongoing in annual cycles.

**Alternate Assessment**

Rhode Island\'s Alternate Assessment for the less than 1% of special
needs students who are not able to take the regular State assessments
even with accommodations has been fully implemented since Spring 2002.
The portfolio scores, reported according to the same proficiency labels
as the regular State assessments, are included in the calculations of
school performance levels and of improvement. A formal standard-setting
process is planned. Due to the number of new teachers working with this
population each year, orientation to and professional development about
the nature of this portfolio assessment is also required annually.

**Assessment of English Language Learners**

For English language learners, Spring 2003 is the first full
implementation of the Maculaitis II English language proficiency exam in
Rhode Island. This annual assessment of all English language learners
receiving services measures the progress of these students\' acquisition
of English over time in the areas of reading, writing, listening and
speaking. A reading comprehension score is also provided.

\"Read-behinds\" of randomly selected tests for 20 percent of the
students to the speaking and writing portions of the MAC II provides
information about the reliability of classroom scoring. When reliability
is below .7 for a particular teacher, all of the speaking (or writing)
scores for that person will be rescored and that teacher will be
required to participate in additional training. Due to the number of new
teachers working with this population each year, orientation to and
professional development about how to administer this assessment is also
required annually.

Rhode Island intends to seek funding to support the development and
implementation of a portfolio system, which will assess student progress
in acquiring reading, writing and mathematics content as English
language learners are acquiring English during their first three years
in the United States. Until such time as such a system is in place at
all tested grades for students in their first three-years of English
language acquisition, these students will participate in the regular
State assessments to the extent possible.

RISAP currently provides and will continue to provide mathematics
assessments in Spanish for those who are literate in Spanish and/or are
receiving bilingual content instruction in Spanish. Bilingual
instruction only occurs in Spanish in Rhode Island and only in a few
schools in Providence. The vast majority of Rhode Island\'s English
language learners are not literate in their native languages and receive
English as a Second Language rather than bilingual instruction, so
translated assessments are not appropriate. Because of the small number
of students literate in languages other than English and Spanish, it is
cost-prohibitive in Rhode Island to provide translations of assessments
into additional languages.

**THE NEW ENGLAND COMPACT, A FOUR-STATE CONSORTIUM TO ENHANCE THE
QUALITY OF THEIR STATE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS**

This project grows out of an existing collaboration formed by the
Commissioners of Education of four states, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont. These states have been working together since Fall
2001 to discuss and address the changes to their State Accountability
Systems under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). During 2001-2002, the
informal collaboration was formalized to become the New England Compact.
This Compact proposes to leverage the power of its shared commitment to
maintaining challenging standards and the important role that local
practitioners play in helping to design a State Assessment System, and
human resources of the four States in order to improve the achievement
of all students through the development of comprehensive academic
assessment instruments, particularly technology-based assessments that
are designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities, limited
English proficient students and other students who are at-risk. This
proposal goes beyond the requirements for the assessments described in
Section 1111(b)(3) of Title I, Part A of the NCLB Act in the following
ways.

First, the States will create common, priority standards from which they
will create a test blueprint. The States will then be able to compare
progress across the States and combine resources to develop highest
quality assessments. Second, the State will conduct a series of design
experiments that focus on the impact of computer-based testing and
accommodations on the validity of test scores for students with and
without special needs, resulting in the development of exemplars for
further development. Teachers will participate in the design process.
Third, a group of teachers will be trained to provide professional
development to teachers in their states on how to create and use
assessments that are aligned to the State\'s standards and that use the
same accommodations, design and alternatives for students with
disabilities, limited English proficient students, and students who are
at risk of academic failure.

There are six broad goals:

**Goal 1** - The Compact will establish a set of common, priority
standards termed \"common expectations\"

in English/language arts and mathematics in grades 3-8 and high school.

**Goal 2** - The Compact will create a test blueprint, based on the
common expectations that will be used to

cooperatively develop grade-level assessments in reading and mathematics
that reflect the

developmental issues of young children, the learning differences among
all children, and the

special needs of students with disabilities and limited English
proficient students.

**Goal 3 -** The Compact will develop and validate up to four
assessments that are based on the common

expectations and are designed to accurately measure academic content and
skills achievement by

limited English proficient students and students with disabilities.

**Goal 4** - The Compact will build the capacity of teachers within the
Compact States to engage in effective

classroom assessment and uses of assessment data from both

  ----------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------
              **2002 - 2003**      **2003 - 2004**      **2004 - 2005**

  ** **                                                  

                                                         

                                                        

  ** **                                                  

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

  ** **                                                  

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        
  ----------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------

  -------------- ------------------ -------------------- -----------------
                 **2005 - 2006**    **2006 - 2007**      **2007- 2008**

  ** **                                                   

                                                          

                                                          

  ** **                                                   

                                                          

                                                          

                                                          

  ** **                                                   

                                                          

                                                          

                                                          

                                                          

                                                          

                                                          

                                                          

                                                          

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         

                                                         
  -------------- ------------------ -------------------- -----------------

Timeline for Changes in RISAP

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th></th>
<th>1999-00</th>
<th>2000-01</th>
<th>2001-02</th>
<th>2002-03</th>
<th>2003-04</th>
<th>2004-05</th>
<th>2005-06</th>
<th>2006-07</th>
<th>2007-08</th>
<th>2008-09</th>
<th>2009-10</th>
<th>2010-11</th>
<th>2011-12</th>
<th>2012-13</th>
<th>2013-14</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="16"><h1 id="existing-assessments">Existing
Assessments</h1></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Gr 4 NS ELA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 4 NS Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 8 NS ELA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 8 NS Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 10 NS ELA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 10 NS Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 3 RI Writing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 7 RI Writing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 11 RI Writing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Alternate Assessment</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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 colspan="16"><h1 id="new-assessments">New Assessments</h1></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Gr 3 LA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 3 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 4 LA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 4 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 5 LA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 5 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 6 LA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 6 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 7 LA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 7 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 8 LA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 8 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>HS LA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>HS Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr K Reading</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 1 Reading</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 2 Reading</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 3 Reading</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr K Writing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 1 Writing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 2 Writing</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr K Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 1 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 2 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>Gr 3 Math</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>LEP LA (any grade)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<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>LEP Math (any grade)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**PRINCIPLE 7. State definition of AYP includes graduation rates for
public High schools and an additional indicator selected by the State
for public Middle and public Elementary schools (such as attendance
rates).**

1.  **What is the State definition for the public High school graduation
    rate?**

Rhode Island will use the graduation rate as the additional indicator of
performance for high schools. If a high school fails to meet targets for
the high school graduation rate, it will be classified as a low
performing school regardless of its test score performance.

A statewide baseline measure will be established for the high school
graduate rate. The procedure for defining the baseline will parallel the
procedure for defining the baseline for the academic measures. Schools
will be ranked by graduation rate and the cumulative number of students
will be calculated. The graduation rate of the school where the
cumulative count of graduates plus dropouts reaches 20 percent of
students statewide will be the baseline (class of 2002).

Annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals will be established
working forward from the baseline to achieve a 2013-14 graduate rate of
95 percent. The progression of these goals will follow the same pattern
and logic as that applied to the assessment measures. High schools that
do not keep pace with these goals will be classified as low performing
schools.

For fifteen years, Rhode Island consistently used a synthetic cohort
formula to calculate the dropout rate for high schools. The formula used
[current]{.underline} grade-specific dropout rates at grades 9, 10, 11
and 12 to simulate the retention of an entering cohort of 9^th^ grade
students. Beginning with the graduating class of 2002, Rhode Island will
change to the more direct cohort estimation formula, which reconstructs
an actual class of students moving through high school. Fortunately,
Rhode Island has collected aggregate graduate and dropout counts by race
in prior years, so the cohort estimation formula can be used to
calculate the graduation rate for racial groups. We must phase in LEP,
IEP and poverty data over the next several years to have subpopulation
graduation rates for these groups. The data collection for high school
graduation rates is unlike the database gathered using assessment data
from which we [are]{.underline} able to disaggregate student data.

Rhode Island will use the following NCES cohort estimation formula to
calculate the dropout rate for the graduating class of 2001-02. However,
those students who are GED recipients will be identified as
non-graduates. This formula will be likewise used through the class of
2007 to report on whether schools meet annual measurable objectives.

Number of 2002 Graduates

Graduation Rate = \# of 2002 graduates +

\# of grade 9 dropouts in 1998-99 + x 100

\# of grade 10 dropouts in 1999-2000 +

\# of grade 11 dropouts in 2000-01 +

\# of grade 12 dropouts in 2001-02

Rhode Island uses the NCES "Common Core" definition of a graduate and
was among the first group of states to adopt this definition in 1991-92.

Beginning with school data submissions in October 2003, Rhode Island
will begin converting to an exact student roster tracking method for
calculating graduation rates. For the first school year (2003-04),
schools will submit a complete roster of 9^th^ grade students with
demographic and program information (race, IEP, LEP, poverty) for each
named student identified by a unique student identifier. Dropout
transactions will be maintained against this data file. Starting from
October 2004, schools will submit complete rosters for grades 9-12 with
necessary demographic and program information. This phase-in is
summarized on the accompanying chart. For the graduating class of 2007 a
new graduation rate baseline will be set using the student roster
tracking method. Annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for 2008-14 will be
based on the student roster tracking method.

**Projection of Graduation Rate Statistics**

+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| **Gra   | **NCES      | **Cohort     | **Student       | **Student |
| duating | Cohort      | Estimation   | Roster Tracking | Roster    |
| Class   | Estimation  | Disag        | Method**        | Disaggre  |
| of**    | Formula**   | gregations** |                 | gations** |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       | Baseline    | Race         | Not Available   | \-        |
| *2002** |             |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       | Report for  | Race         | Not Available   | \-        |
| *2003** | AMO         |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       | Report for  | Race         | (Grade 9        | All       |
| *2004** | AMO         |              | enrollees for   |           |
|         |             |              | class of 2007)  |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       | Report for  | Race         | (Grades 9, 10)  | All       |
| *2005** | AMO         |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       | Report for  | Race         | (Grades 9, 10,  | All       |
| *2006** | AMO         |              | 11)             |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       | Report for  | Race         | Grades 9, 10,   | All       |
| *2007** | AMO         |              | 11, 12          |           |
|         |             |              |                 |           |
|         |             |              | (Publish new    |           |
|         |             |              | Baseline)       |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       | (D          |              | Report for AMO  | All       |
| *2008** | iscontinue) |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       |             |              | Report for AMO  | All       |
| *2009** |             |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       |             |              | Report for AMO  | All       |
| *2010** |             |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       |             |              | Report for AMO  | All       |
| *2011** |             |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       |             |              | Report for AMO  | All       |
| *2012** |             |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       |             |              | Report for AMO  | All       |
| *2013** |             |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+
| *       |             |              | Report for AMO  | All       |
| *2014** |             |              |                 |           |
+---------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------+

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| #                                 |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| # HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES           |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **Year**                       | ## **AMO Graduation Rate**        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2002-2003**                  | **71.4**                          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| **2003-2004**                     | **71.4**                          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2004-2005**                  | ## **75.3**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2005-2006**                  | ## **75.3**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2006-2007\***                | ## **75.3**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2007-2008**                  | ## **79.2**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2008-2009**                  | ## **79.2**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2009-2010**                  | ## **79.2**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2010-2011**                  | ## **83.1**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2011-2012**                  | ## **87.0**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2012-2013**                  | ## **90.9**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | ##                                |
|                                   |                                   |
| ## **2013-2014**                  | ## **95.0**                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

\* A new baseline will be set for the graduating class of 2007 based on
accumulated data

from the student roster tracking method. The graduation rate target for
2013-14 will

continue to be 95 percent.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in" height="4.0125in"}

2.  **What is the State\'s additional academic indicator for public
    Elementary schools for the definition of AYP? For public Middle
    school for the definition of AYP?**

Attendance in Rhode Island is defined as the percent of actual
attendance days of students in a school divided by the number of days
those students are registered in the school.

actual attendance days in an academic year

**Attendance = 100 X**

membership days in an academic year

As required by NCLB, this will be the measure used as the additional
academic indicator for middle schools and elementary schools. This
indicator is generated from grade level membership and attendance
figures submitted by schools to RIDE as part of their pupil data
summary. This data is audited annually and is the basis for state aid.

The statewide goal for attendance is 95%.

Schools that have an attendance rate of 90% or more will be identified
as high performing and sustaining schools. They must sustain at least
this rate and make steady and incremental growth to 95% by 2014. Schools
that have an attendance rate of less than 90% will be identified as low
performing schools ***unless attendance has improved enough to close the
gap between the previous year's rate and the 2014 target by at least
10%.*** Schools that meet or exceed the threshold will have met this
other academic indicator for purposes of calculating AYP. We expect
variability in a school's attendance rate as they progress toward the
95% rate. However, schools that fluctuate between 90% and 95% will not
be considered low performing.

Despite having met its AYP assessment measures, if an elementary or
middle school fails to meets its goals for this indicator, it will
become a "Low Performing" school under the NCLB guidelines.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   2002 Elementary Attendance Rates by School

-   2002 Middle School Attendance Rates by School

-   Process for Auditing Attendance Report from School Districts

-   Audited Attendance Reports

-   \"Learning Support Indicators\" Technical Assistance Bulletin
    (October 2002)

    1.  **Are the State\'s academic indicators valid and reliable?**

The Rhode Island Assessment System was approved by the USDOE. The
vendors of these tests have produced technical studies, which
demonstrate their validity, reliability and psychometric integrity. They
are also aligned to the content standards for Rhode Island. RIDE will
subject the new assessments to the same technical rigor as it has with
previous assessments.

The data collected relative to attendance and graduation is currently
part of the RI Accountability System in terms of its Learning Support
Indicators. An audit process is also required for pupil summary data.

**[AUDIT REQUIRED]{.underline}**

All school districts within Rhode Island shall be required to have
audits performed in accordance with Uniform Accounting and Reporting
Standards for Rhode Island Municipalities, issued by General Assembly,
Office of the Auditor General; when appropriate, the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local
Governments; and Rules for Rhode Island School Districts Regarding the
Reporting and Auditing of Special Purpose Forms Pertaining to Education
as set forth below.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   \"Learning Support Indicators\" Technical Assistance Bulletin
    (October 2002)

-   Assessment Validation Studies

**PRINCIPLE 8. AYP is based on reading/language arts and mathematics
achievement objectives.**

1.  **Does the State measure achievement in reading/language arts and
    mathematics separately for**

**determining AYP?**

The Rhode Island AYP/Accountability model incorporating the required
elements of No Child Left Behind is built upon the current
accountability system in place under Rhode Island\'s statutory
requirements under Article 31 which categorizes schools based on
performance and improvement. For the next \"round\" or cycle of school
performance categories, school and district performance will be assessed
using a index proficiency that measures the progress students/schools
and districts are making toward 100% proficiency in the year 2013/2014
in both ELA and mathematics. The AYP determinations are constructed
first by content area (ELA and mathematics) and then for each school,
district and subgroup for the first intermediate goal. These AYP
calculations will be constructed annually as part of RI\'s
accountability process. Figure 5 illustrates both the intermediate goals
and the annual measurable objectives for both subject areas by school
level (elementary, middle, high). Each set of assessments has a
trajectory which is the basis for schools and districts to be assigned
their own AYP targets in accordance with NCLB. (Graphs 1 through 6)

**[Figure 5: RHODE ISLAND\'S ANNUAL MEASURABLE GOALS]{.underline}**

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                  **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**   **ELA**    **Math**

  **2013-2014**   **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**    **100**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**5^th^ Intermediate Goal**

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **20112-2013**   **96.1**   **93.7**   **94.5**   **91.1**   **93.6**   **90.8**

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**4^th^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2011-2012**   **92.1**   **87.3**   **89.2**   **82.1**   **87.4**   **81.6**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**3^rd^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2010-2011**   **88.1**   **80.9**   **83.9**   **73.1**   **81.2**   **72.4**

  **2009-2010**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**

  **2008-2009**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**2^nd^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2007-2008**   **84.1**   **74.5**   **78.6**   **64.1**   **75.0**   **63.2**

  **2006-2007**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**

  **2005-2006**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**1^st^ Intermediate Goal**

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **2004-2005**   **80.1**   **68.1**   **73.3**   **55.1**   **68.8**   **54.0**

  **2003-2004**   **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**

  **2002-2003**   **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**

  **Baseline**    **76.1**   **61.7**   **68.0**   **46.1**   **62.6**   **44.8**
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.780555555555556in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in" height="4.0125in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.7652777777777775in"
height="4.027777777777778in"}

The ELA test is made up of four subtests:

1.  Reading: Basic Understanding

2.  Reading: Analysis & Interpretation

3.  Writing: Effectiveness

4.  Wring: Conventions

Each of these subtests is assigned an achievement level or performance
score.

We calculate an aggregated performance of a school or subgroup in ELA as
follows:

1.  Determine the number of students at each performance level in each
    subtest.

2.  Add up the frequency counts for each of the levels. For example, the
    numbers of students in level 5 for each of the four subtests are
    added to obtain an aggregate count for level 5.

3.  The sum of these aggregated totals is the denominator.

4.  The percent of students in each level is 100 multiplies by the
    corresponding aggregate frequency divided by the denominator.

####  Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 No Scores Total

# R. Basic 1 34 20 42 5 2 104

R. Analysis 6 27 42 27 0 2 104

W. Effect 1 54 18 29 0 2 104

W. Conv 2 38 29 33 0 2 104

Total 10 153 109 131 5 8 416

\% PROF 100\*10 100\*153 100\*109 100\*131 100\*5 100\*8 100

416 416 416 416 416 416

\% PROF 2.40 36.78 26.20 31.49 1.20 1.92 99.99

The Mathematics test is made up of three subtests:

5.  Math: Skills

## Math: Concepts

6.  Math: Problem Solving

Each of these subtests is assigned an achievement level or performance
score.

We calculate an aggregated performance of a school or subgroup in ELA as
follows:

5.  Determine the number of students at each performance level in each
    subtest.

6.  Add up the frequency counts for each of the levels. For example, the
    numbers of students in level 5 for each of the four subtests are
    added to obtain an aggregate count for level 5.

7.  The sum of these aggregated totals is the denominator.

8.  The percent of students in each level is 100 multiplied by the
    corresponding aggregate frequency divided by the denominator.

#### Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 No Scores Total

# Skills 2 45 50 68 104 6 275

Concepts 3 36 16 77 137 6 275

Pr. Solv 35 54 34 105 41 6 275

Total 40 135 100 250 282 18 825

\% PROF 100\*40 100\*135 100\*100 100\*250 100\*282 100\*18 100

825 825 825 825 825 825

\% PROF 4.85 16.36 12.12 30.30 34.18 2.18 99.99

DATA ACROSS YEARS

Data across multiple years is handled in a two-step process similar to
aggregating subtests. The first task is to aggregate the data for the
subtests by each year. In the second step, we combine data for several
years to obtain the cumulative results. We illustrate this with an
example for mathematics.

## **[STEP 1]{.underline}**

### Year Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 No Scores Total

# 2002 Skills 3 36 16 77 137 6 275

> Concepts 2 45 50 68 104 6 275
>
> Pr. Solv 35 54 34 105 41 6 275
>
> Total 40 135 100 250 282 18 825

# 2001 Skills 4 53 25 76 64 12 234

> Concepts 9 52 50 56 55 12 234
>
> Pr. Solv 34 69 32 68 19 12 234
>
> Total 47 174 107 200 138 36 702

# Year 3 Skills 8 50 64 49 51 13 235

> Concepts 7 46 26 77 66 13 235
>
> Pr. Solv 35 51 45 52 39 13 235
>
> Total 50 147 135 178 156 39 705

**[Step 2]{.underline}**

### Year Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 No Scores Total

2002 40 135 100 250 282 18 825

2001 47 174 107 200 138 36 702

2000 50 147 135 178 156 39 705

3-Year 137 456 342 628 576 93 2232

(total)

**[% Prof.]{.underline}**

**[100\*137]{.underline}** **[100\*456]{.underline}**
**[100\*342]{.underline}** **[100\*628]{.underline}**
**[100\*576]{.underline}** **[100\*93]{.underline}** 100

2232 2232 2232 2232 2232 2232

**[% Prof.]{.underline}**

6.14 20.43 15.32 28.14 25.81 4.17 100

**[Index Score]{.underline}**

(25\*137) + (50\*456) + (75\*342) + (100\*628) + (100\*576) + (0\*93)=
172275

**[Index Denominator]{.underline}** 100\*(137 + 456 + 342 + 628 + 576 +
93)= 223,200

**[Index Prof]{.underline}** **[100\*172275]{.underline}** = 77.18%

223200

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   3.1 Tables and graphs

-   School Performance Categories Technical Assistance Bulletin
    Incorporating NCLB (Feb. 2003)

-   AYP Runs for Each School

**PRINCIPLE 9. State Accountability System is statistically valid and
reliable.**

1.  **How do AYP determinations meet the State\'s standard for
    acceptable reliability?**

Studies 1\'2, including our own analysis, have shown that school level
variances of student proficiency rates do not depend upon the size of
the school. However, if schools are grouped based on population, then
the school level proficiency variances from one group to the other
become distinctively different. In determining the reliability of our
assessment measurements, we have evaluated the Index Proficiency scores
of all schools and subgroups in English language arts and mathematics at
the Elementary, Middle and High school levels. The schools within each
of the three levels are then divided into different groups based on
their sizes. A school in a specified group has a standard error
associated with the Index Proficiency score, which is defined as the
square root of the group variance divided by the number of students in
the school. The result is multiplied by a factor of 1.96 to convert the
degree of confidence to 95% using a two-tail z-statistic. If all the
schools with varying populations are placed in one group, we find the
standard error for each school is doubled. Thus, AYP decisions made with
the grouping of schools based on size are found to be more reliable.

Using a process similar to the one described above, we have defined our
minimum N to be 45. One of the main reasons for the choice of 45 is that
the resulting standard error is less than the expected growth targets in
student performance overtime. This enables us to make AYP decisions
involving student proficiency levels with a certain degree of confidence
(95%). Rhode Island has a few schools with population less than 45. For
these schools, the process described above will lead to large standard
errors since the standard error is inversely proportional to the square
root of N. These schools with small populations are not in sufficient
numbers to constitute a group by themselves. To obtain comparable error
bands for these schools, student level records within each school will
be used to calculate the associated standard error for that schools. The
standard error, then, is the square root of the variance of the
individual student scores within the school divided by the number of
students in the school. This does not take into consideration the scores
of other schools with similar populations and the results need to be
interpreted very carefully. Even though the corresponding standard
errors are relatively larger, they are still less than the annual growth
expected from the school in order for the school to meet its Annual
Measurable Objective (AMO). Thus, actual growth can be distinguished
from measurement and sampling errors.

We combine three years of data to determine a school or subgroup\'s
Index Proficiency. The use of the Index Proficiency is a measure that
takes into account the proficiency status of each student. Finally, we
use a minimum \"n\" size of 45 to make AYP decisions. These are factors
that increase the reliability of our system. The error bands will be
used to determine the Index Proficiency range for each school, LEA, and
subgroup.

Thus, all schools, even those with a population of less than 45, will be
included in our Accountability system; the manner in which we measure
the reliability of our decisions depends on the size of the school.

**[References]{.underline}:**

1.  Richard, Hill (2000) The Reliability of California\'s API, The
    National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.

2.  Richard, Hill (2002) Determining the Reliability of School Scores,
    The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   Assessment Data

-   Standard Error vs. \"n\" Graphs

> **9.2** **What is the State\'s process for making valid AYP
> determinations?**

Rhode Island accounts for all students enrolled during State
assessments. We also will, by beginning to phase in a universal student
identification system in 2004, be more accurately able to ensure that
95% of each subgroup has been assessed, rather than relying primarily on
coding of student demographics on test booklets. Thus, the results of
the State assessments do reflect the achievement of the State\'s
students.

**[Appeal Process - 1 year vs. 3 years of data]{.underline}**

Experience with three-year averaging has taught us that occasionally a
school will show strong improvement in the current year that is diluted
using a three-year average to the point where the improvement is
completely obscured. Thus, the Rhode Island system will allow a second
comparison option. If a current (single year) score would improve the
classification of a district or school, the single year\'s results will
represent the current data rather that the three-year average. This
option can only be used when the ***minimum "N" size is met for the
current year (N=45). Historical data for Safe Harbor purposes continues
to be a three-year average.***

**[Accountability System Validity and Reliability]{.underline}**

The principal approaches to assuring the validity of the accountability
system are to:

-   Quality control procedures for data including 30-day appeals review
    for schools to review the data elements underlying the
    accountability classification.

-   \"Reasonable\" continuity with prior classifications of schools as
    defined by technical advisory group.

-   Under our \"Assessment Enhancement Grant,\" a team of external
    experts will set and review validity criteria.

The principal approaches to assuring the reliability of the
accountability system are:

-   Combine multiple years of assessment data (typically three) to
    improve the stability of data and reduce unique cohorts effects.

-   Establish minimum N-counts for allowing disaggretation analyses that
    have a demonstrated statistical basis.

-   Allow standard errors to be applied to assessment score to obtain
    95% confidence levels in measurement.

    1.  **How has the State planned for incorporating into its
        definition of AYP anticipated changes in**

**assessments?**

With the NCLB expectations for grades 3-8 testing, Rhode Island will
want to recalculate starting points (baseline), intermediate goals and
annual measurable objectives for the 2005-2006 school year. Likewise,
Rhode Island might move to a cohort system at that time. These decisions
will be made prior to the end of the 2004-2005 school year for public
dissemination. Currently Rhode Island is engaged in the work of the New
England Compact for Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) and aligned
assessments. (See also 1.1 and 6.1). RI will conduct equating studies
between existing and new assessments as we transition to new tests.
Ongoing reviews of our assessment and accountability systems occur with
a panel of RI practitioners as well as with technical expertise from our
contractors and the New England Compact Technical Advisory Panel.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   Enhanced Assessment Grant Application

**PRINCIPLE 10. In order for a public school or LEA to make AYP, the
State ensures that it assessed at least 95% of the students enrolled in
each subgroup.**

1.  **What is the State\'s method for calculating participation rates in
    the State assessments for use in**

**AYP determinations?**

Rhode Island has been publishing data on rates of participation in State
assessments since 1997. At the beginning of the testing window of State
assessments, all schools through their districts provide rosters
electronically to RIDE listing all students enrolled by grade level.
(This is necessitated because Rhode Island does not have a student
identification system).

Amendments are allowed through the conclusion of the testing window, to
provide updates due to student mobility during the testing window.
School-level counts for the tested grades are generated from these
rosters. The number of students who participated in the tests and
actually obtained a valid test score is also determined after the tests
are completed and graded. Students who filled in the test header sheet
and failed to take the test or did not submit a meaningful response to
any of the test questions are deemed not to have participated in the
test. The testing contractor identifies such students as \"Did Not
Test.\" Alternate Assessment data is merged with the regular assessment
data before the number of valid test takers is calculated. The higher
number of the enrollment or the number of students with test booklets
become the denominators for calculations of the participation rates.
***This denominator does not include students with an approved medical
emergency which makes them unavailable for testing.*** The numerator
counts all students who completed the test and obtained a valid test
score. The ratio of the numerator and denominator multiplied by 100
gives the participation rate for the school.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   State Assessment Manual

-   Assessment Data

    1.  **What is the State\'s policy for determining when the 95%
        assessed requirement should be applied?**

The process described in 10.1 is used to calculate the participation
rates for schools, districts as well as the disaggregated subgroups. A
school or district that fails to meet the 95% participation rate is
identified for corrective action as part of our accountability system.
We have used three years of enrollment and test data to calculate our
participation rates ***and will now allow a one-year participation rate
option in accordance with federal guidance***. Schools and districts
which fail the 95% participation rate are combined with schools which
have failed to meet their Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) in
assessment to obtain a comprehensive list for intervention.

**[Examples of Evidence]{.underline}:**

-   *\"Information Works!\"* ([www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu)]()

-   \"School Performance Categories\" Technical Assistance Bulletin
    (October 2002)