**No Child Left Behind Growth Model Pilot Proposal**

####### U. S. Department of Education

# Submitted by:

# Iowa Department of Education

# January 19, 2007

**Revised April 30, 2007**

Contact Information:

Judy Jeffrey, Director

Iowa Department of Education

400 E. 14^th^ Street

Des Moines, IA 50319

\(515\) 281-3436

<judy.jeffrey@iowa.gov>

Pamela Pfitzenmaier, Administrator

Division of PK-12 Education

Iowa Department of Education

400 E. 14^th^ Street

Des Moines, IA 50319

\(515\) 281-3333

<pam.pfitzenmaier@iowa.gov>

Tom Deeter, Lead Consultant

Bureau of Instructional Services

Iowa Department of Education

400 E. 14^th^ Street

Des Moines, IA 50319

\(515\) 242-5616

tom.deeter@iowa.gov

![](media/image1.png){width="7.503472222222222in"
height="1.1256944444444446in"}

## October 31, 2006

Dr. Catherine Freeman

Office of Elementary And Secondary Education

United States Department of Education

Federal Office Building -- 6

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Dr. Freeman:

On behalf of the Iowa Department of Education, I am pleased to submit
Iowa's application for consideration under the NCLB Growth Model Pilot.
We believe our application is consistent with the core principles
Secretary Spellings established in her letters of November 21, 2005, and
October 11, 2006, to Chief State School Officers as well as consistent
with the key educational principles that Iowa educators, parents, and
citizens have long valued.

In Secretary Spellings' letter of March 31, 2006, it was determined that
our previously submitted growth model proposal did not meet two of the
conditions for review. We wish to assure you that both conditions now
are met. First, Iowa will have two years of data in 2006-07 for all
students in grades 3-8 and 11. Second, elementary teachers who are new
to the profession are being assessed using the Praxis II exam. Further,
we have submitted all requested revisions for Iowa's standards and
accountability system. We anticipate receiving full approval following
additional peer review. In addition, we have revised our Highly
Qualified Teacher plan and our equity plan and submitted the documents
for peer review. We believe all issues related to HQT are now clarified
and resolved.

Our growth model application is built upon the long-held conviction that
Iowa schools and districts should be committed to overall improvement
and individual student growth. The growth model proposed allows us to
better identify and focus improvement resources on those schools most in
need while recognizing those schools where students achieve significant
growth. We know that some of our schools have student achievement levels
that are below proficiency targets but are making great strides in
educating their low-achieving students toward proficiency. The growth
model will pinpoint such schools so that they can be studied to learn
what strategies they are implementing so that we can share those
practices with other less successful schools. We wish to note that our
statewide averages indicate that districts are making progress to close
achievement gaps, especially at grade 11 for Hispanic, low SES students,
students with IEPs, and English language learners.

We also recognize that we have some schools that are below proficiency
targets and that are not successfully educating their low-achieving
students toward proficiency. The growth model will allow us to better
identify and customize our support team resources.

Of primary significance is the message that the growth model sends to
educators and students in schools with the most challenges. "Growth"
recognizes that even if students enter school achieving below
proficiency, the hard work of the students and educators in these
schools can yield benefits. Their concentrated efforts can make a
measurable difference for students and growth can and will be recognized
and rewarded. The use of growth also sends the right message to parents
and the public: All students, regardless of their "starting point" in
achievement, are capable of growth and of being on a pathway for
academic proficiency and success in a career and/or postsecondary
education. This proposed growth model is the starting point for
long-term development of a system that will incorporate the monitoring
of growth at [all]{.underline} stages of the developmental continuum,
not just for those who are not proficient.

I wish to affirm that our application demonstrates an adherence to the
above convictions as well as to the seven principles Secretary Spellings
outlined to us on November 21, 2005, and October 11, 2006:

-   We define Adequate Yearly Growth (AYG) as more than a typical year's
    growth in a year's time.

-   We base our growth determination on student achievement, rather than
    on demographic variables.

-   We have a process for making separate accountability decisions for
    reading and mathematics.

-   Schools and districts are held accountable for the performance of
    all students and all subgroups.

-   We have a historical database of vertically scaled assessments that
    yield comparable results across grades and years. At the end of the
    2006-07 school year, we will have two years of data for all students
    in all public schools, grades 3-8 and 11.

-   We have unique student identifiers capable of tracking student
    progress over grades and years.

-   We will continue to use the current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
    status model expectations for participation rates and other academic
    indicators.

As you will see in the application that follows, Iowa school districts
have a long history of looking at individual student growth using the
Iowa Tests. The growth model we propose builds upon that strong
foundation while focusing our sights higher for academic growth for all
our students.

We look forward to hearing from you as you review our application.

Sincerely yours,

![](media/image2.png){width="1.875in" height="0.5833333333333334in"}

Judy A. Jeffrey

Director

# Introduction

Even before No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was enacted, the state of Iowa
was committed to overall school/district improvement and individual
student growth. All Iowa school districts have been required by Iowa
Code 256.7 and 281-Iowa Administrative Code 12.8 (3)-(4) to establish
annual improvement goals, regardless of whether the district has already
met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for NCLB purposes. Districts must
annually report these improvement goals and their progress toward
meeting them to their communities along with a corrective plan if they
have not met their improvement goals.

In addition to establishing district improvement goals, Iowa districts
have an even longer history of monitoring individual student growth at
the local level on the *Iowa Tests of Basic Skills* (*ITBS*) and the
*Iowa Tests of Educational Development* (*ITED*). While districts are
not required to track individual student growth over time, historically
the majority of Iowa districts have utilized individual student growth
profiles through data reported to the district by the Iowa Testing
Programs (ITP). An individual Student Profile Chart (or graph) has
typically been part of the information shared by the classroom teacher
with a child's parents during parent-teacher conferences. The concept of
individual student growth over time is inherently part of the culture in
Iowa's districts. It should be noted that this individual growth history
is due to the fact that the Iowa Tests have been used in the vast
majority of Iowa districts for decades and that the Iowa Tests are
vertically scaled making valid and reliable growth interpretations
possible. This vertical scaling extends from Kindergarten through Grade
12.

Five factors make Iowa a strong candidate for adding a growth model to
its current School and District Accountability Plan:

1.  Iowa Code has established annual testing requirements and annual
    improvement goals as a requirement for all districts.

2.  Iowa districts have a history of using individual student growth, as
    measured by the Iowa Tests, as an indicator of student achievement
    gains.

3.  The Iowa Tests are vertically scaled from the elementary through the
    middle and high school levels.

4.  All Iowa students, grades 3-8 and 11, will have been tested for two
    years. Iowa has a long historical database for Grades 3-11.

5.  Iowa is in its third year of implementation of a student-unit
    database containing unique student identification numbers, enabling
    the monitoring of student growth.

Because of our state's commitment to overall school/district
improvement, we anticipate that "growth" (as defined in this
application) will be embraced by districts as more accurately measuring
their overall student achievement goals. Iowa districts must continually
improve, even if the majority of their students are already proficient.
The growth described herein will be used not only for NCLB
accountability purposes, but also as an overall measure of whether
students are improving.

######### Overview of Growth Model Proposal

###### Iowa Department of Education

##### Purpose of the Growth Model

The opportunity for the state of Iowa to submit this proposal to include
student growth in AYP determinations is a welcome flexibility, with
growing consensus and approval across the state among educational
leaders. The possible inclusion of a growth model in the decision
process to determine if a school or district meets AYP is a component
that has been viewed as missing from the NCLB Act of 2001. As such,
school leaders anticipate and are willing to be held accountable for the
achievement of all of their students, including those students who are
not yet proficient, but who are "on track to be proficient."

##### How the Pilot Changes the Current AYP Model

The Iowa Department of Education (IDE) proposes to incorporate growth
determinations into the current AYP model. Accountability determinations
will maintain the current status determinations, but will incorporate
student growth during the AYP decision process. Briefly, we propose two
parallel AYP processes built to incorporate Iowa's approved
accountability plan for status:

Status process:

-   The first step is to evaluate school performance by examining status
    gauged against the current Annual Measurable Objective (AMO), using
    a proficiency index, established at the state level.

-   The second step is to evaluate safe harbor. For schools/districts
    who do not meet the AMO, the IDE would determine if the
    school/district qualifies for safe harbor. This is done by a
    school/district reducing the percent of non-proficient students by
    at least 10 percent from year 1 to year 2, for example, Grade 3 in
    year 1 to Grade 3 in year 2. If that occurs, the reduction in the
    percent of non-proficient students would enable the school/district
    to meet AYP through safe harbor.

-   The third step is to utilize two years of uniformly averaged data,
    using a proficiency index, to determine if the school/district met
    AYP.

-   The fourth step is to utilize three years of uniformly averaged
    data, calculating a weighted percent proficient, to determine if the
    school/district met AYP.

Growth process:

-   The IDE proposes the following growth model: Iowa currently utilizes
    three achievement levels (Low, Intermediate, and High) for AYP
    decisions. The Intermediate and High achievement levels are
    considered Proficient. The Low achievement level is further divided
    into two achievement levels: Weak and Marginal. The Marginal level
    contains two regions: Lo Marginal (containing the lowest part of the
    Marginal level) and Hi Marginal (a region that contains the scale
    score points that are within one standard error of measurement below
    the cut score for Proficient). This process would begin with the
    percent of students proficient from, for example, Grade 3 to
    Grade 4. Non-proficient students who make "Adequate Yearly Growth"
    or AYG (defined as a movement from the Weak achievement level to the
    Marginal level, or from the Lo Marginal region to the Hi Marginal
    region) will be counted as proficient for AYP purposes.

-   In the proposed model, students will have four consecutive years to
    attain proficient status, beginning with their initial participation
    in the statewide assessment. Under the proposed model, a particular
    student may only count for AYG a maximum of two times in their
    entire testing history.

AYP determination:

-   The number of students meeting status AYP is added to the number of
    students making AYG. A percent of students meeting AYP/AYG is then
    calculated. This percent is then compared to the state target for
    AYP status decisions. A school/district that met the Proficiency
    Index (within the confidence interval) through the combination of
    AYP status Proficiency and AYG would make AYP.

##### Definition of Adequate Yearly Growth

The improvement (growth) that current non-proficient students are
expected to make from one year to the next is depicted in the graph
below. This plot shows the category boundaries for non-proficient
students across grades. A student's growth trajectory must cross a
category boundary in order to be considered for Adequate Yearly Growth.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.991666666666666in"
height="4.881944444444445in"}

The score range below proficient is divided into three score categories
as described in section 1.2. If a student in any of these non-proficient
score categories attains a higher score category, that student is
considered to have made "Adequate Yearly Growth" (AYG). A typical
student within in a score category must make a significant gain, well
beyond expected growth, in order to make AYG. In order to be counted as
having met AYG, a student would need to achieve (at least) the next
higher score category. The student must also achieve proficient status
in four years. As such, beginning with the baseline year, over the
course of the next four years, a student will be able to count for
growth a maximum of two times. When a student achieves proficiency, that
student is no longer eligible to be counted for growth, because s/he is
included in the status model. Further, a student who has not attained
proficient status after four years is no longer eligible to be counted
in the growth model in subsequent years.

If a student declines to a lower score category one year and regains the
formerly held score category the next year, that student is *not*
counted for AYG. In other words, a student [only]{.underline} makes AYG
if that student attains a higher and previously unattained level of
achievement. We believe that these are ambitious yet attainable goals
for students currently achieving below proficiency.

##### Evaluation of Impact

The IDE will design a study to evaluate the impact of utilizing the
growth model process on:

-   School/district identification for missing AYP;

-   Focusing support team efforts to provide assistance to
    schools/districts in need of assistance differentially, as growth
    data indicate; and

-   Impact on IDE decisions to enable local education agencies (LEAs) to
    use growth models for all students in support of their APRs to their
    communities.

During the development of Iowa's growth model proposal, impact analyses
were conducted to evaluate the effects of various definitions of
Adequate Yearly Growth on AYP decisions for individual schools. In
general, the impact of the proposed model on individuals is in the
neighborhood of 8 to 10 percent. That is, we expect applying the
proposed AYG criterion to students below the cut score for proficiency
to add an additional 8 to 10 percent to a school's overall percent
proficient. The actual percent of additional schools that would make AYP
because of the AYG criterion is expected to be much smaller than 8 to 10
percent. Because multiple reporting cells drive a great deal of the
variance in AYP decisions, it is difficult to assess the actual impact
of AYG when it is implemented, but it is safe to say that AYG will only
affect schools that have made dramatic instructional interventions that
result in greater learning for non-proficient students in cells that
trigger a school's failure to reach the state target.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Core Principle 1: 100% Proficiency by 2014 and Incorp              |
| orating Decisions about Student Growth into School[^1] Accountability |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.1 How does the State accountability model hold schools accountable  |
| for universal proficiency by 2013-14?                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Iowa proposes to use the third option in the USED guidance, that of |
| > utilizing status, safe harbor, and growth. Iowa proposes to pilot a |
| > growth model that is incorporated into the current status model in  |
| > order to evaluate impact for potential future use and to project    |
| > that all students will be proficient by 2014. The current AYP model |
| > evaluates status, followed by safe harbor calculations, uniform     |
| > averaging of two years of data, and uniform averaging of three      |
| > years of data. It is proposed that the state append a growth        |
| > component to the current AYP decision process, such that if a       |
| > school or district did not make AYP based on status alone, safe     |
| > harbor, or two or three years of uniformly-averaged data, a growth  |
| > component would be evaluated to determine if a school or district   |
| > would make AYP when the growth component was added to the status    |
| > component. In this model, each student's results will be examined   |
| > to determine if sufficient growth has been achieved. If so, that    |
| > student will count toward the proficiency count (including the      |
| > count for each appropriate subgroup), and the proficiency result    |
| > will be compared to the state's proficiency targets.                |
| >                                                                     |
| > As with the current accountability plan, the growth model will be   |
| > used for AYP decisions separately for reading and mathematics, and  |
| > will examine growth data for Grades 3 through 11. Schools that      |
| > house the grades for utilizing the growth model will be eligible.   |
| > For example, a K-5 elementary school will be able to use growth     |
| > data from 3-4 and 4-5, whereas a K-6 elementary school will be able |
| > to use growth data from 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6. For districts having     |
| > growth data resulting, for example, from student transitions from   |
| > Grade 5 to 6, or from Grade 6 to 7, across buildings, will be       |
| > allowed to count their growth data with the receiving building.     |
| >                                                                     |
| > While Grade 10 assessments are not required as part of the current  |
| > accountability system, a large majority of LEAs (around 85 percent) |
| > assess students in Grade 10 As such, we would like to offer our     |
| > LEAs the opportunity to evaluate a growth model for their high      |
| > school or district, if they can provide assessment results for      |
| > their Grade 10 students, of which they must have tested at least 95 |
| > percent of all 10^th^ grade students enrolled (relative to their    |
| > certified enrollment counts), must be able to certify students as   |
| > having been enrolled for a full academic year \[FAY\], and must     |
| > enable electronic access to their data.                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.2 Has the State proposed technically and educationally sound        |
| criteria for "growth targets"[^2] for schools and subgroups?          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > The current statewide assessments have associated academic          |
| > achievement standards and performance levels. The three achievement |
| > levels (Low, Intermediate, and High) currently used for AYP         |
| > decisions and reporting were previously divided into two levels     |
| > each, to allow for greater precision in examining changes in        |
| > student achievement. For example, the Low achievement level (which  |
| > counts as non-proficient for AYP purposes) includes a "Weak" level  |
| > and a "Marginal" level. Performance level descriptors for Weak and  |
| > Marginal are included with this proposal (Appendix A). Weak         |
| > performance represents the lowest part of the score scale. Marginal |
| > performance encompasses the part of the score scale between Weak    |
| > and Proficient.                                                     |
| >                                                                     |
| > Under this proposal, the Marginal category is subdivided into two   |
| > subcategories, Lo Marginal and Hi Marginal, to support greater      |
| > resolution of growth trajectories. This chosen division is one      |
| > standard error of measurement below the proficiency cut score.      |
| > Thus, the Hi Marginal category is readily interpretable: Hi         |
| > Marginal students are within one standard error of proficiency;     |
| > they may be proficient but for a plausible error of measurement.    |
| > Students below proficiency with score gains sufficient to rise in   |
| > category classification are considered to be on track to be         |
| > Proficient and are therefore included in the school count for AYP.  |
| > Any non-proficient student whose growth in consecutive years moves  |
| > the student: (1) out of the Weak achievement level, or (2) from the |
| > lower range of the Marginal category to within a standard error of  |
| > measurement (SEM) of the cut score for Proficient (i.e., from Lo    |
| > Marginal to Hi Marginal) is considered to have made AYG. Tables     |
| > illustrating the proposed scale scores and standard errors for      |
| > these achievement levels are included in Appendix B.                |
| >                                                                     |
| > This growth model is motivated by two guiding principles. First,    |
| > Adequate Yearly Growth must be greater than expected growth in      |
| > order to ensure that students are on track to proficiency. Second,  |
| > growth trajectories must be maintained over time in order to be     |
| > considered adequate. This growth model ensures that regardless of   |
| > the beginning achievement level, a student will be proficient       |
| > within four years..                                                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > This is illustrated in the following example. The improving student |
| > represented by the blue line rises from the Weak category in Grade  |
| > 3 to the Lo Marginal category in Grade 4. In Grade 3, the student   |
| > was not proficient, but in Grade 4, the student has made AYG. In    |
| > Grade 5, the student does not make sufficient gains for AYG and is  |
| > simply classified as not proficient for the purposes of AYP         |
| > calculation. The student rises to the Hi Marginal category in Grade |
| > 6 to attain AYG. The student is not proficient in Grade 7, but the  |
| > student makes greater than expected growth in Grade 8 to achieve    |
| > proficiency. Note that this student's growth is greater than        |
| > expected growth each year, but the student only makes AYG twice, in |
| > Grades 4 and 6. Since the student exits the growth model after      |
| > Grade 7 (represented by the red line), the student is no longer     |
| > eligible to be included in the growth model. Furthermore, since     |
| > this particular student has achieved proficiency, s/he is now       |
| > included in the status calculations.                                |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.991666666666666in"                     |
| height="4.881944444444445in"}                                         |
|                                                                       |
| > A student can only attain AYG for attaining a category he or she    |
| > has never held before. This prevents "backsliding": under this      |
| > proposal, a student who wavers back and forth between score         |
| > categories will *not* be counted for AYG with each category gain.   |
| > The following example contains an unusual student's growth          |
| > trajectory represented by a red line. The student is not proficient |
| > in Grades 3 and 4 -- in fact, there is zero growth -- and the       |
| > student declines a score category. The student demonstrates         |
| > considerable gains in Grade 5, but the student does not make AYG in |
| > spite of rising a score category, because the student is merely     |
| > re-attaining a previously held score category. The student is       |
| > proficient in Grades 6 and 8 but not in Grade 7. Note that AYG does |
| > not apply in Grade 8; the student is simply proficient, and         |
| > existing policies apply.                                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > The standards for AYG are high. A student may only qualify for AYG  |
| > a maximum of two times: by moving from Weak to Lo Marginal and then |
| > Lo Marginal to Hi Marginal. A proficient student who declines to    |
| > non-proficiency will never be able to qualify for AYG. In this way, |
| > each student's full testing history is taken into account when      |
| > holding schools accountable for adequate yearly growth.             |
| >                                                                     |
| > ![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.990972222222222in"                   |
| > height="4.884027777777778in"}                                       |
| >                                                                     |
| > In 2013, AYG will not be granted for students who move from the     |
| > Weak to the Lo Marginal category. These students are considered to  |
| > be on track for the Hi Marginal category by 2014, but that growth   |
| > is insufficient to meet the standards of NCLB, so AYG will not be   |
| > granted. In contrast, students who move up to the Hi Marginal       |
| > category in 2013 are on track for proficiency in 2014, and they     |
| > will make AYG. Of course, in 2014, no AYG is possible, since 100    |
| > percent of students must be proficient by that time. In this way,   |
| > the growth model ensures that all students who make AYG will be     |
| > proficient by 2014. In fact, as previously mentioned, the features  |
| > of this growth model ensure that all students who make AYG will be  |
| > proficient in four years or less, well before the 2014 goal.        |
| >                                                                     |
| > The following scenarios reflect specific student contexts and how   |
| > their results may or may not be included in growth determinations.  |
|                                                                       |
|   --                                                                  |
| ------------- ---------------- -------------------------------------- |
|   Item            Scenario         Application                        |
|                                                                       |
|   A                                                                   |
| student in    The student      Since student is not FAY at the school |
|   any grade       changes schools  level, the student counts as a     |
|                   within the same  participant, but the student's     |
|                                                                       |
|                  district.        academic achievement scores are not |
|                                                                       |
|                                included in either the status model or |
|                                                                       |
|                                 the growth model at the school level, |
|                                                                       |
|                                but counts toward status and growth at |
|                                                                       |
|                                the district level. This is consistent |
|                                                                       |
|                                with the current status model in Iowa. |
|                                                                       |
|                                 Each student's entire testing history |
|                                    will be considered. In subsequent  |
|                                                                       |
|                                   years, if a student achieves at the |
|                                    same level they achieved in their  |
|                                                                       |
|                                   previous building, they will not be |
|                                                                       |
|                                   eligible to count for growth in the |
|                                    new building.                      |
|                                                                       |
|   A                                                                   |
| student in    The student      Since student is not FAY at either the |
|   a                                                                   |
| ny LEA         changes LEAs.    school or district level, the student |
|                                    counts as a participant, but the   |
|                                                                       |
|                                 student's academic achievement scores |
|                                                                       |
|                                 are not included in either the status |
|                                    model or the growth model at the   |
|                                    school or district level. This is  |
|                                    consistent with the current status |
|                                                                       |
|                                  model in Iowa. Each student's entire |
|                                                                       |
|                                testing history will be considered. In |
|                                    subsequent years, if a student     |
|                                    achieves at the same level they    |
|                                                                       |
|                                  achieved in their previous district, |
|                                                                       |
|                                they will not be eligible to count for |
|                                    growth in the new district.        |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| A student in a  The student is   Since the student was retained, they |
|                                                                       |
|  school or LEA   retained in a    will be assessed with the same test |
|                                                                       |
|                 grade.           (different form) administered during |
|                                                                       |
|                                  the previous year. While the student |
|                                                                       |
|                                 will count for the status model, they |
|                                                                       |
|                                 will not be eligible to be counted as |
|                                                                       |
|                                part of the growth model, because they |
|                                                                       |
|                                   will not have taken the test at the |
|                                    next higher level.                 |
|                                                                       |
|   An                                                                  |
|  elementary   The student      Students transitioning from elementary |
|   school student  transitions to   to a middle school will have their |
|                   middle school    academic achievement score results |
|                                                                       |
|                 (within          counted for growth purposes in their |
|                                                                       |
|                 district)        middle school. Their last elementary |
|                                                                       |
|                                   year will serve as the baseline for |
|                                    the first middle school year.      |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| A middle school The student      Because Grades 9 and 10 are not part |
|   s                                                                   |
| tudent         transitions to   of the AYP status model, results from |
|                                                                       |
|                 high school      Grade 8 will only be included in the |
|                                                                       |
|                (within          growth model as it relates to Grade 7 |
|                                                                       |
|                  district)        performance in the prior year. Data |
|                                    from Grade 10 will be included as  |
|                                                                       |
|                                  baseline data for determining growth |
|                                    for students in Grade 11.          |
|                                                                       |
|   An                                                                  |
| y student     The student      The Iowa Alternate Assessment is based |
|   with            participates in  on alternate academic achievement  |
|   s                                                                   |
| ignificant     the Iowa         standards. As such, these achievement |
|                                                                       |
|  cognitive       Alternate        standards were developed to reflect |
|   disabilities    Assessment       three levels of achievement        |
|                                    (non-proficient, proficient, and   |
|                                                                       |
|                                   advanced). The IAA currently is not |
|                                                                       |
|                                 constructed to yield different levels |
|                                    of non-proficiency. Thus, students |
|                                    participating in the IAA are not   |
|                                                                       |
|                                  currently eligible to be included as |
|                                    part of the growth model.          |
|                                                                       |
|   A                                                                   |
| ny student     The student      Students participating in the general |
|                                                                       |
|  requiring an    participated in  statewide assessment with allowable |
|   accommodation   the assessment   accommodations are eligible to be  |
|                                                                       |
|               with allowable   included in the growth model, and will |
|                   accommodations   have their results included with   |
|                                    students who take the assessment   |
|                                    without accommodations.            |
|   --                                                                  |
| ------------- ---------------- -------------------------------------- |
|                                                                       |
| > The following chart reflects scenarios of starting points for       |
| > students, how their achievement progresses over time, and how their |
| > results are included in growth determinations. (Note: proficient    |
| > students are not included in the growth model). Student achievement |
| > after Year 4 does not count toward growth.                          |
|                                                                       |
|   -----------                                                         |
| - ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------------- |
|   Ba                                                                  |
| seline     Yr 1 Level Yr 2 Level   Yr 3 Level   Yr 4 Level   Decision |
|   Level                                                               |
|                                                                       |
|   Weak                                                                |
|       Lo         Hi Marginal  Proficient                Counts in the |
|                                                                       |
|    Marginal                                          growth model for |
|                                                                       |
|                                                            Yr 1 and 2 |
|                                                                       |
|   Weak                                                                |
|       Weak       Lo Marginal  Lo Marginal  Hi Marginal  Counts in the |
|                                                                       |
|                                                      growth model for |
|                                                                       |
|                                                            Yr 2 and 4 |
|                                                                       |
|   Weak                                                                |
|       Lo         Lo Marginal  Hi Marginal  Proficient   Counts in the |
|                                                                       |
|    Marginal                                          growth model for |
|                                                                       |
|                                                            Yr 1 and 3 |
|                                                                       |
|   Weak                                                                |
|       Lo         Hi Marginal  Lo Marginal  Hi Marginal  Counts in the |
|                                                                       |
|    Marginal                                          growth model for |
|                                                                       |
|                                                            Yr 1 and 2 |
|                                                                       |
|   Weak                                                                |
|       Hi         Lo Marginal  Proficient                Counts in the |
|                                                                       |
|    Marginal                                          growth model for |
|                                                                  Yr 1 |
|                                                                       |
|   Lo Marg                                                             |
| inal  Hi         Proficient                             Counts in the |
|                                                                       |
|    Marginal                                          growth model for |
|                                                                  Yr 1 |
|                                                                       |
|   Hi Marginal                                                         |
|   Lo         Hi Marginal                            Does not count in |
|                                                                       |
|    Marginal                                          the growth model |
|   -----------                                                         |
| - ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------------- |
|                                                                       |
| > The following chart reflects scenarios of starting points for       |
| > students in various grades, how their matriculation progresses over |
| > time, and how their results are included in growth determinations.  |
|                                                                       |
|   --                                                                  |
| --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- |
|   Baseline    Yr 1 Grade  Yr 2 Grade  Yr 3 Grade  Yr 4 Grade          |
|   Grade                                                               |
|                                                                       |
|   3                                                                   |
|            4           5           6           7           Include Yr |
|                                                                       |
|                                                           1, 2, 3 and |
|                                                               4       |
|                                                                       |
|   4                                                                   |
|            5           6           7           8           Include Yr |
|                                                                       |
|                                                           1, 2, 3 and |
|                                                               4       |
|                                                                       |
|   5                                                                   |
|            6           7           8                       Include Yr |
|                                                                       |
|                                                           1, 2, and 3 |
|                                                                       |
|   6                                                                   |
|            7           8                       10          Include Yr |
|                                                                       |
|                                               (baseline   1, 2, and 4 |
|                                                   for 11              |
|                                                   growth)             |
|                                                                       |
|   7                                                                   |
|            8                       10          11          Include Yr |
|                                                                       |
|                                    (baseline               1, 3 and 4 |
|                                       for 11                          |
|                                       growth)                         |
|                                                                       |
|   8                                                                   |
|                        10          11                      Include Yr |
|                           (baseline                           2 and 3 |
|                           for 11                                      |
|                           growth)                                     |
|                                                                       |
|   9                                                                   |
|            10          11                                  Include Yr |
|               (baseline                                       1 and 2 |
|               for 11                                                  |
|               growth)                                                 |
|                                                                       |
|   1                                                                   |
| 0          11                                              Include Yr |
|   (baseline                                                   1       |
|   for 11                                                              |
|   growth)                                                             |
|   --                                                                  |
| --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- |
|                                                                       |
| > The following chart reflects the most common grade configurations,  |
| > and how results would be included with growth determinations.       |
|                                                                       |
|   ----------------------- ------------------------------------------  |
|   Grade Configuration     Additional Grades                           |
|                                                                       |
|   3-5, 6-8                Grade 6 to 7 and 7 to 8 count for growth    |
|                           at middle school. Grade 5 results count as  |
|                           baseline for grade 6 growth.                |
|                                                                       |
|   3-6, 7-8                Grade 7 to 8 results count for growth at    |
|                           middle school. Grade 6 results count as     |
|                           baseline for Grade 7 growth.                |
|   ----------------------- ------------------------------------------  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.3 Has the State proposed a technically and educationally sound      |
| method of making annual judgments about school performance using      |
| growth?                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######## Iowa Response                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Iowa proposes to implement parallel processes, the evaluation of    |
| > which will help us improve growth modeling over time. As stated     |
| > earlier, the first process will be to make accountability           |
| > determinations by maintaining the current status determinations.    |
| > Briefly, the current status process, corresponding to Iowa's        |
| > amended and approved accountability workbook, is:                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 1: AMO status (Proficiency Index)                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 2: Safe Harbor                                                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 3: Two-year Uniform Averaging (Proficiency Index)              |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 4: Three -year Uniform Averaging (Grades 4, 8, 11 until three  |
| > years of data allow Iowa to consider the Proficiency Index for      |
| > three years.)                                                       |
| >                                                                     |
| > The second process is to include a growth determination for AYP     |
| > calculations. For each school and district, Iowa proposes to first  |
| > make a determination, on a student-by-student basis, regarding the  |
| > students who have achieved proficiency, as well as currently        |
| > non-proficient students who have met the aforementioned growth      |
| > targets (see 1.2). Non-proficient students who meet the individual  |
| > growth goals will be added to the students achieving proficient     |
| > status. This student count will then be entered into the status     |
| > algorithms to determine if students counted as "on target to be     |
| > proficient", when added to the proficient students, have enabled a  |
| > subgroup, school, or district meet the state's AYP Annual           |
| > Measurable Objectives and subsequent Proficiency Indices.           |
| >                                                                     |
| > The growth component, incorporated into the current AYP             |
| > determination, presents an opportunity for the state, districts,    |
| > and schools to gauge the change in the achievement of students who  |
| > score below the proficient level, and whose progress is monitored   |
| > throughout the time they attend a particular school.                |
| >                                                                     |
| > Because of the vertical alignment of the score scale for the Iowa   |
| > Tests, as well as the vertical alignment of content standards, the  |
| > expectation is that a student scoring at a level that is below      |
| > proficient will need to make a substantial improvement in           |
| > achievement in order to be counted as "on track to be proficient."  |
| > By requiring the student to achieve at a higher level in subsequent |
| > years, the requirement will be that in order to meet AYG, the       |
| > student will be expected to make more than a year's growth (for a   |
| > typical student) in a year's time to be on track toward             |
| > proficiency. Our growth model has established a clear trajectory    |
| > toward proficiency. The AYG definitions used in this proposal are   |
| > consistent with the provision of the guidance. The reader is        |
| > referred to the section on growth in the overview at the beginning  |
| > of this proposal.                                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > As part of the current accountability system, the IDE maintains a   |
| > consistent minimum-n size of 40 for participation and 30 for        |
| > proficiency.                                                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > An evaluation plan will be designed and implemented to examine the  |
| > impact of the use of growth calculations on AYP, at the student,    |
| > school, and district levels.                                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > As stated earlier, a unified AYP judgment will be made by combining |
| > the number of students who meet AYP with the number of students who |
| > achieve AYG. That sum will be compared to the annual measurable     |
| > objectives for the AYP decision.                                    |
| >                                                                     |
| > Since the determination of AYG is made for each student, each       |
| > student's result will be included in the appropriate subgroup to    |
| > evaluate subgroup performance. Like AYP status, this will result in |
| > a potential duplicated count from the All Students group to the     |
| > Low-SES, students with disabilities (SWDs), English language        |
| > learner (ELL), or racial/ethnic subgroups.                          |
| >                                                                     |
| > Descriptions for understanding student achievement at the student   |
| > and school levels have already been determined for students in the  |
| > "weak" and "marginal" levels. Beginning with the 2006-07 school     |
| > year, Iowa Testing Programs will provide growth information for     |
| > districts as well as reports on individual students to be           |
| > distributed to a child's parents.                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.4 Does the State proposed growth model include a relationship       |
| between consequences and rate of student growth consistent with       |
| Section 1116 of ESEA?                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Iowa Response                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Since the growth component will be integrated with the current      |
| > status model for AYP decisions, consequences for schools and        |
| > districts will remain the same relative to sanctions for not making |
| > AYP.                                                                |
| >                                                                     |
| > The criteria (see below) defined in the Iowa Consolidated State     |
| > Accountability Workbook in Section 1.4 will be used with Iowa       |
| > districts and Title I schools that don't make AYP targets.          |
|                                                                       |
| # Section 1.4 - Iowa Consolidated State Accountability Workbook       |
|                                                                       |
| > Iowa school districts have been required to submit Annual Progress  |
| > Reports (APRs) to the DE, their area education agencies (AEAs), and |
| > local communities since the year 2000. The APR contains all         |
| > required achievement data for state and federal reporting. The DE   |
| > revises APR requirements on an annual basis to comply with any new  |
| > federal and state legislation. The APR must contain the student     |
| > achievement results from the past school year for the required      |
| > academic indicators. Each school district, according to Iowa law,   |
| > is required to report the results of multiple assessments for       |
| > reading and mathematics. Each local district is also required to    |
| > demonstrate alignment of assessments to their standards. It is      |
| > expected that the district's assessment system provides the         |
| > information needed for a district to determine needed changes in    |
| > curriculum and professional development to improve instructional    |
| > practices. This type of rich and deep assessment system also        |
| > provides frequent data to teachers and buildings for needed         |
| > adjustments and modifications to assist in improving student        |
| > learning. They also provide a basis for districts to anticipate if  |
| > their students will attain proficiency on the comparable measure    |
| > across districts, the ITBS and the ITED                             |
| >                                                                     |
| > The DE will assist school districts in identifying schools in need  |
| > of improvement during each summer before the school year begins.    |
| > This identification will be completed around August 1 of each year. |
|                                                                       |
| #####                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| > [All public districts with schools identified as in need of         |
| > improvement for two consecutive years are required to offer school  |
| > choice for their enrolled students during the school year in which  |
| > they are identified.]{.underline}                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > [All public districts with Title I schools identified as missing    |
| > AYP for three or more consecutive years are required to offer       |
| > school choice and supplementary services and take corrective        |
| > actions, as required by NCLB, during the school year in which they  |
| > are identified.]{.underline}                                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > Iowa currently utilizes SINA (schools in need of assistance)        |
| > Support Teams to provide additional technical assistance to schools |
| > identified for improvement, with the goals of improving teacher     |
| > capacity and thus student achievement. By utilizing the growth      |
| > component, this specific information will be able to be used by the |
| > SINA support teams to enhance support for helping lower performing  |
| > students grow. As well, these data will enable efforts to be        |
| > focused differentially on schools in which students are not         |
| > growing, compared to schools in which students are showing adequate |
| > growth.                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Core Prin                                                          |
| ciple 2: Establishing Appropriate Growth Targets at the Student Level |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **2.1 Has the State proposed a technically and educationally sound    |
| method of depicting annual student growth in relation to growth       |
| targets?**                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > This component has been addressed in the response to section 1.2.   |
| >                                                                     |
| > The pre-test can be considered the test result from "year 1" of the |
| > assessment, and the post-test can be considered to be the test      |
| > result from "year 2" of the assessment, or, in future years,        |
| > previous year and current year, respectively. Typically, pre- and   |
| > post- tests are conceptualized as occurring within the same year,   |
| > the pre-test being utilized for diagnostic/planning (formative)     |
| > purposes, and the post-test being utilized for summative purposes.  |
| > The proposed model uses tests from different grade levels, designed |
| > for the same purposes and measured at about the same time of each   |
| > year.                                                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > Full academic year in a public school district is defined as the    |
| > time from the first day of a testing window in the previous school  |
| > year to the first day of the testing window in the current school   |
| > year. Students enrolled and tested during the previous school year  |
| > who enroll in another school district the current school year will  |
| > not be counted as meeting FAY requirements at the district level,   |
| > but will be included in State level calculations.                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > The IDE will continue to calculate AMO on FAY students at the       |
| > district level. FAY students are those students who were enrolled   |
| > at the time testing the previous year through the time of testing   |
| > the subsequent year irregardless if they have moved from school to  |
| > school within the district.                                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > AMO at the school level will be calculated on FAY students. FAY     |
| > students are those students who were enrolled at an individual      |
| > school at the time of testing the previous year through the         |
| > following year at the same school or at a school that follows the   |
| > district progression of grade levels.                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > Participation rates will continue to be calculated using all        |
| > students enrolled annually at the time of testing.                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > The proposed determination of AYG for each student is determined by |
| > a student's growth in terms of scale score points (which can be     |
| > translated into percentile rank scores or proficiency levels).      |
| > Movement from the Weak level to the Hi Marginal region counts the   |
| > same as growth from Weak to Lo Marginal or from Lo Marginal to the  |
| > Hi Marginal region. Whenever a student counts as having grown,      |
| > their count is added to the number of proficient students, and      |
| > applies to all appropriate subgroup categories. There is no         |
| > differential weighting for a student who grows two levels. For a    |
| > student to be counted for AYG, s/he must have been counted as       |
| > non-proficient for both years in the status model. A student who is |
| > non-proficient the first year and proficient the second year would  |
| > be counted as being proficient, and would be ineligible for the     |
| > growth determination.                                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > The "change" scores determined by the proposed model would require  |
| > a student to achieve the next higher range of scale scores on the   |
| > next higher level of the test.                                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > Growth targets remain constant. Targets are not reset.              |
| >                                                                     |
| > Growth expectations are not established on student demographics or  |
| > school characteristics. They are based on the same proficiency      |
| > levels that are applied to all students.                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > The IDE does not propose the use of a regression-type model or a    |
| > multivariate or multi-level model.                                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > In this way, required "growth" is greater than normative            |
| > expectations for students, the growth targets are defined as        |
| > movement from one proficiency level (or region) to the next. The    |
| > rationale is this: evidence indicates that while very low           |
| > performing students might have more room to grow, they might have a |
| > more difficult time achieving a growth target. For them, it may     |
| > take longer to grow a given amount than it does a high achieving    |
| > student. Statistically determining expected growth might yield      |
| > results that would not enable some students to achieve the          |
| > proficient level. For purposes of this proposal, the decision was   |
| > made to use the *a priori* proficiency levels as starting points,   |
| > with growth being defined as movement across levels or regions.     |
| >                                                                     |
| > This procedure is not compensatory. Only students who are not       |
| > proficient in year 1 are eligible for the growth determination in   |
| > year 2, if they continue to be non-proficient. While higher         |
| > achieving students might be expected to improve (from Iowa's school |
| > improvement standpoint), for NCLB accountability purposes, they     |
| > would not be eligible for a growth determination to combine with    |
| > the proficiency count at a school or district level for AYP         |
| > purposes, because they already count as proficient. Iowa will       |
| > monitor schools and districts experiencing a decrease in the        |
| > percent of proficient students. Schools and districts experiencing  |
| > a 10 percent or more decrease in the percent of proficient students |
| > will be directed to address such decrease(s) in their Annual        |
| > Progress Report (APR) (report to the IDE and to the public), with   |
| > strategies described to ameliorate such decreases.                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > Iowa will also monitor those districts where 10 percent or more of  |
| > the proficient students show a two-year decline in their            |
| > proficiency levels. The IDE plan for monitoring schools and         |
| > districts experiencing a 10 percent or more decrease in the percent |
| > of proficient students will include:                                |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  The IDE will validate the drop in the proficiency rate and        |
|     explore possible causes with the district.                        |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  The district will submit a plan of action to address the decrease |
|     for review by the IDE.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Title I funding to the district will require that a complete plan |
|     has been submitted and received approval from the IDE; funding    |
|     will be deferred until a satisfactory plan to improve achievement |
|     has been approved.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  IDE school improvement consultants will examine the               |
|     implementation of strategies in the plan during district on-site  |
|     reviews.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| > The Iowa State Board of Education will recognize Iowa school        |
| > districts that have an overall net gain in student proficiency in   |
| > the areas of reading and mathematics using the approved Iowa Growth |
| > Model. In addition, Iowa school districts will incorporate their    |
| > district growth results, where N size allows, in their Annual       |
| > Progress Report that is made available in their community.          |
| >                                                                     |
| > AYG is only defined for nonproficient students, but growth is       |
| > clearly a concern for all students and schools. While this proposal |
| > focuses on students below proficiency, these efforts are running in |
| > parallel with a statewide effort to increase the capacity for       |
| > growth reporting. Iowa Testing Programs has recently released an    |
| > interactive, online tool for growth reporting for all students, and |
| > early warning systems for schools that are declining from high      |
| > proficiency levels are just as feasible as growth reporting systems |
| > for students below proficiency. This growth reporting system is     |
| > currently available for grades and subjects currently outside the   |
| > purview of NCLB.                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Core Principle 3: Accountability for Reading/Language Arts         |
|                                                                       |
| ## and Mathematics Separately                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **3.1 Has the State proposed a technically and educationally sound    |
| method of holding schools accountable for student growth separately   |
| in reading/language arts and mathematics?**                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > As with the current AYP system, separate decisions are made for     |
| > reading and mathematics. As well, separate growth decisions for     |
| > reading and mathematics will be made for each non-proficient        |
| > student. The ability of the IDE to identify the "right" schools for |
| > improvement will be enhanced. Some schools might not make AYP, but  |
| > they may be doing a reasonable job of moving their students toward  |
| > proficiency. Such schools might not need the same kind of support   |
| > team interventions as those schools that are not making AYP, and    |
| > whose non-proficient students are not showing any growth.           |
| >                                                                     |
| > For schools with higher mobility, the intent is that for students   |
| > who move from school to school within the same district, their      |
| > achievement growth will count at the school where the student was   |
| > tested in year 2.                                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > The state does not include additional assessments in other content  |
| > areas such as science and social studies for AYP determinations.    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Core Principle 4: Inclusion of All Students                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **4.1 Does the State's growth model proposal address the inclusion of |
| all students, subgroups and schools appropriately?**                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Evidence from Iowa's participation rate data would indicate that    |
| > there are very few students who are not included in the statewide   |
| > assessment for AYP determinations. Indeed, most of the movement of  |
| > students is "within-district," and the proposed growth modeling     |
| > system includes those students in the growth determination. There   |
| > is no intent to impute missing data, as that may lead to errors in  |
| > decisions about whether or not a school is making AYP. Since the    |
| > growth determination is made at the student level first, if a       |
| > student's data are missing, they will not be eligible for the AYG   |
| > determination.                                                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > Full academic year in a public school district is defined as the    |
| > time from the first day of a testing window in the previous school  |
| > year to the first day of the testing window in the current school   |
| > year. Students enrolled and tested during the previous school year  |
| > who enroll in another school district the current school year will  |
| > not be counted as meeting FAY requirements at the district level,   |
| > but will be included in State level calculations.                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > The IDE will continue to calculate AMO on FAY students at the       |
| > district level. FAY students are those students who were enrolled   |
| > at the time testing the previous year through the time of testing   |
| > the subsequent year irregardless if they have moved from school to  |
| > school within the district.                                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > AMO at the school level will be calculated on FAY students. FAY     |
| > students are those students who were enrolled at an individual      |
| > school the time of testing the previous year through the following  |
| > year at the same school or at a school where that follows the       |
| > district progression of grade levels.                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > Participation rates will continue to be calculated using all        |
| > students enrolled annually at the time of testing.                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > This proposal does not include students with the most significant   |
| > cognitive disabilities who participate in the Iowa Alternate        |
| > Assessment at this time. At the present time, the Iowa Alternate    |
| > Assessment consists of three achievement levels, non-proficient,    |
| > proficient, and "better than proficient." After the IDE has a       |
| > chance to evaluate the use of growth models for its general         |
| > education population, and students with disabilities (SWDs) that    |
| > participate in the general assessment, a decision will be made      |
| > about revisiting the alternate academic achievement standards for   |
| > the alternate assessment, and how to include those results to       |
| > evaluate AYP and AYG.                                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > The IDE currently counts as FAY those students who have been        |
| > enrolled at the time of testing the previous year through the time  |
| > of testing the subsequent year. If the IDE proposal is approved,    |
| > the accountability plan will need to change to enable FAY (for      |
| > growth) to include students who move from school to school within   |
| > the same district. Iowa's proposal does not permit students who     |
| > grow from one year to the next, and who have crossed from one       |
| > district to another, to count for growth. The technical issue       |
| > predicating this is the problem of attributing growth to the        |
| > sending district AND the receiving district, in which case the      |
| > student proficiency counts would be duplicated across districts.    |
| >                                                                     |
| > The state will not include a growth measure from 2^nd^ to 3^rd^     |
| > grade. Because statute requires testing in Grades 3-8, the IDE will |
| > utilize the available data in those grades to carry out growth      |
| > determinations for students in those grades. Because this is only a |
| > pilot project, the intent is to fully evaluate impact and           |
| > consequences before including growth from Grade 2 to Grade 3.       |
| >                                                                     |
| > For the IDE proposal, "between year growth" is the standard for the |
| > growth determination. First, evidence indicates that there is very  |
| > little grade retention of students statewide. Second, the rationale |
| > for not counting students who are retained in the growth            |
| > determination is that within-year growth might not provide enough   |
| > evidence that a student is "on track to proficiency." It is also    |
| > very unlikely that a student would be promoted to a subsequent      |
| > grade at mid-year unless they have been able to demonstrate some    |
| > level of proficiency on the current level of the statewide          |
| > assessment.                                                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > Students who would be excluded from growth determinations (for AYP  |
| > purposes) would include those who have been retained, those who     |
| > have moved from one district to another (non-FAY students at the    |
| > district level), those who were non-proficient in year 1 and        |
| > proficient in year 2, those who were proficient in both year 1 and  |
| > in year 2, and those who were proficient in year 1 and not          |
| > proficient in year 2. In the future, as growth models are studied   |
| > for school improvement purposes within the state, it may encompass  |
| > non-FAY students as well as higher achieving students.              |
| >                                                                     |
| > A student who changes subgroup classification over the growth time  |
| > period will continue their subgroup membership. For example, a      |
| > student who moves between the IEP (Individualized Education Plan,   |
| > i.e., students with disabilities) and non-IEP subgroups, or between |
| > the ELL (English language learner) and non-ELL subgroups will       |
| > maintain their subgroup classification (IEP or ELL) for the growth  |
| > determination. These classifications reflect educational programs.  |
| > Therefore, the programs that provided the support to the student    |
| > should receive the "credit" for student growth. On the other hand,  |
| > students in the low-SES category who move to the non-low-SES        |
| > category will be counted as non-low-SES, because it is more of a    |
| > demographic classification (not within the school's control) than a |
| > program classification. Also, the IDE proposal is consistent with   |
| > current USED policy that allows the inclusion of former IEP or ELL  |
| > students to be counted in those categories for AYP purposes for two |
| > additional years.                                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > Mechanically, the growth model can be applied to all students       |
| > statewide who are identified as non-proficient in year 1 and        |
| > non-proficient in year 2. For this pilot project, the growth        |
| > calculations will be combined with the AYP status data for all      |
| > schools and districts. A comparison will be made among              |
| > schools/districts achieving AYP through status or growth.           |
| >                                                                     |
| > Regarding special circumstances:                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   K-2 schools will be backmapped from the school providing the      |
|     instruction to the next level of students (e.g., 3-5). The K-2    |
|     school will receive the same AYP designation as the 3-5 school.   |
|     This is current practice.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Single grade schools will be eligible to have their achievement   |
|     results count toward growth in the subsequent school. Schools     |
|     testing at various times during the year will count their growth  |
|     data at the subsequent school. For example, a school housing      |
|     Grade 5 and testing during the fall will be eligible to count     |
|     5^th^ grade growth data at the 6^th^ grade building. A school     |
|     housing Grade 5 and testing during midyear or spring will count   |
|     growth data from 4^th^ to 5^th^ grade at the 5^th^ grade          |
|     building.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   High schools (Grade 11) will be eligible to provide data for      |
|     students who were 10^th^ graders the previous year. While Grade   |
|     10 assessments are not required as part of the current            |
|     accountability system, a large majority of LEAs (over 85 percent) |
|     assess students in Grade 10. As such, we would like to offer our  |
|     LEAs the opportunity to evaluate a growth model for their high    |
|     school or district, if they can provide assessment results for    |
|     their Grade 10 students, of which they must have tested at least  |
|     95 percent of all 10^th^ grade students enrolled (relative to     |
|     their certified enrollment counts), must be able to certify such  |
|     students as having been enrolled for a Full Academic Year (FAY),  |
|     and must enable electronic access to their data.                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Core Principle 5: State Assessment System and Methodology          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5.1 Has the State designed and implemented a Statewide assessment     |
| system that measures all students annually in Grades 3-8 and one high |
| school grade in reading/language arts and mathematics in accordance   |
| with NCLB requirements for 2005-06, and have the annual assessments   |
| been in place since the 2004-05 school year?                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Iowa has implemented a statewide assessment system that measures    |
| > all students annually in Grades 3-8 and one high school Grade (11)  |
| > in reading and mathematics in accordance with NCLB requirements for |
| > 2005-06 and 2006-07. Therefore, the state will have two years of    |
| > data for all students, grades 3-8 and 11. These annual assessments  |
| > have been in place for a very long time, even preceding NCLB.       |
| >                                                                     |
| > Iowa's assessment system includes assessments developed or adopted  |
| > at both the local and state level, although only the statewide      |
| > assessment is used for AYP determinations.                          |
|                                                                       |
| (a) The statewide assessment represents the comparable indicator as a |
|     common measure. For individual district-wide assessment measures, |
|     LEAs have studied the alignment and technical properties of their |
|     measures, so as to ensure that their results are applicable for   |
|     all students that they serve.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| (b) The statewide assessment provides the mechanism for               |
|     accountability for the state.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| (c) Performance level descriptors (Appendix A) were provided to USED  |
|     as part of the peer review process for standards and assessments. |
|     These are accompanied by Content Summaries for each grade that    |
|     describe the content standards measured by the assessment.        |
|                                                                       |
| (d) Each school district is required to report to their public the    |
|     annual progress of their students in reading, mathematics, and    |
|     science, for subgroups within each grade span, for the *ITBS* and |
|     *ITED* and for their multiple measures. The *ITBS*/*ITED*         |
|     reporting in the online APR is different than for AYP, since the  |
|     minimum-n size for reporting is 10, and FAY does not apply when   |
|     including all students. 281-Iowa Administrative Code, Chapter 12  |
|     requires all students to be included in the district-wide         |
|     assessment system. By examining the technical properties of their |
|     district-wide assessments, school districts are able to develop a |
|     level of confidence that their assessments are unbiased and       |
|     rational, and provide consistent determinations of academic       |
|     progress for their students.                                      |
|                                                                       |
| > The Iowa Testing Programs (ITP) provides several documents that     |
| > provide various interpretive information for students and schools.  |
| > The Profile Narrative Report provides information for each          |
| > individual student on content areas. This is accompanied by a flier |
| > that districts are asked to use to provide parents with achievement |
| > level descriptors, so they can better interpret their child's score |
| > report. These are parent reports that are made available to all     |
| > LEAs as soon as they become available. The "hard copy" parent       |
| > reports are provided to parents either through U.S. mail or during  |
| > parent-teacher conferences. During that time frame, ITP also        |
| > provides district and school level reports to LEAs as requested.    |
| > Finally, ITP returns an electronic copy of student data to LEAs     |
| > through a standard CD-ROM service.                                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > Iowa submitted additional evidence for its statewide assessment     |
| > system for NCLB peer review. Iowa has recently received full        |
| > approval of its standards and assessment system.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5.2 How will the State report individual student growth to parents?   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > In addition to the current status reports, the IDE will report      |
| > growth to parents. The IDE will work with the Iowa Testing Programs |
| > to design a reporting format to enable parents to receive           |
| > descriptive information about the progress of their children. The   |
| > goal will be to implement the use of these reports for the 2007-08  |
| > school year. Reports will contain scores and score ranges, as well  |
| > as performance descriptors. These will be similar to the            |
| > Interpretive Guide for the Profile Narrative Reports that provide   |
| > content specific descriptions for users.                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > On an annual basis, schools are provided with a Student Profile     |
| > Chart that is used to monitor individual student progress over      |
| > time. The IDE anticipates including individual student growth as    |
| > part of these charts, along with a full explanation of what the     |
| > growth data mean. Beginning in the 2006-07 school year, districts   |
| > will be provided with more complete growth information on their     |
| > students including interpretative materials on individual students  |
| > to be shared with each child's parents.                             |
| >                                                                     |
| > As each student moves from one grade level to the next, assessment  |
| > results will be maintained on a secure server housed at the state   |
| > level.                                                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > Iowa will monitor schools and districts experiencing a decrease in  |
| > the percent of proficient students. Schools and districts           |
| > experiencing a 10 percent or more decrease in the percent of        |
| > proficient students will be directed to address such decrease(s) in |
| > their APRs, with strategies to ameliorate such decreases.           |
| >                                                                     |
| > The IDE plan for monitoring schools and districts experiencing a 10 |
| > percent or more decrease in the percent of proficient students will |
| > include:                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  The IDE will validate the drop in the proficiency rate and        |
|     explore possible causes with the district.                        |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  The district will submit a plan of action to address the decrease |
|     for review by the IDE.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Title I funding to the district will require that a complete plan |
|     has been submitted and received approval from the IDE, funding    |
|     will be deferred until a satisfactory plan to improve achievement |
|     has been approved.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| > 4\. IDE school improvement consultants will examine the             |
| > implementation of strategies in the plan during district on-site    |
| > reviews.                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **5.3 Does the Statewide assessment system produce comparable         |
| information on each student as he/she moves from one grade level to   |
| the next?**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Documents enclosed with this proposal include:                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Iowa Testing Programs' *Content Summaries and Performance Level   |
|     Descriptors* describes the achievement levels used with the Iowa  |
|     Tests (Appendix A)                                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   *Scale Score Ranges by Performance Category, Standard Errors, and |
|     Raw Score to Scale Score Conversions* (Appendix B) tabulates cut  |
|     points between nonproficient categories across grades, standard   |
|     errors for categories, and raw score to cut point conversions.    |
|                                                                       |
| -   *Scale Score Comparability Across Levels* (Appendix C) describes  |
|     the purpose and development of the standard score scale used for  |
|     reporting growth on the Iowa Tests.                               |
|                                                                       |
| > The state does not use end-of-course tests as part of the AYP       |
| > accountability system.                                              |
|                                                                       |
| The academic achievement standards for each content area are included |
| in Appendix A.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| (a) at least three levels of achievement, including two levels of     |
|     proficiency (Intermediate and High), and a third level of         |
|     achievement (Low, which is equivalent to non-proficient);         |
|                                                                       |
| (b) performance level descriptors for each level; and                 |
|                                                                       |
| (c) points of demarcation (cut scores) to distinguish among the three |
|     achievement levels                                                |
|                                                                       |
| > For the Iowa Tests, the achievement levels and associated cut       |
| > scores follow the model described in point (a) above, with the Low  |
| > achievement level reflecting students who are not proficient, the   |
| > Intermediate achievement level reflecting students who are at the   |
| > proficient level, and the High achievement level, reflecting        |
| > students who have achieved the highest level of proficiency.        |
| >                                                                     |
| > The 2000 norms resulting from the national norming study serve as   |
| > an anchor point against which future student achievement            |
| > comparisons are made. The Low achievement level includes students   |
| > who score at the national 40^th^ percentile and below. The          |
| > Intermediate achievement level includes students who score from the |
| > 41^st^ percentile to the 89^th^ percentile. The High achievement    |
| > level includes students who score at the 90^th^ percentile or       |
| > higher. For AYP purposes, the Intermediate and High achievement     |
| > levels reflect students who are counted as proficient.              |
| >                                                                     |
| > While Iowa does have alternate academic achievement standards for   |
| > students who participate in the alternate assessment, at the        |
| > present time, these students will not be counted in the             |
| > determination of growth. Further study will guide the work of the   |
| > IDE to determine multiple achievement levels for the alternate      |
| > assessment that are more conducive to a growth interpretation.      |
| >                                                                     |
| > The academic achievement standards for the statewide assessment are |
| > applied to all public elementary and secondary schools and all      |
| > public school students in the state. The alternate academic         |
| > achievement standards for the Iowa Alternate Assessment are applied |
| > to all participating public school students. The results of the     |
| > Iowa Alternate Assessment are combined with the statewide           |
| > assessment results to make decisions about AYP.                     |
| >                                                                     |
| > For reporting, Iowa Alternate Assessment results are reported for   |
| > any school or district meeting the minimum-n requirement by having  |
| > 10 or more students participating in the alternate assessment.      |
| >                                                                     |
| > The state has not used any "smoothing techniques" to make the       |
| > achievement levels comparable.                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5.4 Is the Statewide assessment system stable in its design?          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > The Iowa Tests, the statewide assessment used for AYP               |
| > accountability, has been stable in its overall design for the past  |
| > 70 years (S. Brookhart, Buros Test Review). No other statewide      |
| > testing system can compare with that amount of longitudinal data    |
| > with which to monitor student achievement trends. While districts   |
| > have been required to test all students grades 3-8 and 11 for two   |
| > years, it should be noted that the use of the Iowa Tests have a     |
| > long history in Iowa's districts. While Iowa's accountability plan  |
| > was initially implemented by collecting information on students in  |
| > Grades 4, 8, and 11, almost every LEA administered the Iowa Tests   |
| > to students at several grade levels. Past studies indicated that    |
| > about 98 percent of the LEAs administered to more than Grades 4 and |
| > 8 at elementary and middle school, and over 80 percent of the LEAs  |
| > administered to more than Grade 11 at high school, even before NCLB |
| > was implemented. Over the past two years, over 95% of LEAs          |
| > administered the Iowa Tests at Grade 9, and around 85% of LEAs      |
| > assessed students at Grade 10.                                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > Iowa anticipates making no changes to the current accountability    |
| > system, unless elicited by NCLB reauthorization. At least until     |
| > 2013-2014, Iowa anticipates conducting the same program. In the     |
| > event that any modification of the Iowa Tests changes the           |
| > assessments, equated scale scores will be developed to maintain     |
| > consistency and comparability with the current vertical             |
| > developmental score scale, enabling student achievement to be       |
| > monitored from the inception of NCLB through 2014. Further, the     |
| > state will continue to use the 2000 norms, even if a new generation |
| > of test forms are introduced in Iowa with updated test norms.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Core Principle 6: Tracking Student Progress                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6.1 Has the State designed and implemented a technically and          |
| educationally sound system for accurately matching student data from  |
| one year to the next?                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Iowa is in its third year of full implementation of a longitudinal  |
| > student record system, with unique student identification numbers,  |
| > and ability to monitor the movement of students across time. For    |
| > the statewide assessment, LEAs are required to "extract" and submit |
| > student information from their systems that is used to create       |
| > bar-coded labels that are attached to each student's test answer    |
| > document. After the answer folders are scanned, the student data    |
| > taken from the "extract" files are merged with the results, which   |
| > enables the IDE to know where each student was when they were       |
| > tested, and what their district of residence is.                    |
| >                                                                     |
| > Once the student data are returned from Iowa Testing Programs and   |
| > loaded onto the state's secure server, it can be used to track the  |
| > movement of students across time and across schools or districts.   |
| > Monitoring of the match rates will be built into the data analysis  |
| > system. Prior to full implementation of unique student identifiers, |
| > Iowa Testing Programs utilized a cascading set of criteria to match |
| > student records across years, starting with the unique student      |
| > identifier (if available), then continuing to match on student      |
| > name, district code, birth month and year, and the like until a     |
| > match is established. The initial match on the student identifier   |
| > results in a match rate of 86.3%. Subsequent matching on student    |
| > name, district code, and other criteria increases the overall match |
| > rate to 95%. The table below shows the disaggregated match rate for |
| > numerically significant subgroups. The confidence is very high that |
| > the IDE will be able to achieve matching for all students with the  |
| > unique student ID system now in place.                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > Disaggregated Match Rates for Academic Years Ending '05 and '06     |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|  -------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------ |
|   **Gender**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
|                        Male                         95%               |
|                                                                       |
|                        Female                       95%               |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|   **Race/Ethnicity**                                                  |
|                                                                       |
|                        Asian                        88%               |
|                                                                       |
|                        Black                        78%               |
|                                                                       |
|                        Hispanic                     84%               |
|                                                                       |
|                        Native American              84%               |
|                                                                       |
|                        White                        97%               |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|   **Free or Reduced                                                   |
|   Price Lunch**                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                        Yes                          91%               |
|                                                                       |
|                        No                           97%               |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|   **English Language                                                  |
|   Learner**                                                           |
|                                                                       |
|                        Yes                          81%               |
|                                                                       |
|                        No                           95%               |
|                                                                       |
|  -------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------ |
|                                                                       |
| > Part of the evaluation design of the pilot project will include a   |
| > process to ensure that the IDE can identify the location and        |
| > movement of each student from one year to the next.                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > Iowa has had a student identification system since 2004. Since the  |
| > IDE proposal will only be examining change from one year to the     |
| > next year, there is no reason to need to look at multiple years of  |
| > matched files prior to 2004. Over time, as the student record       |
| > system grows, the IDE will have the capacity to look at multiple    |
| > years, as the need arises.                                          |
| >                                                                     |
| > The current student record system includes information on           |
| > demographic characteristics. In fact, this information is used to   |
| > respond to federal requests through the PBDMI/EDEN project (now     |
| > known as ED*facts*).                                                |
| >                                                                     |
| > Since the growth model examines student growth prior to aggregation |
| > at the school or district level, a student moving from one school   |
| > to another within the same district will count at the school of     |
| > attendance. Students who have moved across district lines will not  |
| > currently be eligible for growth determination.                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6.2 Does the State data infrastructure have the capacity to implement |
| the proposed growth model?                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > The storage capacity for student information is currently met by    |
| > the state's secure servers. The IDE intends to continue storing     |
| > data on the state's secure servers.                                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > The state has capacity to examine longitudinal student data. Iowa   |
| > Testing Programs has followed student achievement trends for at     |
| > least 45 years. The IDE publishes the Annual Condition of Education |
| > Report, which displays results of longitudinal data analyses        |
| > beginning with the early 1990s.                                     |
| >                                                                     |
| > The proposed model will not conduct a statistical adjustment to     |
| > compensate for missing data or low match rates. Based on the        |
| > matching criteria and decision rules about which students count and |
| > where, nearly every student who attends a public school in the      |
| > state should be able to be matched across time. This is not         |
| > anticipated to affect the school accountability criteria at all.    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Cor                                                                |
| e Principle #7: Participation Rates and Additional Academic Indicator |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **7.1 Has the State designed and implemented a Statewide              |
| accountability system that incorporates the rate of participation as  |
| one of the criteria?**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > In order to be eligible for the growth determination, a student     |
| > would need to have participated in the statewide assessment for at  |
| > least two years.                                                    |
| >                                                                     |
| > Regarding participation rates at the school AYP level: In order for |
| > a school or district to be eligible to take advantage of the growth |
| > model to be included with the AYP decision, that school or district |
| > must have met the 95 percent participation rate criteria for all    |
| > eligible student subgroups for both years, calculated in the same   |
| > manner as the status AYP model (participation rate equals the       |
| > number of students tested divided by the number of students         |
| > enrolled at the time of testing, times 100 percent).                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **7.2 Does the proposed State growth accountability model incorporate |
| the additional academic indicator?**                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Iowa Response                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > The other academic indicator continues to be part of the            |
| > accountability plan. If a school makes AYP for the assessment, but  |
| > does not achieve the other academic indicator, it misses AYP. The   |
| > IDE has an approved plan that states for a district to miss AYP for |
| > the other academic indicator, it must miss at all levels.           |
| >                                                                     |
| > The other academic indicators used by Iowa are graduation rate at   |
| > high school, and average daily attendance at the elementary and     |
| > middle school levels. Graduation rate is calculated using the       |
| > suggested NCES protocol. Attendance rates are calculated by         |
| > dividing the average daily attendance (ADA) by the average daily    |
| > membership/enrollment. With the inception of the student record     |
| > system, the IDE is able to capture this information for each        |
| > student. As such, ADA will be able to be calculated from existing   |
| > data.                                                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > The other academic indicator will be used in the same manner as it  |
| > is currently used in the accountability system. That is, if a       |
| > school meets the AMO (without or with the growth component), and/or |
| > if it misses the other academic indicator, it will miss AYP. The    |
| > same will occur at the district level, with the exception of        |
| > needing to miss the other academic indicator for all levels in      |
| > order for the district to miss AYP for the other academic           |
| > indicator.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Summary**

The IDE is excited about the opportunity to engage schools and districts
about improving the achievement of their students from one year to the
next. The approval of this proposal would validate those efforts. We
believe that this proposal meets all of the core principles specified in
Secretary Spellings' November 21, 2005, and October 11, 2006,
communications to state chiefs.

Specifically,

-   We have defined AYG as more than a typical year's growth in a year's
    time.

-   We have based the growth determination on student achievement,
    rather than on demographic variables.

-   We have outlined a process for making separate accountability
    decisions for reading and mathematics.

-   Because the model is integrated with the current AYP-status model,
    schools and districts are held accountable for the performance of
    all subgroups, indeed, all students.

-   We will have two years of data for all students, grades 3-8 and 11
    as well as a historical database of vertically scaled assessments
    that yield comparable results across grades and years.

-   We have a longitudinal student-unit data storage system, containing
    unique student identifiers, capable of tracking student progress
    across grades and time.

-   We continue to use the current AYP status-model expectations
    regarding participation rates and other academic indicators.

The IDE is poised to engage the work necessary to implement the proposed
growth model, and to evaluate its effects on AYP decisions, and on
instructional practices that are designed to lead to improved student
achievement.

**Appendix A**

**Content Summaries and Performance Level Descriptors**

**Content Summary**

**Grade 3 Reading Comprehension**

*Students in grade 3 read a variety of fiction (e.g. stories,
folktales), non-fiction (e.g., general science, social studies,
biography), and poetry. They are expected not only to understand the
literal meaning of grade-appropriate text, but also to interpret meaning
through complex processes of analysis, inference, and generalization. To
read grade-appropriate text with comprehension, students must
demonstrate the processes of:*

**Factual Understanding**

-   Understand stated information

-   Determine the meaning of new words from their context

**Inference and Interpretation**

-   Draw conclusions, make inferences, and deduce meaning

-   Infer traits, feelings, and motives of characters

-   Interpret information in new contexts

-   Interpret non-literal language

**Analysis and Generalization**

-   Determine the main idea of a text

-   Identify the author's views or purpose

-   Analyze the style or structure of a text

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 3 Reading Comprehension**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in reading for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** Understands factual information and
new words in context, is able to make inferences, can interpret
non-literal language and information in new contexts, and usually can
determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands factual information and new words
> in context. Can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Can determine a selection's
> main ideas and analyze its style and structure.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Usually can make inferences and interpret either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Usually can
> determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and
> structure.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** Usually understands factual
information and new words in context. Often is able to make inferences
and interpret either non-literal language or information in new
contexts. Sometimes can determine a selection's main ideas or analyze
its style and structure.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually understands factual information and new words
> in context. Often can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Usually can determine a
> selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Often is able to make inferences and interpret
> either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Sometimes
> can determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and
> structure.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** Seldom understands factual information
or new words in context. Rarely is able to make inferences and interpret
either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
determine a selection's main ideas or analyze its style and structure.

> Marginal (10-40): Seldom understands factual information or new words
> in context. Rarely is able to make inferences and interpret either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
> determine a selection's main ideas and analyze aspects of its style
> and structure.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom understands factual information or new words in
> context. Rarely is able to make inferences or to interpret either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
> determine a selection's main ideas or analyze aspects of its style and
> structure.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 3 Mathematics**

*Students in grade 4 must understand mathematical concepts and
estimation strategies, solve multi-step problems, and interpret detailed
graphical displays of data. They are expected to demonstrate reasoning
in numerical, algebraic, and geometric representations, as well as word
problems and graphical displays. The content and process dimensions of
mathematics knowledge at this grade level include:*

**Number Properties and Operations**

-   Represent, classify, and describe numbers and their properties

-   Demonstrate ways of performing operations

-   Use place value; write numbers in standard, expanded, and
    exponential form

-   Use and interpret operational and relational symbols

-   Use standard rounding, order of magnitude, and number sense to
    estimate

**Algebra**

-   Solve equations and inequalities

-   Use algebraic expressions to model and explore numerical patterns

**Geometry**

-   Identify, classify, and compare geometric figures

-   Describe geometric properties, patterns, and relationships

-   Apply the concepts of perimeter, area, and volume

**Measurement**

-   Measure length/distance, time, temperature, weight, mass, and volume

-   Estimate measurements with appropriate precision

-   Identify and use appropriate units of measurement

**Probability**

-   Apply probability concepts and counting rules

-   Understand and apply measures of central tendency and variability

**Problem Solving**

-   Solve single- and multiple-step math problems

-   Identify extraneous or insufficient information in problems

-   Determine a method for solving a problem

**Data Interpretation**

-   Read scales of bar and line graphs and locate amounts in tables

-   Determine ranks, sums, or differences and find ratios from data
    displays

-   Determine rates, identify trends, understand functional
    relationships, and generalize from data displayed in graphs and
    tables

**Performance Level Descriptors for**

**Grade 3 Mathematics**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in mathematics for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** Understands math concepts, solves
word problems, and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually is
able to use estimation methods.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands math concepts, solves word
> problems, and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can use
> estimation methods.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Understands math concept, solves word problems,
> and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can use estimation
> methods.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** Usually can understand math
concepts and solve word problems. Sometimes is able to use estimation
methods and usually can interpret data from graphs and tables.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually can understand math concepts use estimation
> methods. Is able to solve word problems and interpret data from graphs
> and tables.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually can understand math concepts and solve word
> problems.
>
> Sometimes can use estimation methods; usually can interpret data from
> graphs and tables.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** Sometimes can understand math
concepts, but seldom is able to solve word problems. Rarely is able to
use estimation methods or interpret data from graphs and tables.

> Marginal (10-40): Sometimes can understand math concepts but seldom is
> able to solve word problems or use estimation methods. Rarely can
> interpret data from graphs and tables.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom can understand math concepts or solve word
> problems. Rarely can use estimation methods or interpret data from
> graphs and tables.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 4 Reading Comprehension**

*Students in grade 4 read a variety of fiction (e.g. stories,
folktales), non-fiction (e.g., general science, social studies,
biography, functional text), and poetry. They are expected not only to
understand the literal meaning of grade-appropriate text, but also to
interpret meaning through complex processes of analysis, inference, and
generalization. To read grade-appropriate text with comprehension,
students in grade 4 must demonstrate the processes of:*

**Factual Understanding**

-   Understand stated information

-   Determine the meaning of new words from their context

**Inference and Interpretation**

-   Draw conclusions, make inferences, and deduce meaning

-   Infer traits, feelings, and motives of characters

-   Interpret information in new contexts

-   Interpret non-literal language

**Analysis and Generalization**

-   Determine the main idea of a text

-   Identify the author's views or purpose

-   Analyze the style or structure of a text

*At this level, the content and process dimensions of reading
comprehension emphasize factual understanding, inference, and
interpretation of grade-appropriate text.*

######### Performance Level Descriptors

**Grade 4 Reading Comprehension**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in reading for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** When reading **grade-appropriate
texts**, a student who performs at this level understands factual
information and new words in context, is able to make inferences, can
interpret either non-literal language or information in new contexts,
and can determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and
structure.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands factual information and new words
> in context. Makes inferences and interprets either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Determines a selection's main
> ideas and analyzes its style and structure.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Usually makes inferences and interprets either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Determines a
> selection's main ideas and analyzes its style and structure.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** When reading
**grade-appropriate texts**, a student who performs at this level
usually understands factual information and new words in context.
Usually is able to make inferences and interpret either non-literal
language or information in new contexts. Often can determine a
selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually understands factual information and new words
> in context. Often makes inferences and interprets either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Determines a selection's main
> ideas and analyzes its style and structure.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Sometimes makes inferences and interprets either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Usually can
> determine a selection's main ideas and analyzes its style and
> structure.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** When reading **grade-appropriate
texts**, a student who performs at this level seldom understands factual
information or new words in context. Sometimes is able to make
inferences and interpret either non-literal language or information in
new contexts. Rarely can determine a selection's main ideas or analyze
its style and structure.

> Marginal (10-40): Seldom understands factual information or new words
> in context. Sometimes makes inferences and interprets either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Sometimes
> determines a selection's main ideas and analyzes its style and
> structure.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom understands factual information or new words in
> context. Rarely makes inferences or interprets either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Rarely determines a
> selection's main ideas or analyzes aspects of its style and structure.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 4 Mathematics**

*Students in grade 4 must understand mathematical concepts and
estimation strategies, solve single- and multi-step problems, and
interpret detailed graphical displays of data. They are expected to
demonstrate reasoning in numerical, algebraic, and geometric
representations, as well as word problems and graphical displays. The
content and process dimensions of mathematics knowledge in grade 4
include:*

**Number Properties and Operations**

-   Represent, classify, and describe numbers and their properties

-   Demonstrate ways of performing operations

-   Use place value; write numbers in standard and expanded form

-   Use standard rounding, order of magnitude, and number sense to
    estimate

**Algebra**

-   Use operational and relational symbols

-   Solve equations

-   Use algebraic expressions to model and explore numerical patterns

**Geometry**

-   Identify, classify, and compare geometric figures

-   Describe geometric properties, patterns, and relationships

-   Apply the concepts of perimeter and area

**Measurement**

-   Measure length/distance, time, temperature, weight

-   Estimate measurements with appropriate precision

-   Identify appropriate units of measurement

**Probability**

-   Apply probability concepts and counting rules

-   Apply measures of central tendency

**Problem Solving**

-   Solve single- and multiple-step math problems

-   Identify insufficient information in problems

-   Determine a method for solving a problem

**Data Interpretation**

-   Read scales of pictographs and bar graphs and locate amounts in
    tables

-   Determine ranks, sums, and differences from data displays

-   Identify trends and generalize from data displayed in graphs and
    tables

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 4 Mathematics**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in mathematics for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** In a **grade-appropriate context**,
a student who performs at this level understands math concepts, solves
word problems, and often is able to use estimation methods. Can
interpret data from graphs and tables.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands math concepts and is able to solve
> word problems. Uses estimation methods and interprets data from graphs
> and tables.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually can understand math concepts and solve
> word problems. Often uses estimation methods and interprets data from
> graphs and tables.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** In a **grade-appropriate
context**, a student who performs at this level usually can understand
math concepts and solve word problems. Sometimes is able to use
estimation methods and usually can interpret data from graphs and
tables.

> Skilled (76-89): Sometimes understands math concepts and usually is
> able to solve word
>
> problems. Often uses estimation methods and interprets data from
> graphs and tables.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Sometimes understands math concepts and solves word
> problems.
>
> Sometimes is able to use estimation methods and interpret data from
> graphs and tables.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** In a **grade-appropriate context**, a
student who performs at this level sometimes can understand math
concepts, but seldom is able to solve word problems. Rarely is able to
use estimation methods or interpret data from graphs and tables.

> Marginal (10-40): Sometimes understands math concepts but seldom is
> able to solve word problems or use estimation methods. Sometimes
> interprets data from graphs and tables.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom understands math concepts or solves word problems.
> Rarely uses estimation methods or interprets data from graphs and
> tables.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 5 Reading Comprehension**

*Students in grade 5 read a variety of fiction (e.g. stories, letters),
non-fiction (e.g., general science, social studies, biography, essays,
functional texts), and poetry. They are expected not only to understand
the literal meaning of grade-appropriate text, but also to interpret
meaning through complex processes of analysis, inference, and
generalization. To read grade-appropriate text with comprehension,
students must demonstrate the processes of:*

**Factual Understanding**

-   Understand stated information

-   Determine the meaning of new words from their context

**Inference and Interpretation**

-   Draw conclusions, make inferences, and deduce meaning

-   Infer traits, feelings, and motives of characters

-   Interpret information in new contexts

-   Interpret non-literal language

**Analysis and Generalization**

-   Determine the main idea of a text

-   Identify the author's views or purpose

-   Analyze the style or structure of a text

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 5 Reading Comprehension**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in reading for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** Understands factual information and
new words in context, is able to make inferences, can interpret
non-literal language and information in new contexts, and usually can
determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands factual information and new words
> in context. Can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Can determine a selection's
> main ideas and analyze its style and structure.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Can determine a selection's
> main ideas and analyze its style and structure.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** Usually understands factual
information and new words in context. Often is able to make inferences
and interpret either non-literal language or information in new
contexts. Usually can determine a selection's main ideas or analyze its
style and structure.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually understands factual information and new words
> in context. Often can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Usually can determine a
> selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Often is able to make inferences and interpret
> either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Sometimes
> can determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and
> structure.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** Seldom understands factual information
or new words in context. Rarely is able to make inferences and interpret
either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
determine a selection's main ideas or analyze its style and structure.

> Marginal (10-40): Sometimes understands factual information or new
> words in context. Sometimes is able to make inferences and interpret
> either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
> determine a selection's main ideas and analyze aspects of its style
> and structure.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom understands factual information or new words in
> context. Rarely is able to make inferences or to interpret either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
> determine a selection's main ideas or analyze aspects of its style and
> structure.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 5 Mathematics**

*Students in grade 5 must understand mathematical concepts and
estimation strategies, solve multi-step problems, and interpret detailed
graphical displays of data. They are expected to demonstrate reasoning
in numerical, algebraic, and geometric representations, as well as word
problems and graphical displays. The content and process dimensions of
mathematics knowledge at this grade level include:*

**Number Properties and Operations**

-   Represent, classify, and describe numbers and their properties

-   Demonstrate ways of performing operations

-   Use place value; write numbers in standard, expanded, and
    exponential form

-   Use and interpret operational and relational symbols

-   Use standard rounding, order of magnitude, and number sense to
    estimate

**Algebra**

-   Solve equations and inequalities

-   Use algebraic expressions to model and explore numerical patterns

**Geometry**

-   Identify, classify, and compare geometric figures

-   Describe geometric properties, patterns, and relationships

-   Apply the concepts of perimeter, area, and volume

**Measurement**

-   Measure length/distance, time, temperature, weight, mass, and volume

-   Estimate measurements with appropriate precision

-   Identify and use appropriate units of measurement

**Probability**

-   Apply probability concepts and counting rules

-   Understand and apply measures of central tendency and variability

**Problem Solving**

-   Solve single- and multiple-step math problems

-   Identify extraneous or insufficient information in problems

-   Determine a method for solving a problem

**Data Interpretation**

-   Read scales of bar and line graphs and locate amounts in tables

-   Determine ranks, sums, or differences and find ratios from data
    displays

-   Determine rates, identify trends, understand functional
    relationships, and generalize from data displayed in graphs and
    tables

**Performance Level Descriptors for**

**Grade 5 Mathematics**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in mathematics for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** Understands math concepts, solves
word problems, and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can
use estimation methods.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands math concepts, solves word
> problems, and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can use
> estimation methods.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Understands math concepts, solves word problems,
> and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can use estimation
> methods.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** Usually can understand math
concepts, solve word problems, and interpret data from graphs and
tables. Sometimes is able to use estimation methods.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually can understand math concepts and solve word
> problems. Often can use estimation methods and interpret data from
> graphs and tables.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually can understand math concepts. Sometimes is
> able to solve word problems, use estimation methods, and interpret
> data from graphs and tables.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** Seldom can understand math concepts or
solve word problems. Rarely is able to use estimation methods or
interpret data from graphs or tables.

> Marginal (10-40): Sometimes can understand math concepts, solve word
> problems, use estimation methods, and interpret data from graphs and
> tables.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom can understand math concepts or solve word
> problems. Rarely can use estimation methods or interpret data from
> graphs and tables.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 6 Reading Comprehension**

*Students in grade 6 read a variety of fiction (e.g. narratives,
letters), non-fiction (e.g., general science, social science, biography,
essays, functional texts), and poetry. They are expected not only to
understand the literal meaning of grade-appropriate text, but also to
interpret meaning through complex processes of analysis, inference, and
generalization. To read grade-appropriate text with comprehension,
students must demonstrate the processes of:*

**Factual Understanding**

-   Understand stated information

-   Determine the meaning of new words from their context

**Inference and Interpretation**

-   Draw conclusions, make inferences, and deduce meaning

-   Infer traits, feelings, and motives of characters

-   Interpret information in new contexts

-   Interpret non-literal language

**Analysis and Generalization**

-   Determine the main idea of a text

-   Identify the author's views or purpose

-   Analyze the style or structure of a text

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 6 Reading Comprehension**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in reading for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** Understands factual information and
new words in context, is able to make inferences, can interpret
non-literal language and information in new contexts, and usually can
determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands factual information and new words
> in context. Can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Can determine a selection's
> main ideas and analyze its style and structure.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Can determine a selection's
> main ideas and analyze its style and structure.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** Usually understands factual
information and new words in context. Often is able to make inferences
and interpret either non-literal language or information in new
contexts. Usually can determine a selection's main ideas or analyze its
style and structure.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually understands factual information and new words
> in context. Often can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Usually can determine a
> selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Sometimes understands factual information and new
> words in context. Often is able to make inferences and interpret
> either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Sometimes
> can determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and
> structure.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** Seldom understands factual information
or new words in context. Rarely is able to make inferences and interpret
either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
determine a selection's main ideas or analyze its style and structure.

> Marginal (10-40): Seldom understands factual information or new words
> in context. Sometimes is able to make inferences and interpret either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Sometimes can
> determine a selection's main ideas and analyze aspects of its style
> and structure.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom understands factual information or new words in
> context. Rarely is able to make inferences or to interpret either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
> determine a selection's main ideas or analyze aspects of its style and
> structure.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 6 Mathematics**

*Students in grade 6 must understand mathematical concepts and
estimation strategies, solve multi-step problems, and interpret detailed
graphical displays of data. They are expected to demonstrate reasoning
in numerical, algebraic, and geometric representations, as well as word
problems and graphical displays. The content and process dimensions of
mathematics knowledge at this grade level include:*

**Number Properties and Operations**

-   Represent, classify, and describe numbers and their properties

-   Demonstrate ways of performing operations

-   Use place value; write numbers in standard, expanded, and
    exponential form

-   Use and interpret operational and relational symbols

-   Use standard rounding, order of magnitude, and number sense to
    estimate

**Algebra**

-   Solve equations and inequalities

-   Use algebraic expressions to model and explore numerical patterns

**Geometry**

-   Identify, classify, and compare geometric figures

-   Describe geometric properties, patterns, and relationships

-   Apply the concepts of perimeter, area, and volume

**Measurement**

-   Measure length/distance, time, temperature, weight, mass, and volume

-   Estimate measurements with appropriate precision

-   Identify and use appropriate units of measurement

**Probability**

-   Apply probability concepts and counting rules

-   Understand and apply measures of central tendency and variability

**Problem Solving**

-   Solve single- and multiple-step math problems

-   Identify extraneous or insufficient information in problems

-   Determine a method for solving a problem

**Data Interpretation**

-   Read scales of bar and line graphs and locate amounts in tables

-   Determine ranks, sums, or differences and find ratios from data
    displays

-   Determine rates, identify trends, understand functional
    relationships, and generalize from data displayed in graphs and
    tables

**Performance Level Descriptors for**

**Grade 6 Mathematics**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in mathematics for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** Understands math concepts and solves
word problems. Usually is able to use estimation methods and interpret
data from graphs and tables.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands math concepts, solves word
> problems, and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can use
> estimation methods.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Understands math concepts and solves word
> problems. Usually can use estimation methods and interpret data from
> graphs and tables.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** Usually can understand math
concepts, solve word problems, and interpret data from graphs and
tables. Sometimes is able to use estimation methods.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually can understand math concepts, solve word
> problems, and interpret data from graphs and tables. Sometimes can use
> estimation methods.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually can understand math concepts and interpret
> data from graphs and tables. Sometimes is able to solve word problems
> and use estimation methods.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** Sometimes can understand math
concepts, but seldom is able to solve word problems, use estimation
methods, or interpret data from graphs and tables.

> Marginal (10-40): Sometimes can understand math concepts, solve word
> problems, and interpret data from graphs and tables. Seldom can use
> estimation methods.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom can understand math concepts or solve word
> problems. Rarely can use estimation methods or interpret data from
> graphs and tables.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 7 Reading Comprehension**

*Students in grade 7 read a variety of fiction (e.g., narrative),
non-fiction (e.g. general science and social science, biography,
history), and poetry. They are expected not only to understand the
literal meaning of grade-appropriate text, but also to interpret meaning
through complex processes of analysis, inference, and generalization. To
read grade-appropriate text with comprehension, students must
demonstrate the processes of:*

**Factual Understanding**

-   Understand stated information

-   Determine the meaning of new words from their context

**Inference and Interpretation**

-   Draw conclusions, make inferences, and deduce meaning

-   Infer traits, feelings, and motives of characters

-   Interpret information in new contexts

-   Interpret non-literal language

**Analysis and Generalization**

-   Determine the main idea of a text

-   Identify the author's views or purpose

-   Analyze the style or structure of a text

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 7 Reading Comprehension**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in reading for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** Understands factual information and
new words in context, is able to make inferences, can interpret
non-literal language and information in new contexts. Can determine a
selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands factual information and new words
> in context. Can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Can determine a selection's
> main ideas and analyze its style and structure.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Can determine a selection's
> main ideas and analyze its style and structure.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** Usually understands factual
information and new words in context. Often is able to make inferences
and interpret either non-literal language or information in new
contexts. Sometimes can determine a selection's main ideas or analyze
its style and structure.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually understands factual information and new words
> in context. Often can make inferences and interpret either non-literal
> language or information in new contexts. Usually can determine a
> selection's main ideas and analyze its style and structure.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Sometimes is able to make inferences and interpret
> either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Sometimes
> can determine a selection's main ideas and analyze its style and
> structure.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** Seldom understands factual information
or new words in context. Rarely is able to make inferences and interpret
either non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
determine a selection's main ideas or analyze its style and structure.

> Marginal (10-40): Seldom understands factual information or new words
> in context. Sometimes is able to make inferences and interpret either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Sometimes can
> determine a selection's main ideas and analyze aspects of its style
> and structure.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom understands factual information or new words in
> context. Rarely is able to make inferences or to interpret either
> non-literal language or information in new contexts. Seldom can
> determine a selection's main ideas or analyze aspects of its style and
> structure.
>
> **Content Summary**
>
> **Grade 7 Mathematics**

*Students in grade 7 must understand mathematical concepts and
estimation strategies, solve multi-step problems, and interpret detailed
graphical displays of data. They are expected to demonstrate reasoning
in numerical, algebraic, and geometric representations, as well as word
problems and graphical displays. The content and process dimensions of
mathematics knowledge at this grade level include:*

**Number Properties and Operations**

-   Represent, classify, and describe numbers and their properties

-   Demonstrate ways of performing operations

-   Use place value; write numbers in standard, expanded, and
    exponential form

-   Use and interpret operational and relational symbols

-   Use standard rounding, order of magnitude, and number sense to
    estimate

**Algebra**

-   Solve equations and inequalities

-   Use algebraic expressions to model and explore numerical patterns

**Geometry**

-   Identify, classify, and compare geometric figures

-   Describe geometric properties, patterns, and relationships

-   Apply the concepts of perimeter, area, and volume

**Measurement**

-   Measure length/distance, time, temperature, weight, mass, and volume

-   Estimate measurements with appropriate precision

-   Identify and use appropriate units of measurement

**Probability**

-   Apply probability concepts and counting rules

-   Understand and apply measures of central tendency and variability

**Problem Solving**

-   Solve single- and multiple-step math problems

-   Identify extraneous or insufficient information in problems

-   Determine a method for solving a problem

**Data Interpretation**

-   Read scales of bar and line graphs and locate amounts in tables

-   Determine ranks, sums, or differences and find ratios from data
    displays

-   Determine rates, identify trends, understand functional
    relationships, and generalize from data displayed in graphs and
    tables

**Performance Level Descriptors for**

**Grade 7 Mathematics**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in mathematics for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** Understands math concepts, solves
word problems, and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can
use estimation methods.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands math concepts, solves word
> problems, and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can use
> estimation methods.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Understands math concepts, solves word problems,
> and interprets data from graphs and tables. Usually can use estimation
> methods.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** Usually can understand math
concepts, solve word problems, and interpret data from graphs and
tables. Sometimes is able to use estimation methods.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually can understand math concepts, solve word
> problems, use estimation methods, and interpret data from graphs and
> tables.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Sometimes can understand math concepts and use
> estimation methods. Usually is able to solve word problems and
> interpret data from graphs and tables.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** Seldom can understand math concepts,
solve word problems, or use estimation methods. Sometimes can interpret
data from graphs or tables.

> Marginal (10-40): Sometimes can understand math concepts, use
> estimation methods, and interpret data from graphs and tables. Seldom
> is able to solve word problems.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom can understand math concepts or solve word
> problems. Rarely can use estimation methods or interpret data from
> graphs and tables.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 8 Reading Comprehension**

*Students in grade 8 read a variety of fiction, non-fiction (e.g.,
general science and social science, biography, narrative, journalism,
history), and poetry. They are expected not only to understand the
literal meaning of grade-appropriate text, but also to interpret meaning
through complex processes of analysis, inference, and generalization. To
read grade-appropriate text with comprehension, students in grade 8 must
demonstrate the processes of:*

**Factual Understanding**

-   Understand stated information

-   Determine the meaning of new words from their context

**Inference and Interpretation**

-   Draw conclusions, make inferences, and deduce meaning

-   Infer traits, feelings, and motives of characters

-   Interpret information in new contexts

-   Interpret non-literal language

**Analysis and Generalization**

-   Determine the main idea of a text

-   Identify the author's views or purpose

-   Analyze the style or structure of a text

*At this level, the content and process dimensions of reading
comprehension emphasize in equal proportions critical thinking through
factual understanding, inference and interpretation, and analysis and
generalization of grade-appropriate text.*

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 8 Reading Comprehension**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in reading for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** When reading **grade-appropriate
texts**, a student who performs at this level understands factual
information and new words in context, is able to make inferences, and
can interpret information in new contexts. The student also can
determine a selection's main ideas, identify its author's purpose or
viewpoint, and analyze its style and structure.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands factual information and new words
> in context, and makes inferences and interprets information in new
> contexts. Is able to determine a selection's main ideas and analyze
> its style and structure. Identifies the author's purpose or viewpoint.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context, makes inferences and interprets information in new
> contexts, and is able to determine a selection's main ideas and
> analyze its style and structure. Identifies the author's purpose or
> viewpoint.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** When reading
**grade-appropriate texts**, a student who performs at this level
usually understands factual information and new words in context. Often
is able to make inferences and interpret information in new contexts.
The student can sometimes determine a selection's main ideas, identify
its author's purpose or viewpoint, and analyze its style and structure.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually understands factual information and new words
> in context. Makes inferences and interprets information in new
> contexts. Usually determines a selection's main ideas and analyzes its
> style and structure. Usually is able to identify an author's purpose
> or viewpoint.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually understands factual information and new
> words in context. Often makes inferences and interprets information in
> new contexts. Sometimes determines a selection's main ideas and
> analyzes its style and structure. Sometimes can identify an author's
> purpose or viewpoint.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** When reading **grade-appropriate
texts**, a student who performs at this level seldom understands factual
information or new words in context. The student rarely is able to make
inferences or interpret information in new contexts. The student seldom
can determine a selection's main ideas, identify its author's purpose or
viewpoint, or analyze its style and structure.

> Marginal (10-40): Seldom understands factual information or new words
> in context.
>
> Sometimes makes inferences and interprets information in new contexts.
> Sometimes determines a selection's main ideas and analyzes its style
> and structure. Sometimes is able to identify an author's purpose or
> viewpoint.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom understands factual information or new words in
> context. Rarely makes inferences and interprets information in new
> contexts. Seldom determines a selection's main ideas or analyzes its
> style and structure. Rarely can identify an author's purpose or
> viewpoint.

**Content Summary**

######### Grade 8 Mathematics

*Students in grade 8 must understand mathematical concepts and
estimation strategies, solve multi-step problems, and interpret detailed
graphical displays of data. They are expected to demonstrate reasoning
in numerical, algebraic, and geometric representations, as well as word
problems and graphical displays. The content and process dimensions of
mathematics knowledge in grade 8 include:*

**Number Properties and Operations**

-   Represent, classify, and describe numbers and their properties

-   Demonstrate ways of performing operations

-   Write numbers in standard and exponential form

-   Use standard rounding, order of magnitude, and number sense to
    estimate

**Algebra**

-   Use and interpret operational and relational symbols

-   Solve equations and inequalities

-   Use algebraic expressions to model and explore numerical patterns

**Geometry**

-   Identify, classify, and compare geometric figures

-   Describe geometric properties, patterns, and relationships

-   Apply the concepts of perimeter, area, and volume

**Measurement**

-   Measure length/distance, time, temperature, weight, mass, and volume

-   Estimate measurements with appropriate precision

-   Identify and use appropriate units of measurement

**Probability**

-   Apply probability concepts and counting rules

-   Understand and apply measures of central tendency and variability

**Problem Solving**

-   Solve single- and multiple-step math problems

-   Identify extraneous or insufficient information in problems

-   Determine a method for solving a problem

**Data Interpretation**

-   Read scales of bar, circle, and line graphs; locate and interpret
    amounts in tables

-   Determine ranks, sums, or differences and find ratios from data
    displays

-   Determine rates, identify trends, understand functional
    relationships, and generalize from data displayed in graphs and
    tables

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 8 Mathematics**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in mathematics for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** In a **grade-appropriate context**,
a student who performs at this level understands math concepts and is
able to solve word problems. The student usually can use estimation
methods. The student is able to interpret data from graphs and tables.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands math concepts and is able to solve
> word problems. Usually uses estimation methods. Interprets data from
> graphs and tables.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Understands math concepts and is able to solve
> word problems. Usually uses estimation methods. Interprets data from
> graphs and tables.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** In a **grade-appropriate
context,** a student who performs at this

level usually can understand math concepts and sometimes is able to
solve word problems. The student sometimes is able to use estimation
methods and usually is able to interpret data from graphs and tables.

> Skilled (76-89): Understands math concepts and usually is able to
> solve word problems. Often uses estimation methods and interprets data
> from graphs and tables.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Usually can understand math concepts and sometimes
> is able to solve word problems. Sometimes uses estimation methods and
> interprets data from graphs and tables.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** In a **grade-appropriate context**, a
student who performs at this level seldom can understand math concepts
or solve word problems. The student seldom can use estimation methods or
interpret data from graphs or tables.

> Marginal (10-40): Sometimes understands math concepts but seldom is
> able to solve word problems. Sometimes uses estimation methods and
> interprets data from graphs and tables.
>
> Weak (1-9): Seldom understands math concepts or solves word problems.
> Rarely uses estimation methods or interprets data from graphs and
> tables.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 11 Reading Comprehension**

*Students in grade 11 read a variety of previously published fiction
(e.g. narrative), non-fiction (e.g., general science and social science,
history, essay, memoir, general interest, informational), and poetry.
They are expected not only to understand the literal meaning of
grade-appropriate text, but also to interpret meaning through complex
processes of analysis, inference, and generalization. To read
grade-appropriate text with comprehension, students in grade 11 must
demonstrate the processes of:*

**Factual Understanding**

-   Understand stated information

-   Determine the literal meaning of words or phrases

**Inference and Interpretation**

-   Draw conclusions

-   Infer traits, feelings, and motives of characters

-   Infer relationships

-   Interpret information in new contexts

-   Interpret non-literal language

**Analysis and Generalization**

-   Make generalizations and interpret non-literal language

-   Determine the main idea of a text

-   Identify the author's viewpoint or purpose

-   Distinguish among facts, opinions, assumptions, observations,
    conclusions

-   Recognize literary or argumentative techniques

-   Analyze the style or structure of a text

*At this level, the content and process dimensions of reading
comprehension emphasize in equal proportions critical thinking through
factual understanding, inference and interpretation, and analysis and
generalization of grade-appropriate text.*

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 11 Reading Comprehension**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in reading for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** When reading **grade-appropriate
texts**, a student who performs at this level understands stated
information and ideas; infers implied meaning, draws conclusions, and
interprets non-literal language; makes generalizations from or about a
text, identifies the author's purpose or viewpoint, and evaluates
aspects of its style or structure.

> Distinguished (95-99): Understands stated information and ideas; makes
> inferences about implied meanings, draws conclusions, and interprets
> non-literal language; and makes generalizations from or about a text,
> identifies the author's purpose or viewpoint, and evaluates aspects of
> its style or structure.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually understands stated information and
> ideas; makes inferences about implied meanings, draws conclusions, and
> interprets non-literal language; and usually makes generalizations
> from or about a text, identifies the author's purpose or viewpoint,
> and evaluates aspects of its style or structure.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** When reading
**grade-appropriate texts**, a student who performs at this level
usually understands stated information and ideas; sometimes infers
implied meaning, draws conclusions, and interprets non-literal language;
often makes generalizations from or about a text, identifies the
author's purpose or viewpoint, and evaluates aspects of its style or
structure.

> Skilled (76-89): Usually understands stated information and ideas;
> usually makes inferences about implied meanings, draws conclusions,
> and interprets non-literal language; sometimes makes generalizations
> from or about a text, identifies the author's purpose or viewpoint,
> and evaluates aspects of its style or structure.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Sometimes understands stated information and ideas;
> sometimes makes simple inferences about implied meaning, draws
> conclusions, and interprets non-literal language; sometimes makes
> generalizations from or about a text, identifies the author's purpose
> or viewpoint, and evaluates aspects of its style or structure.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** When reading **grade-appropriate
texts**, a student who performs at this level seldom understands stated
information and ideas; rarely infers implied meaning, draws conclusions,
or interprets non-literal language; and rarely makes generalizations
from or about a text, identifies its author's purpose or viewpoint, or
evaluates aspects of its style or structure.

> Marginal (10-40): Seldom understands stated information and ideas;
> rarely makes inferences about implied meaning or interprets
> non-literal language; and rarely makes generalizations from or about a
> text, identifies the author's purpose or viewpoint, or evaluates
> aspects of its style or structure.
>
> Weak (1-9): Rarely understands stated information and ideas; rarely
> makes inferences about implied meaning or interprets non-literal
> language; and does not make generalizations from or about a text,
> identify the author's purpose or viewpoint, or evaluate aspects of its
> style or structure.

**Content Summary**

**Grade 11 Mathematics**

*Students in grade 11 must understand mathematical concepts and
estimation strategies, solve multi-step problems, and interpret detailed
graphical displays of data. They are expected to demonstrate reasoning
in numerical, algebraic, and geometric representations, as well as word
problems and graphical displays. The primary focus of the test is on
fundamental concepts and quantitative reasoning skills. The content and
process dimensions of mathematics knowledge in grade 11 include:*

-   Applying appropriate techniques, tools, and formulas to determine
    measurements

-   Understanding the units, systems, and processes of measurement

-   Selecting and using appropriate statistical methods to analyze data

-   Making inferences or predictions based on data or information

-   Interpreting data from a variety of sources

-   Understanding and applying the basic concepts of probability

-   Making reasonable estimates

-   Evaluating the reasonableness of quantitative solutions

-   Solving quantitative reasoning problems

-   Using scientific notation to solve problems

-   Using mathematical models to represent relationships

-   Understanding patterns, relations, and functions

-   Analyzing characteristics and properties of two-and
    three-dimensional geometric shapes

**Performance Level Descriptors**

**Grade 11 Mathematics**

*The performance level descriptors on the Achievement Levels Report for
The Iowa Tests are provided to Iowa schools to describe the level of
performance of groups and monitor progress in the distribution of
performance over time. For each achievement level--- High, Intermediate,
and Low ---descriptors on the report identify what the typical student
in each level is able to do.* *Students in a particular level satisfy
the standards described for performance in lower levels. Students at the
High and Intermediate Performance Levels meet the standard for
proficiency in mathematics for that grade.*

**High Performance Level (90-99):** In a **grade-appropriate context**,
a student who performs at this level makes inferences with quantitative
information, solves a variety of quantitative reasoning problems, and
usually applies math concepts and procedures.

> Distinguished (95-99): Applies math concepts and procedures, makes
> inferences with quantitative information, and solves a variety of
> quantitative reasoning problems.
>
> Accomplished (90-94): Usually applies math concepts and procedures,
> usually makes inferences with quantitative information, and usually
> solves a variety of quantitative reasoning problems.

**Intermediate Performance Level (41-89):** In a **grade-appropriate
context**, a student who performs at this level often applies math
concepts and procedures, makes inferences with quantitative information,
and solves a variety of quantitative reasoning problems.

> Skilled (76-89): Often applies math concepts and procedures, often
> makes inferences with quantitative information, and often solves a
> variety of quantitative reasoning problems.
>
> Moderate (41-75): Sometimes applies math concepts and procedures,
> sometimes makes inferences with quantitative information, and
> sometimes solves a variety of quantitative reasoning problems.

**Low Performance Level (1-40):** In a **grade-appropriate context**, a
student who performs at this level seldom applies math concepts and
procedures, seldom makes inferences with quantitative information, and
seldom solves quantitative reasoning problems.

> Marginal (10-40): Seldom applies math concepts and procedures, seldom
> makes inferences with quantitative information, and seldom solves
> quantitative reasoning problems.
>
> Weak (1-9): Rarely applies math concepts and procedures, rarely makes
> inferences with quantitative information, and rarely solves
> quantitative reasoning problems.

**Appendix B**

**Scale Score Ranges by Performance Category, Standard Errors,**

**and Raw Score to Scale Score Conversions**

-   A student scoring in the Weak level in the first year would be
    considered to have made AYG if s/he achieved at the Marginal
    achievement level (either the Lo Marginal or Hi Marginal region).

> Scale Score Cut Points

  -------------------- -------------- ----------------- ------------------
  Fall testing         A -- year 1    B -- year 2       C -- year 2

  Reading Grade        Weak           Lo Marginal       Hi Marginal

  3 to 4               125            160               177

  4 to 5               130            168               188

  5 to 6               135            175               200

  6 to 7               140            181               211

  7 to 8               140            186               222

  10 to 11             165            201               245
  -------------------- -------------- ----------------- ------------------

  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------
  Fall testing       A -- year 1      B -- year 2       C -- year 2

  Math Grade         Weak             Lo Marginal       Hi Marginal

  3 to 4             125              163               180

  4 to 5             130              173               192

  5 to 6             135              182               204

  6 to 7             140              191               214

  7 to 8             140              198               224

  10 to 11           165              215               245
  ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ------------------

Scale Score Cut Points

  --------------------- --------------- ---------------- -----------------
  Spring testing        A -- year 1     B -- year 2      C -- year 2

  Reading Grade         Weak            Lo Marginal      Hi Marginal

  3 to 4                130             166              185

  4 to 5                135             173              197

  5 to 6                140             179              207

  6 to 7                140             184              218

  7 to 8                145             190              228

  10 to 11              165             204              249
  --------------------- --------------- ---------------- -----------------

  -------------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------
  Spring testing       A -- year 1     B -- year 2      C -- year 2

  Math Grade           Weak            Lo Marginal      Hi Marginal

  3 to 4               130             170              189

  4 to 5               135             180              199

  5 to 6               140             188              211

  6 to 7               140             195              221

  7 to 8               145             202              23

  10 to 11             165             217              250
  -------------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------

-   A student scoring in the Lo Marginal region, but below the SEM
    boundary for Proficient in the first year would be considered to
    have made AYG if s/he achieved a score that is above the SEM
    boundary (i.e., Hi Marginal) for Proficient in the second year.

Scale Score Ranges

+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Fall testing | Reading     | Reading     | Math        | Math        |
|              |             |             |             |             |
|              | A -- year 1 | B -- year 2 | A -- year 1 | B -- year 2 |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|              | Lo Marginal | Hi Marginal | Lo Marginal | Hi Marginal |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 3 to 4       | 150         | 177         | 152         | 180         |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 4 to 5       | 160         | 188         | 163         | 192         |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 5 to 6       | 168         | 200         | 173         | 204         |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 6 to 7       | 175         | 211         | 182         | 214         |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 7 to 8       | 181         | 222         | 191         | 224         |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 10 to 11     | 197         | 245         | 210         | 245         |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+
| Spring       | Reading     | Reading    | Math        | Math       |
| testing      |             |            |             |            |
|              | A -- year 1 | B -- year  | A -- year 1 | B -- year  |
|              |             | 2          |             | 2          |
+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+
|              | Lo Marginal | Hi         | Lo Marginal | Hi         |
|              |             | Marginal   |             | Marginal   |
+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+
| 3 to 4       | 157         | 185        | 159         | 189        |
+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+
| 4 to 5       | 166         | 197        | 170         | 199        |
+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+
| 5 to 6       | 173         | 207        | 180         | 211        |
+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+
| 6 to 7       | 179         | 218        | 188         | 221        |
+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+
| 7 to 8       | 184         | 228        | 195         | 231        |
+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+
| 10 to 11     | 199         | 249        | 213         | 250        |
+--------------+-------------+------------+-------------+------------+

> Student achievement of a growth target will be done by examining the
> scale scores for each year, identifying an achievement level for that
> scale score range, and determining if the achievement level changed
> from the prior year to the subsequent year. A student will be required
> to have an achievement level change as described above in order to
> make AYG.
>
> The following tables identify the raw score equivalents to the scale
> score cut points:
>
> Raw Score Equivalents: Scale Score Cut Points

  ------------- ------- ----------- ------- ------------ -------- -----------
  Reading       Raw     A -- year 1 Raw     B -- year 2  Raw      C -- year 2
                Score               Score                Score    

  Grade                 Weak                Lo Marginal           Hi Marginal

  3 to 4        2       125         11      160          16       177

  4 to 5        2       130         12      168          18       188

  5 to 6        3       135         13      175          20       200

  6 to 7        3       140         13      181          20       211

  7 to 8        3       140         15      186          23       222

  10 to 11      6       165         10      201          16       245
  ------------- ------- ----------- ------- ------------ -------- -----------

  ------------- ------- ---------- ------- ----------- ------- --------------
  Mathematics   Raw     A -- year  Raw     B -- year 2 Raw     C -- year 2
                Score   1          Score               Score   

  Grade                 Weak               Lo Marginal         Hi Marginal

  3 to 4        3       125        17      163         25      180

  4 to 5        3       130        18      173         27      192

  5 to 6        3       135        21      182         31      204

  6 to 7        4       140        23      191         34      214

  7 to 8        3       140        22      198         34      224

  10 to 11      2       165        8       215         12      245
  ------------- ------- ---------- ------- ----------- ------- --------------

\*Note: the Raw Scores for Mathematics were determined by summing the
raw scores for

the two Math subtests comprising the Math Total scale.

-   A student scoring in the Lo Marginal region, but below the SEM
    boundary for Proficient in the first year would be considered to
    have made AYG if s/he achieved a score that is above the SEM
    boundary (i.e., Hi Marginal) for Proficient in the second year.

> Raw Score Equivalents: Scale Score Cut Points

+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
|       | Raw | Reading | Raw | R      | Raw | Math    | Raw | Math   |
|       | Sc  |         | Sc  | eading | Sc  |         | Sc  |        |
|       | ore | A--year | ore |        | ore | A--year | ore | B      |
|       |     | 1       |     | B      |     | 1       |     | --year |
|       |     |         |     | --year |     |         |     | 2      |
|       |     |         |     | 2      |     |         |     |        |
+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
|       |     | Lo      |     | Hi     |     | Lo      |     | Hi     |
|       |     | M       |     | Ma     |     | M       |     | Ma     |
|       |     | arginal |     | rginal |     | arginal |     | rginal |
+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
| 3 to  | 8   | 150     | 16  | 177    | 13  | 152     | 25  | 180    |
| 4     |     |         |     |        |     |         |     |        |
+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
| 4 to  | 10  | 160     | 18  | 188    | 15  | 163     | 27  | 192    |
| 5     |     |         |     |        |     |         |     |        |
+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
| 5 to  | 11  | 168     | 20  | 200    | 16  | 173     | 31  | 204    |
| 6     |     |         |     |        |     |         |     |        |
+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
| 6 to  | 12  | 175     | 20  | 211    | 19  | 182     | 34  | 214    |
| 7     |     |         |     |        |     |         |     |        |
+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
| 7 to  | 14  | 181     | 23  | 222    | 20  | 191     | 34  | 224    |
| 8     |     |         |     |        |     |         |     |        |
+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
| 10 to | 10  | 197     | 16  | 245    | 7   | 210     | 12  | 245    |
| 11    |     |         |     |        |     |         |     |        |
+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+-----+---------+-----+--------+

\*Note: the Raw Scores for Mathematics were determined by summing the
raw scores for the two

Math subtests comprising the Math Total scale.

Standard Errors for Scale Ranges

  ------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  **READING**   **WEAK**   **LO         **HI                **MATH**   **WEAK**   **LO         **HI
                           MARGINAL**   MARGINAL**                                MARGINAL**   MARGINAL**

  Grade 3       8.30       7.90         6.61                Grade 3    8.85       9.04         8.73

  Grade 4       8.29       9.27         8.26                Grade 4    9.50       10.27        9.90

  Grade 5       9.43       10.45        9.78                Grade 5    10.57      11.70        11.09

  Grade 6       9.06       11.24        11.34               Grade 6    10.62      11.51        11.21

  Grade 7       10.79      13.33        11.41               Grade 7    11.13      12.90        12.79

  Grade 8       9.97       14.35        12.51               Grade 8    11.74      14.42        14.56

  Grade 9       13.43      15.67        12.75               Grade 9    13.64      16.40        15.96

  Grade 10      13.98      15.45        12.83               Grade 10   13.23      16.50        16.93

  Grade 11      17.28      22.07        17.77               Grade 11   14.62      19.13        17.96
  ------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

Appendix C

**Scale Score Comparability Across Levels**

The following is adapted from *The Iowa Tests: Guide to Research and
Development*, Part 4, Scaling, Norming, and Equating the Iowa Tests
(Hoover, Dunbar & Frisbie, 2003) with permission from The University of
Iowa.

# Comparability of Developmental Scores Across Levels: The Growth Model

The foundation of any developmental scale of educational achievement is
the definition of grade-to-grade overlap. Students vary considerably
within any given grade in the kinds of cognitive tasks they can perform.
For example, some students in third grade can solve problems in
mathematics that are difficult for the average student in sixth grade.
Conversely, some students in sixth grade read no better than the average
student in third grade. There is even more overlap in the cognitive
skills of students in adjacent grades---enough that some communities
have devised multi-age or multi-grade classrooms to accommodate it.
Grade-to-grade overlap in the distributions of cognitive skills is basic
to any developmental scale that measures growth in achievement over
time. Such overlap is sometimes described by the ratio of variability
within grade to variability between grades. As this ratio increases, the
amount of grade-to-grade overlap in achievement increases.

Each test in the *ITBS* battery from Levels 9 through 14 is a single
continuous test representing a range of educational development from low
grade 3 through superior grade 9. Each test is organized as six
overlapping levels. Each of the tests in the *ITED* battery for Levels
15, 16, and 17/18 consists of a single continuous test representing a
range of educational development from low grade 9 through superior grade
12. Each test was organized as three overlapping levels. During the
1970s, the tests were extended downward to kindergarten by the addition
of Levels 5 through 8 of the Primary Battery. Beginning in 1992, the
*Iowa Tests of Educational Development*, Levels 15 - 17/18 were jointly
standardized with the *ITBS*. A common developmental scale was needed to
relate the scores from each level to the other levels. The scaling
requirement consisted of establishing the overlap among the raw score
scales to a common developmental scale. The method used to build the
developmental scale for the *ITBS* and *ITED*, was Hieronymus scaling.

# The National Standard Score Scale

Students in the national standardization participated in special test
administrations for scaling the *ITBS* and *ITED*. The scaling tests
used in the Hieronymus method were wide-range achievement tests designed
to represent each content domain in the Complete Battery of the *ITBS*
or *ITED*. Scaling tests were developed for three groups: Kindergarten
through grade 3, grades 3 through 9, and grades 8 through 12. These
tests were designed to establish links among the three sets of tests
from the data collected. During the standardization, scaling tests in
each content area were spiraled within classrooms to obtain nationally
representative and comparable data for each subtest.

The scaling tests provide essential information about achievement
differences and similarities between groups of students in successive
grades. For example, the scores show the variability among fourth
graders in science achievement and the proportion of fourth graders that
score higher in science than the typical fifth grader. The study of such
relations is essential to building developmental score scales. These
score scales monitor year-to-year growth and estimate students'
developmental levels in areas such as reading, language, and math. To
describe the developmental continuum in one subject area, students in
several different grades must answer the same questions. The score
distributions on the scaling tests defined the grade-to-grade overlap
needed to establish the common developmental achievement scale in each
test area.

The relation of standard scores to national percentile ranks for each
grade was obtained from the results of the scaling test. Given the
percentages of students in the national standardization in one grade
above or below the medians of other grades, within-grade percentiles on
the developmental scale were determined. These percentiles were plotted
and smoothed. This produced a cumulative distribution of standard scores
for each test and grade, which represents the growth model for that
test.

Units for the description of growth from grade to grade must be defined
so that comparability can be achieved between descriptions of growth in
different content areas. To define these units, achievement data were
examined from several sources in which the focus of measurement was on
growth in key curriculum areas at a national level. The data included
results of scaling studies using not only the Hieronymus method, but
also Thurstone and item-response theory methods. Although the properties
of developmental scales vary with the methods used to create them, all
data sources showed that growth in achievement is rapid in the early
stages of development and more gradual in later stages. Theories of
cognitive development also support these general findings. The growth
model for the current edition of The Iowa Tests was determined so that
it was consistent with the patterns of growth over the history of The
Iowa Tests and with the experience of educators in measuring student
growth and development.

The following table shows the developmental standard scores that
correspond to typical performance of grade groups on each *ITBS/ITED*
test in the spring of the year. The scale illustrates that average
annual growth decreases as students move through the grades. For
example, the growth from grade 1 to grade 2 averages 18 standard-score
points, but from grade 7 to grade 8 it averages only 11 points.

  ------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
  Grade   K     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9     10    11    12

  SS      130   150   168   185   200   214   227   239   250   260   268   275   280
  ------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

[^1]: The State may propose to apply the use of student growth measures
    to determine AYP for LEAs. If it does so, the same provisions for
    evidence shall apply to LEAs as apply to schools, unless
    specifically mentioned otherwise and peer reviewers should evaluate
    the soundness of the proposal for LEAs as well as schools.

[^2]: "Growth target" denotes the level of performance required in order
    to meet AYP. The State may propose different "growth targets" for
    reading/language arts and mathematics, different grade spans, etc.
    This document uses the term "growth target" to try to minimize
    confusion with "expected growth," "projected growth," "growth
    expectations," and other terms used in value-added and other student
    longitudinal growth approaches that denote an empirically derived
    student performance score not necessarily related to the NCLB policy
    goals of proficiency.