VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION 
Consolidated State Application 
Amended Accountability Workbook 


for State Grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302 of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110) 

Revised: September 10, 2003, Based on USED Conditional Letter of Approval, July 1, 2003 
VBOE Letter of Response, August 20, 2003 
Section 7.1 and Related Sections


Revised: May 26, 2004, Based on USED Letter of Approval, May 25, 2004 
VBOE Letter of Response, June 8, 2004 


Revised: Based on VBOE Actions through June 22, 2005, and USED Responses on June 13, 
August 5, and August 11, 2005 
Critical Elements 1.6, 3.2, 3.2(b), 3.2(c), 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 7.1, 8.1 


Revised: Based on VBOE Actions through June 28, 2006, and USED Responses through July 21, 2006 

Final Information 



U. S. Department of Education 
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 
Washington, D.C. 20202 
.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA


BOARD OF EDUCATION 
227 North Main Street 
Post Office Box 130 
Thomas M. Jackson, Jr. Hillsville, VA 24343 
President (276) 728-3737 
(276) 728-3133 (FAX) 
August 16, 2005 

The Honorable Henry Johnson 
Assistant Secretary 
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 
United States Department of Education 
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20202 

Dear Assistant Secretary Johnson: 

I am responding to your letter of August 5, 2005, notifying the Virginia Board of 
Education of the United States Department of Educations (USED) decision on proposed 
amendments to the Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook required in the No 
Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Enclosed please find Virginias amended accountability 
workbook, as directed in the letter and authorized by the Board of Education. 

While Virginia will comply with all aspects of No Child Left Behind as required by 
USED, we will continue to advocate for sound and rational policies that support best practices in 
teaching and learning. If you have questions about the requested revisions, please contact Dr. 
Patricia I. Wright, deputy superintendent, by e-mail at Patricia.Wright@doe.virginia.gov or by 
phone at 804-225-2979. 

Sincerely, 
Thomas M. Jackson 
President, Board of Education 

Enclosures 

cc: Jo Lynne DeMary, Superintendent of Public Instruction 
.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 

BOARD OF EDUCATION 

227 North Main Street 
Post Office Box 130 
Thomas M. Jackson, Jr. Hillsville, VA 24343 
President (276) 728-3737 

(276) 728-3133 (FAX) 
June 8, 2004 

The Honorable Raymond Simon 
Assistant Secretary 
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 
United States Department of Education 
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20202


Dear Assistant Secretary Simon: 

I am responding to your letter of May 25, 2004, notifying the Virginia Board of 
Education of the United States Department of Educations (USED) decision on proposed 
amendments to the Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook required in 
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Enclosed please find a summary of Virginias 
response and an amended accountability workbook, as directed in the letter and 
authorized by the Board of Education. 

Virginia plans to implement the revised policies in making Adequate Yearly 
Progress (AYP) decisions for the 2003-2004 school year. Hence, we feel we have no 
choice but to comply with the USED decision to modify or reject certain amendments 
related to calculation of AYP. Let me state Virginias position on these USED decisions 
and why we disagree. 

Use of other academic indicator for safe harbor only 
Virginia proposed basing AYP determinations primarily on meeting the annual 
measurable objectives for reading and mathematics and the participation rate 
requirement. The other academic indicators would only be applied when safe harbor is 
invoked. USED stated this amendment conflicts with statutory and regulatory 
requirements for determining AYP. However, Virginias understanding of Section 

.
The Honorable Raymond Simon 
June 8, 2004 
Page 2 

1111(b)(2)(C)(iv) is the definition of AYP must include an other academic indicator 
but decisions about AYP shall be based primarily on participation rates and student 
achievement on reading and mathematics assessments. Additionally, it is our 
interpretation that Section 1111(b)(2)(G) and Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) define how AYP is 
determined, and these sections permit the state and any division or school that meets the 
95 percent participation rate and meets or exceeds the annual measurable objectives on 
the reading and mathematics assessments for all students as well as each subgroup to be 
designated as making AYP. We believe Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) states the other academic 
indicators must be considered only if safe harbor is invoked. 

Expedited test administration 
Virginia requested the use of expedited test scores in the calculation of AYP. Expedited 
tests (retests) are afforded students who miss the official administration of the test due to 
exceptional and mitigating circumstances, or who took the official administration but did 
not pass (within a score between 375-399). USED responded that scores from the 
expedited retest can be used in AYP determinations for students who have not previously 
taken the test. However, students who took the assessment, but failed, may not be 
included in AYP determinations. Only the scores from the first official assessment 
administration or those taken prior to that time can be used in determining AYP. 

As a statement of public record, let it be clear that Virginia is agreeing to this directive 
only because the USED has made it clear it has no choice. We strongly disagree with the 
policy interpretation that a students best score on a standards-based assessment cannot 
be included in AYP determinations, especially when there are exceptional circumstances 
surrounding the retest. We believe counting a students passing score on a retest rewards 
the student and the school for successful remedial efforts, and will increase the validity 
and reliability of AYP determinations. 

In addition to the amendments in my March 29, 2004 submission to USED, 
Virginia will exercise the flexibility regarding calculation of participation rates 
announced in your May 20, 2004 letter to chief state school officers. Virginia will use up 
to three years of data in determining whether a school division, school, or state has met 
the 95 percent participation rate for AYP. Virginia also plans to implement the enclosed 
state policy to deal with students who cannot be assessed due to documented significant 
medical emergencies during the testing window. This policy will exclude eligible 
students from the participation rate formula. The proposed policies dealing with 
participation rate are included in Critical Element 10.1 of the amended accountability 
workbook. 

.
The Honorable Raymond Simon 
June 8, 2004 
Page 3 

While Virginia will comply with all aspects of No Child Left Behind as 
required by USED, we will continue to advocate for sound and rational policies that 
support best practices in teaching and learning. If you have questions about the requested 
revisions, please contact Dr. Patricia I. Wright, assistant superintendent for instruction, by 
e-mail at pwright@mail.vak12ed.edu or by phone at 804-225-2979. 

 Sincerely, 
Thomas M. Jackson 
President, Board of Education 

Enclosures 

cc: Jo Lynne DeMary, Superintendent of Public Instruction 
.
Instructions for Completing Consolidated State Application 
Accountability Workbook 


By January 31, 2003, States must complete and submit to the Department this Consolidated State 
Application Accountability Workbook. We understand that some of the critical elements for the key 
principles may still be under consideration and may not yet be final State policy by the January 31 due 
date. States that do not have final approval for some of these elements or that have not finalized a 
decision on these elements by January 31 should, when completing the Workbook, indicate the status of 
each element which is not yet official State policy and provide the anticipated date by which the proposed 
policy will become effective. In each of these cases, States must include a timeline of steps to complete 
to ensure that such elements are in place by May 1, 2003, and implemented during the 2002-2003 school 
year. By no later than May 1, 2003, States must submit to the Department final information for all sections 
of the Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook. 

Transmittal Instructions 

To expedite the receipt of this Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, please send your 
submission via the Internet as a .doc file, pdf file, rtf or .txt file or provide the URL for the site where your 
submission is posted on the Internet. Send electronic submissions to conapp@ed.gov. 

A State that submits only a paper submission should mail the submission by express courier to: 

Celia Sims 

U.S. Department of Education 
400 Maryland Ave., SW 
Room 3W300 
Washington, D.C. 20202-6400 
(202) 401-0113 
.
PART I: Summary of Required Elements for State Accountability Systems 

Instructions 

The following chart is an overview of States' implementation of the critical elements required for 
approval of their State accountability systems. States must provide detailed implementation 
information for each of these elements in Part II of this Consolidated State Application 
Accountability Workbook. 

For each of the elements listed in the following chart, States should indicate the current 
implementation status in their State using the following legend: 

F: State has a final policy, approved by all the required entities in the State (e.g., State Board 
of Education, State Legislature), for implementing this element in its accountability 
system. 
P: State has a proposed policy for implementing this element in its accountability system, 
but must still receive approval by required entities in the State (e.g., State Board of 
Education, State Legislature). 
W: State is still working on formulating a policy to implement this element in its accountability 
system. 
8 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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


Status State Accountability System Element 
Principle 1: All Schools 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
1.1 Accountability system includes all schools and districts in the state. 
1.2 Accountability system holds all schools to the same criteria. 
1.3 Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement standards. 
1.4 Accountability system provides information in a timely manner. 
1.5 Accountability system includes report cards. 
1.6 Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions. 
Principle 2: All Students 
F 
F 
F 
Principle 3: Method of AYP Determinations 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
Principle 4: Annual Decisions 
2.1 The accountability system includes all students 
2.2 The accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic year. 
2.3 The accountability system properly includes mobile students. 
3.1 Accountability system expects all student subgroups, public schools, and LEAs to reach 
proficiency by 2013-14. 
3.2 Accountability system has a method for determining whether student subgroups, public 
schools, and LEAs made adequate yearly progress. 
3.2a Accountability system establishes a starting point. 
3.2b Accountability system establishes statewide annual measurable objectives. 
3.2c Accountability system establishes intermediate goals. 

F 


4.1 The accountability system determines annually the progress of schools and districts. 
STATUS Legend: 
F  Final state policy 
P  Proposed policy, awaiting State approval 
W  Working to formulate policy 


9 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
Principle 5: Subgroup Accountability 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
Principle 6: Based on Academic Assessments 
5.1 The accountability system includes all the required student subgroups. 
5.2 The accountability system holds schools and LEAs accountable for the progress of student 
subgroups. 
5.3 The accountability system includes students with disabilities. 
5.4 The accountability system includes limited English proficient students. 
5.5 The State has determined the minimum number of students sufficient to yield statistically 
reliable information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used. 
5.6 The State has strategies to protect the privacy of individual students in reporting 
achievement results and in determining whether schools and LEAs are making adequate 
yearly progress on the basis of disaggregated subgroups. 
F 


Principle 7: Additional Indicators 
F 
7.1 Accountability system includes graduation rate for high schools. 
F 7.2 Accountability system includes an additional academic indicator for elementary and middle 
schools. 
F 7.3 Additional indicators are valid and reliable. 
Principle 8: Separate Decisions for Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics 
6.1 Accountability system is based primarily on academic assessments. 
F 


8.1 Accountability system holds students, schools and districts separately accountable for 
reading/language arts and mathematics. 
Principle 9: System Validity and Reliability 
F 9.1 Accountability system produces reliable decisions. 
F 9.2 Accountability system produces valid decisions. 
F 9.3 State has a plan for addressing changes in assessment and student population. 
Principle 10: Participation Rate 
F 10.1 Accountability system has a means for calculating the rate of participation in the statewide 
assessment. 
F 10.2 Accountability system has a means for applying the 95% assessment criteria to student 
subgroups and small schools. 
STATUS Legend: 
F  Final policy 
P  Proposed Policy, awaiting State approval 
W Working to formulate policy 


10 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
PART II: State Response and Activities for Meeting State 
Accountability System Requirements 

Instructions 

In Part II of this Workbook, States are to provide detailed information for each of the critical elements 
required for State accountability systems. States should answer the questions asked about each of the 
critical elements in the State's accountability system. States that do not have final approval for any of 
these elements or that have not finalized a decision on these elements by January 31, 2003, should, 
when completing this section of the Workbook, indicate the status of each element that is not yet official 
State policy and provide the anticipated date by which the proposed policy will become effective. In each 
of these cases, States must include a timeline of steps to complete to ensure that such elements are in 
place by May 1, 2003, and implemented during the 2002-2003 school year. By no later than May 1, 2003, 
States must submit to the Department final information for all sections of the Consolidated State 
Application Accountability Workbook. 

11 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
1.1 How does the State 
Accountability System include 
every public school and LEA in 
the State? 
Every public school and LEA 
is required to make adequate 
yearly progress and is 
included in the State 
Accountability System. 
State has a definition of public 
school and LEA for AYP 
accountability purposes. 
The State Accountability 
System produces AYP 
decisions for all public 
schools, including public 
schools with variant grade 
configurations (e.g., K-12), 
public schools that serve 
special populations (e.g., 
alternative public schools, 
juvenile institutions, state 
public schools for the blind) 
and public charter schools. It 
also holds accountable public 
schools with no grades 
assessed (e.g., K-2). 
A public school or LEA is not required 
to make adequate yearly progress 
and is not included in the State 
Accountability System. 
State policy systematically excludes 
certain public schools and/or LEAs. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
The state accountability system in Virginia prescribed in the Regulations Establishing Standards for 
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (the SOA or Standards of Accreditation), found at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf , includes all schools and LEAs. Virginias 
current accountability system addresses schoolwide student performance in the aggregate. To maintain 
one statewide accountability system Virginia will: 
 continue to apply accreditation ratings to all schools, as prescribed in the Standards of 
Accreditation; 
 continue to apply appropriate sanctions and rewards to all identified schools, as prescribed in 
the Standards of Accreditation; 
 apply AYP requirements to all schools and school divisions consistent with 1111(b)(2)(B) and as 
described in Part II.1.e. and Part II.1.f. of Virginias consolidated application approved by USED 
July 2, 2002; 
 apply sanctions to schools and school divisions receiving Title I, Part A, funding in a manner 
consistent with sections 1116(b) and 1116(c), respectively; 
 apply rewards to schools receiving Title I, Part A, funding in a manner consistent with section 
1117(b); and 
 pair schools that have no tested grades with other schools that serve students who attended 
those non-testing schools in a feeder relationship for accreditation and AYP determinations. 

12 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
The SEA has defined LEA as: 
"Local educational agency" means a local school division governed by a local school board, a state-
operated program that is funded and administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, or the Virginia 
School for the Deaf and the Blind at Staunton and the Virginia School for the Deaf, Blind and Multi-
Disabled at Hampton. (8VAC20-80-10) 
Students in state-operated programs and the schools for the deaf, blind and multi-disabled will be 
accounted for in LEA-level and state-level calculations of adequate yearly progress. 
State law makes the Department of Correctional Education responsible for the operation of learning 
centers/schools located in juvenile correctional facilities as follows: 
 22.1-340 Authority continued as Department of Correctional Education. 
The Rehabilitative School Authority is continued and shall hereafter be known as the Department of 
Correctional Education. The Department shall be composed of all the educational facilities of all 
institutions operated by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Juvenile Justice. The 
Department of Correctional Education shall be designated as a local education agency (LEA) but shall 
not be eligible to receive state funds appropriated for direct aid to public education. 
Schools operated by the Department of Correctional Education are not public schools under the 
authority of the SEA and, thus, are not required to participate in the state accountability program. 
A public school is defined as: 
"A publicly funded institution where students are enrolled for all or a majority of the instructional day and: 
1) those students are reported in fall membership; and 2) at a minimum, the institution meets the pre-
accreditation eligibility requirements of the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public 
Schools in Virginia adopted by the Board of Education. 
13 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
1.2 How are all public schools 
and LEAs held to the same 
criteria when making an AYP 
determination? 
All public schools and LEAs 
are systematically judged on 
the basis of the same criteria 
when making an AYP 
determination. 
If applicable, the AYP 
definition is integrated into the 
State Accountability System. 
Some public schools and LEAs are 
systematically judged on the basis of 
alternate criteria when making an 
AYP determination. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
The Virginia Department of Education has adopted the formulas established by the law and final 
regulations for determining AYP of all public schools and LEAs. These formulas result in four annual 
targets that will be applied to all public schools and LEAs. 
One set of annual measurable objectives for Reading/language arts 
One set of annual measurable objectives for Mathematics 
One set of annual measurable objectives for Graduation Rate 
One set of annual measurable objectives for Attendance and Science 
There will be no alternate criteria used in making an AYP determination. As suggested in the July 1, 
2003, USED letter of approval, for purposes of calculating whether a school or division makes AYP 
using the safe harbor method, Virginia will use an alternative additional indicator that can be 
disaggregated until 2005-2006 when Virginia will be positioned to generate a graduation rate definition 
that can be disaggregated consistent with NCLB requirements. During this transition period, Virginia will 
use Science Standards of Learning assessment scores as the alternative additional indicator for safe 
harbor purposes at the high school level. For 2002-2003 only, Science Standards of Learning 
assessment scores will be used as the alternative additional indicator for safe harbor purposes since 
disaggregated attendance data are not available. 
At least 95 percent of the students (in the aggregate and by subgroup) enrolled in courses or grade 
levels for which there are statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics must 
participate in those assessments for schools and LEAs to be eligible to make AYP. 
Consistent with the law and final regulations, the Virginia Department of Education has adopted formulas 
for calculating AYP Starting Points, Interim Goals and Annual Measurable Objectives. Virginias 
statewide accountability system, consists of the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting 
Public Schools in Virginia and the application of AYP requirements to all public schools and school 
divisions consistent with 1111(b)(2)(B) of the law and as described in Virginias approved consolidated 
application. 
The state accountability system applies to all public schools and LEAs. All public schools and LEAs will 
be systematically judged on the basis of the same criteria when determining the accreditation rating for a 
public school and an AYP determination for a public school, an LEA, and the state. Consistent with 
current practice when establishing accreditation ratings for schools, Virginia will pair schools that have 
no tested grades with other schools that serve students who attended those non-testing schools in a 
feeder relationship for AYP determinations. 
14 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Virginias Current Accountability System 
In September 2000, the Board of Education refined its Regulations Establishing Standards for 
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia, hereafter referred to as the Standards of Accreditation. The 
overriding goal of the Standards of Accreditation is to link statewide criterion-referenced tests to the 
Standards of Learning and to hold all students, all schools, and all school divisions accountable for 
results. The text of the Standards of Accreditation can be found at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf. 
Students (beginning with ninth graders in 2000-2001) must pass a minimum number of high school 
Standards of Learning tests or other board-approved tests that meet or exceed the Standards of 
Learning tests in order to receive a diploma. A students test results for grades 3, 5, and 8 must be 
considered in placement/promotion decisions. The Standards of Accreditation allow secondary schools 
to use a students end-of-course test results in calculating grades. 
Under this accountability system, certain percentages of students schoolwide must score at least at the 
proficient level on statewide assessments in each of the four content areas (mathematics, science, 
English (reading/language arts), and history and the social sciences) for schools to be eligible to receive 
one of four accreditation ratings. 
The Standards of Accreditation phase in, from 2000-2001 through 2003-2004, increasing student pass 
rate requirements called benchmarks that determine which of the accreditation ratings listed below is 
assigned to an individual school. The established annual benchmarks and accompanying ratings are 
found at http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf ,p. 44. 
The specific accreditation ratings, fully described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf, p. 37, are summarized below: 
Fully Accredited: at least 70 percent of students score proficient or better (pass) in each of four 
content areas, English (reading/language arts), mathematics, science, history/social sciences 
(except that grade 3 science and history/social sciences are not required to be factored in until 
2003-2004) 
Provisionally Accredited/Meets State Standards: the lowest schoolwide student pass rate is no 
lower than the benchmark in any one of the four content areas 
Provisionally Accredited/Needs Improvement: the lowest schoolwide student pass rate is 
between 1 percent and 19 percent below the benchmark in any one of the four content areas 
Accredited with Warning: the lowest schoolwide student pass rate is 20 percent or more below 
the benchmark in any one of the four content areas 
Certain sanctions exist for schools rated Accredited with Warning. These are fully described in the 
Standards of Accreditation found at http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf, p. 39. 
In summary, schools must: 
undergo an academic review; 
adopt an instructional method with a proven track record of success at raising student 
achievement if accredited with warning in English (reading/language arts) and/or mathematics; 
develop a three-year school improvement plan correlated to nine specific criteria; and 
report annually on school improvement plan implementation status. 
The Board of Education may provide special recognition to schools showing marked improvement in 
student achievement over time. Recognitions are fully described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf, p.41, and are summarized below: 
Public announcements 
Waivers from certain regulations 
Tangible rewards 
15 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Reading/language arts 
One AYP starting point for reading/language arts assessments will be determined that is the starting 
point for all students, all subgroups of students, all schools, all school divisions (LEAs) and the state. 
From this starting point, one set of interim goals will be established. The interim goals will be equal 
increments apart. Each interim goal will be applied to all students, all subgroups of students, all schools, 
all school divisions, and the state. One set of annual measurable objectives (AYP annual targets) will be 
established for each school year beginning in 2002-2003 and ending in 2013-2014. These annual 
measurable objectives will be applied to all students, all subgroups of students, all schools, all school 
divisions and the state. 
Mathematics 
One AYP starting point for mathematics assessments will be determined that is the starting point for all 
students, all subgroups of students, all schools, all school divisions (LEAs) and the state. From this 
starting point, one set of interim goals will be established. The interim goals will be equal increments 
apart. Each interim goal will be applied to all students, all subgroups of students, all schools, all school 
divisions, and the state. One set of annual measurable objectives (AYP annual targets) will be 
established for each school year beginning in 2002-2003 and ending in 2013-2014. These annual 
measurable objectives will be applied to all students, all subgroups of students, all schools, all school 
divisions and the state. 
Graduation Rate 
Annual measurable objectives (state targets) will be established that will be applied to all schools with a 
graduating class, all school divisions, and the state. Consistent with the safe harbor provision of 
1111(b)(2)(I), the annual measurable objectives for graduation rate will serve to determine if students 
have made progress in this indicator. 
Attendance Rate or Science Achievement on State Assessments 
Annual measurable objectives will be established for attendance and for student performance on the 
state science assessments. Prior to the beginning of a school year, each school division shall choose for 
each of its elementary and middle schools and schools without a graduating class either attendance or 
performance on state science assessments as the other academic indicator. The choice of using either 
attendance rate or science state assessment results as the other academic indicator also will apply to 
the safe harbor AYP calculation methodology [Section 1111(b)(2)(1)]. 
Attendance 
Annual measurable objectives will be established that will be applied to all schools without a graduating 
class, all school divisions and the state. Consistent with the safe harbor provision of 1111(b)(2)(I), the 
annual measurable objectives for attendance rate will serve to determine if students have made 
progress in this indicator. 
Summary 
Virginias current accountability system addresses schoolwide student performance in the aggregate. To 
maintain one statewide accountability system Virginia will: 
continue to determine and report accreditation ratings of all schools, as prescribed in the 
Standards of Accreditation; 
continue to apply appropriate sanctions and rewards to all identified schools, as prescribed in 
the Standards of Accreditation; 
determine and report AYP status of all schools and school divisions consistent with 
1111(b)(2)(B) and as described in Virginias approved consolidated application; 
apply sanctions to schools and school divisions receiving Title I, Part A, funding in a manner 
consistent with sections 1116(b) and 1116(c), respectively; and 
apply rewards to schools receiving Title I, Part A, funding in a manner consistent with section 
1117(b). 
16 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
1.3 Does the State have, at a 
minimum, a definition of basic, 
proficient and advanced 
student achievement levels in 
reading/language arts and 
mathematics. 
State has defined three levels 
of student achievement: basic, 
proficient, and advanced. 
Student achievement levels of 
proficient and advanced 
determine how well students 
are mastering the materials in 
the States academic content 
standards and the basic level 
of achievement provides 
complete information about 
the progress of lower-
achieving students toward 
mastering the proficient and 
advanced levels. 
Standards do not meet the legislated 
requirements. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Student performance in Virginia is measured by the Standards of Learning Assessments described in 
Virginias consolidated application approved by USED on July 2, 2002. Students taking Standards of 
Learning tests receive one of three achievement ratings. Students who attain a scaled score of 399 or 
below on any of the Standards of Learning tests receive a rating of fails/does not meet the standards. 
Those with a scaled score of 400 to 499 receive a rating of pass/proficient, and those with a scaled 
score of 500 to 600 receive a rating of pass/advanced. 
These ratings earlier received approval from the USED, Title I Office. The letter affirming approval is 
found as Attachment B to Virginias consolidated application approved by USED on July 2, 2002. 
A description of the standard setting process can be found at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/News/oct3098.html and at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/TechReport_98-99.pdf . 
17 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
1.4 How does the State 
provide accountability and 
adequate yearly progress 
decisions and information in a 
timely manner? 
State provides decisions 
about adequate yearly 
progress in time for LEAs to 
implement the required 
provisions before the 
beginning of the next 
academic year. 
State allows enough time to 
notify parents about public 
school choice or supplemental 
educational service options, 
time for parents to make an 
informed decision, and time to 
implement public school 
choice and supplemental 
educational services. 
Timeline does not provide sufficient 
time for LEAs to fulfill their 
responsibilities before the beginning 
of the next academic year. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
In Virginia, the date that the school term ends in the various local educational agencies (LEAs) varies 
from mid-May to mid- June. At the present, the Virginia Board of Education's policy regarding testing 
calendars allows LEAs to test as late as the last day of school. Beginning with the spring 2003 test 
administration, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) will begin receiving copies of the student 
level files sent from the testing contractor to LEAs as the files are completed. Because of the flexibility 
that localities have in setting their testing calendars, this will result in VDOE receiving multiple files 
representing various LEAs, rather than one file, that includes all the LEAs in the state. However, this 
process will allow DOE to receive files by mid-summer so that AYP can be calculated and schools can 
be informed of their status before the opening of school. 
To facilitate reporting of attendance prior to the beginning of the school year, Virginia will institute a new 
data collection requirement for the annual March 31 average daily membership (ADM) data collection, 
beginning in March 2004. Until that time, Virginia will use the most current attendance data available to 
make AYP determinations prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. Data collection systems 
are being modified to collect and report graduation rate by student subgroup. Since Virginia will use a 
graduation rate definition that includes a dropout count in the denominator (i.e., NCES defines a dropout 
as not returning to school by October 1) adequate yearly progress will be calculated based on the 
previous school years graduation rate. Hence, graduation rate data will be available in time to make 
AYP determinations and report them to LEAs and schools before the beginning of the school year. 
18 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
1.5 Does the State 
Accountability System produce 
an annual State Report Card? 
The State Report Card 
includes all the required data 
elements [see Appendix A for 
the list of required data 
elements]. 
The State Report Card is 
available to the public at the 
beginning of the academic 
year. 
The State Report Card is 
accessible in languages of 
major populations in the State, 
to the extent possible. 
Assessment results and other 
academic indicators (including 
graduation rates) are reported 
by student subgroups. 
The State Report Card does not 
include all the required data 
elements. 
The State Report Card is not 
available to the public. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Virginias Current Report Card 
In September 2000, the Board of Education refined its Regulations Establishing Standards for 
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia, hereafter referred to as the Standards of Accreditation. The 
Standards of Accreditation require an annual School Performance Report Card for each school 
containing information for the most recent three year period, including, but not limited to: 
1. Standards of Learning (SOL) test scores and scores on the literacy and numeracy tests 
required for the Modified Standard Diploma for the school, school division, and state. 
2. Percentage of students tested, as well as the percentage of students not tested, to include a 
breakout of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students. 
3. Percentage of students who are otherwise eligible, but do not take, the SOL tests due to 
enrollment in an alternative, or any other program not leading to a Standard, Advanced Studies, 
Modified Standard, or International Baccalaureate Diploma. 
4. Performance of students with disabilities or students with limited English proficiency on SOL 
tests and alternate assessments as appropriate. 
5. The accreditation rating awarded to the school. 
6. Attendance rates for students. 
7. Information related to school safety to include, but not limited to, incidents of physical violence 
(including fighting and other serious offenses), possession of firearms, and possession of other 
weapons. 
8. Information related to qualifications and experience of the teaching staff including the 
percentage of the schools teachers endorsed in the area of their primary teaching assignment. 
9. In addition, secondary schools' School Performance Report Cards shall 
19 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
include the following: 
(a) Advanced Placement (AP) information to include percentage of students who take 
AP courses and percentage of those students who take AP tests; 
(b) International Baccalaureate (IB) information to include percentage of students who 
are enrolled in IB programs and percentage of students who receive IB Diplomas; 
(c) College-level course information to include percentage of students who take college-
level courses; 
(d) Percentage of (i) diplomas, (ii) certificates awarded to the senior class including GED 
credentials, and (iii) students who do not graduate; 
(e) Percentage of students in alternative programs that do not lead to a Standard, 
Advanced Studies, or Modified Standard Diploma; 
(f) Percentage of students in academic year Governors Schools; and 
(g) Percentage of dropouts. 
Virginia has modified the School Performance Report Card for the 2002-2003 school year to incorporate 
the reporting requirements of NCLB section 1111(h)(1)(C). As a service to school divisions, Virginia has 
made school, division, and state report cards available to the public via the Internet, in viewable and 
downloadable formats. The report cards will be available throughout the year, including at the beginning 
of the academic year. Virginias plan to report each of the required elements in the report card is listed 
below. 
Requirement 1: 
Information, in the aggregate, on student achievement at each proficiency level on the State academic 
assessments (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English 
proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged, except that such disaggregation shall not be 
required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically 
reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual 
student). 
Virginias Plan for Requirement 1: 
Results from the state academic assessments listed in Critical Element 3.2 will be disaggregated and 
reported by race/ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and economically 
disadvantaged status. The current student answer document captures the information necessary to 
disaggregate the data. This information will be reported at the state, LEA, and school levels. Virginia will 
not report subgroups in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically 
reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual 
student as described in Critical Element 5.5 of this workbook. 
Timeline: Limited information on student performance from the 2001-2002 school year has been added 
to the 2002-2003 school report cards. As reporting systems are developed, additional information will be 
added as early as spring 2003. 
Complete student performance information from the 2002-2003 school year will be posted prior to the 
beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. 
Requirement 2: 
Information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement levels of each student 
subgroup and the States annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of the 
academic assessments. 
Virginias Plan for Requirement 2: 
The information described in Requirement 1 will be reported in comparison to the annual measurable 
objectives established for each indicator. 
Timeline: This comparison will be posted to state, LEA, and school report cards following the same 
timeline as Requirement 1. 
20 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Requirement 3: 
The percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by the student subgroups), except that such 
disaggregation shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is 
insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable 
information about an individual student. 
Virginias Plan for Requirement 3: 
The information on students not tested that is reported on the current report card will be disaggregated 
and reported by race/ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and 
economically disadvantaged status. The current student answer document captures the information 
necessary to disaggregate the data. This information will be reported at the state, division, and school 
levels. Virginia will not report subgroups in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to 
yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about 
an individual student as described in Critical Element 5.5 of this workbook. 
Timeline: As reporting systems are developed, additional information on students not tested during the 
2001-2002 school year will be added to state, LEA, and school report cards as early as spring 2003. 
Complete information on students not tested from the 2002-2003 school year will be posted prior to the 
beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. 
Requirement 4. 
The most recent two-year trend in student achievement in each subject area, and for each grade level, 
for the required assessments. 
Virginias Plan for Requirement 4: 
Virginias current report card complies with this requirement. The current report card includes three 
years of information on student achievement on each Standards of Learning Assessment. For 
elementary and middle schools, this information is reported by subject area and grade. For high schools, 
this information is reported by subject area and test. 
Timeline: Three-year trend data for 2001-2002, 2000-2001, and 1999-2000 will be posted on the state, 
LEA, and school report cards in Spring 2003. Trend data for 2002-2003, 2001-2002, and 2000-2001 will 
be posted prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. 
Requirement 5. 
Aggregate information on any other indicators used by the State to determine the adequate yearly 
progress of students in achieving State academic achievement standards disaggregated by student 
subgroups. 
Virginias Plan for Requirement 5: 
Virginias other academic indicators are graduation rate for high schools and beginning in 2003-2004, 
attendance or science for elementary and middle schools and schools without a graduating class. 
Virginia reports graduation rates, and attendance, and science on the current report card. Data collection 
systems are being modified to collect and report this information by student subgroup. This information 
will be reported at the school, division, and state levels. 
Timeline: Limited information on graduation rates, and attendance, and science from the 2001-2002 
school year will be posted on school report cards in Spring 2003. 
Since Virginia will use a graduation rate definition that includes a dropout count in the denominator, 
graduation rates for 2002-2003 will not be calculated and posted until Winter 2003 (due to the NCES 
definition of a dropout as not returning to school by October 1). Attendance data for 2002-2003 will be 
calculated and posted in Winter 2003. To facilitate reporting of attendance prior to the beginning of the 
school year, Virginia will institute a new data collection requirement for the annual March 31 average 
daily membership (ADM) data collection, beginning in March, 2004. 
21 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Requirement 6. Graduation rates for secondary school students disaggregated by student subgroups. 
Virginias Plan for Requirement 6: 
Virginias current report card includes graduation rates. Data collection systems are being modified to 
collect and report graduation rate by student subgroup. Graduation rates will be reported at the school 
(where applicable), division, and state levels. 
Timeline: Limited information on graduation rates, and attendance, and science from the 2001-2002 
school year will be posted on school report cards in Spring 2003. 
Since Virginia will use a graduation rate definition that includes a dropout count in the denominator, 
graduation rates for 2002-2003 will not be calculated and posted until Winter 2003 (due to the NCES 
definition of a dropout as not returning to school by October 1). 
Requirement 7. Information on the performance of local educational agencies in the State regarding 
making adequate yearly progress, including the number and names of each school identified for school 
improvement under section 1116. 
Virginias Plan for Requirement 7: 
Virginia will modify the current report card to report the performance of each school, district, and the 
state regarding making adequate yearly progress. Virginia will modify the report cards to include the 
number and names of schools identified for improvement under section 1116. 
Timeline: This information will be added for the state, LEAs, and schools prior to the beginning of the 
2003-2004 school year. 
Requirement 8. 
The professional qualifications of teachers in the State, the percentage of such teachers teaching with 
emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the State not taught by highly 
qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools 
which (for this purpose) means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in 
the State. 
Virginias Plan for Requirement 8: 
Virginia will modify the current report card to include the professional qualifications of teachers in the 
state, including the percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, the 
percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by 
high and low-poverty schools (schools in the top and bottom quartiles of poverty). This information will 
be reported at the school, division, and state levels. Virginia has established the Instructional Personnel 
Data Collection to collect this information. More information on the new Instructional Personnel Data 
Collection may be found at: 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Publications/TCHCount/datacoll/coll.htm 
Timeline: This information will be added to the state, LEA, and school report cards prior to the beginning 
of the 2003-2004 school year. 
Two sections in the Code of Virginia guide the department in reporting data in English only. The two 
sections are listed below. 
Code of Virginia.  7.1-42: English designated the official language of the Commonwealth. English shall 
be designated as the official language of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Except as provided by law, no 
state agency or local government shall be required to provide and no state agency or local government 
shall be prohibited from providing any documents, information, literature or other written materials in any 
language other than English. 
Code of Virginia.  22.1-212.2: Obligation of school boards. Pursuant to  7.1-42, school boards shall 
have no obligation to teach the standard curriculum, except courses in foreign languages, in a language 
other than English. School boards shall endeavor to provide instruction in the English language, which 
shall be designed to promote the education of students for whom English is the second language. 
22 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Virginias most recent state report card may be accessed from: http://www.pen.k12.va.us 
Virginias most recent school report cards may be found online at: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/src/ 
The text of the Standards of Accreditation can be found at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf. 
23 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
1.6 How does the State 
Accountability System include 
rewards and sanctions for 
public schools and LEAs?1 
State uses one or more types 
of rewards and sanctions, 
where the criteria are: 
 Set by the State; 
 Based on adequate 
yearly progress 
decisions; and, 
 Applied uniformly across 
public schools and LEAs 
State does not implement rewards or 
sanctions for public schools and LEAs 
based on adequate yearly progress 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
The Board of Education has a system of providing special recognition to schools showing marked 
improvement in student achievement over time. Recognitions are fully described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf, p.41, and are summarized below: 
 Public announcements 
Waivers from certain state regulations 
 Tangible rewards 
These rewards will be applied to all schools consistently making AYP. In addition, Virginia will apply 
rewards to schools receiving Title I, Part A, funding in a manner consistent with NCLB section 1117(b). 
A Title I school or an LEA will be identified for improvement/corrective action and sanctions in 
accordance with NCLB if it does not make AYP in the same subject area for two or more consecutive 
years. A non-Title I school will be identified for sanctions if it does not make AYP in the same subject 
area for two or more consecutive years. 
Virginia will identify divisions for improvement only when they do not make AYP in the same subject or 
both other academic indicators and all grade spans (i.e., elementary, middle, and high schools) for two 
consecutive years. Virginia will 1) monitor divisions that have not made AYP in one or more grade 
spans but have not been identified for improvement to ensure they are making the necessary curricular 
and instructional changes to improve achievement, and 2) take steps to ensure supplemental services 
are available to eligible students from a variety of providers throughout the state (including in divisions 
that have not been identified for improvement but that have schools that have been in improvement for 
more than one year). 
Virginia identified 34 Title I schools for school improvement status for the 2002-2003 school year. 
Sanctions were applied consistent with NCLB section 1116(b). Virginia will continue to incorporate 
sanctions for Title I schools consistent with NCLB and final regulations issued November 26, 2002, as 
follows: 
apply AYP requirements to all schools and LEAs consistent with 1111(b)(2)(B) and as described 
1 The state must provide rewards and sanctions for all public schools and LEAs for making adequate 
yearly progress, except that the State is not required to hold schools and LEAs not receiving Title I funds 
to the requirements of section 1116 of NCLB [200.12(b)(40)]. 

24 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
in Principles 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this consolidated application workbook; 
apply sanctions to schools and LEAs receiving Title I, Part A, funding in a manner consistent 
with NCLB sections 1116(b) and 1116(c), respectively 
Sanctions for non-Title I schools are as follows: 
Not making AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject area 
Analyze relevant data. 
Develop a school improvement plan or revise the current school improvement plan to include 
strategies and use of resources that address the area of need, consistent with guidelines 
determined by the LEA. If the area of need is reading, the school improvement plan must address 
whether its instructional model is consistent with Reading First requirements and scientifically-based 
research in reading. 
Not making AYP for subsequent consecutive years in the same subject area 
Continue to analyze data and revise the school improvement plan. 
Take additional corrective actions specified by the LEA. 
Beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, division-wide student performance data will be compiled to 
identify divisions (LEAs) not making AYP. Data from successive years will be used to determine 
whether or not the LEA is identified for improvement. Rewards and sanctions will be applied to LEAs in 
improvement consistent with NCLB section 1116(c). 
25 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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

CRITICAL ELEMENT 
EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
2.1 How does the State 
Accountability System 
include all students in the 
State? 
All students in the State are 
included in the State 
Accountability System. 
The definitions of public 
school and LEA account for 
all students enrolled in the 
public school district, 
regardless of program or type 
of public school. 
Public school students exist in the 
State for whom the State 
Accountability System makes no 
provision. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
The state accountability system in Virginia prescribed in the Regulations Establishing Standards for 
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (the SOA or Standards of Accreditation) 
[http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf] includes all schools and LEAs. Virginias 
current accountability system addresses schoolwide student performance in the aggregate. To maintain 
one statewide accountability system Virginia will: 

 continue to apply accreditation ratings to all schools, as prescribed in the Standards of 
Accreditation; 
 continue to apply appropriate sanctions and rewards to all identified schools, as prescribed in 
the Standards of Accreditation; 
 apply AYP requirements to all schools and school divisions consistent with 1111(b)(2)(B) and as 
described in Part II.1.e. and Part II.1.f. of Virginias consolidated application approved by USED 
July 2, 2002; 
 apply sanctions to schools and school divisions receiving Title I, Part A, funding in a manner 
consistent with sections 1116(b) and 1116(c), respectively; 
 apply rewards to schools receiving Title I, Part A, funding in a manner consistent with section 
1117(b); and 
 pair schools that have no tested grades with other schools that serve students who attended 
those non-testing schools in a feeder relationship for accreditation and AYP determinations. 
The SEA has defined LEA as: 

"Local educational agency" means a local school division governed by a local school board, a state-
operated program that is funded and administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, or the Virginia 
School for the Deaf and the Blind at Staunton and the Virginia School for the Deaf, Blind and Multi-
Disabled at Hampton. (8VAC20-80-10) 

State law makes the Department of Correctional Education responsible for the operation of learning 
centers/schools located in juvenile correctional facilities as follows: 

 22.1-340 Authority continued as Department of Correctional Education. 

The Rehabilitative School Authority is continued and shall hereafter be known as the Department of 
Correctional Education. The Department shall be composed of all the educational facilities of all 
institutions operated by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Juvenile Justice. The 
Department of Correctional Education shall be designated as a local education agency (LEA) but shall 
not be eligible to receive state funds appropriated for direct aid to public education. 

26 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
A public school is defined as: 
"A publicly funded institution where students are enrolled for all or a majority of the instructional day and: 
1) those students are reported in fall membership; and 2) at a minimum, the institution meets the pre-
accreditation eligibility requirements of the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public 
Schools in Virginia adopted by the Board of Education. 
The definition will be included in the states procedures for calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP). 
The standards for accrediting public schools require that In kindergarten through eighth grade, where 
SOL tests are administered, each student shall be expected to take the SOL tests... and Each student 
in middle and secondary schools shall take all applicable end-of-course SOL tests following course 
instruction.... Students enrolled in a grade level or course for which there are associated SOL tests are 
expected to participate in the testing program by taking one of the statewide assessments listed in 
Critical Element 3.2. Students (beginning with ninth graders in 2000-2001) must pass a minimum 
number of high school Standards of Learning tests or other board-approved tests that meet or exceed 
the Standards of Learning tests in order to receive a diploma. A students test results for grades 3, 5, 
and 8 must be considered in placement/promotion decisions. The Standards of Accreditation allow 
secondary schools to use a students end-of-course test results in calculating grades. 
27 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
2.2 How does the State define 
full academic year for 
identifying students in AYP 
decisions? 
The State has a definition of 
full academic year for 
determining which students 
are to be included in decisions 
about AYP. 
The definition of full academic 
year is consistent and applied 
statewide 
LEAs have varying definitions of full 
academic year. 
The States definition excludes 
students who must transfer from one 
district to another as they advance to 
the next grade. 
The definition of full academic year is 
not applied consistently. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
To meet the requirements of NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002 the following 
definition of full academic year will be applied to all schools and LEAs in Virginia when making AYP 
determinations beginning with the 2003-2004 school year: 
A student is considered to be enrolled for a full academic year in a school, LEA or the State if the 
student is in membership in the school, LEA or the State by September 30 of the school year and 
continues in membership through test administration. 
If a student moves from one school to another in the same LEA during the same academic year and is 
not enrolled in any one school for a full academic year, then the students performance on statewide 
assessments will be included only at the division and State levels for purposes of determining AYP. If a 
student moves from one LEA to another in Virginia and is not present in any one LEA for a full academic 
year, then the students performance on statewide assessments will be included only at the State level 
for purposes of determining AYP. If a student is not present in Virginia for a full academic year, then the 
students performance on statewide assessments will not be included in AYP determinations at any 
level. 
This definition does not apply to any student whose membership is interrupted as a result of poor 
attendance or disciplinary action. 
28 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
2.3 How does the State 
Accountability System 
determine which students 
have attended the same public 
school and/or LEA for a full 
academic year? 
State holds public schools 
accountable for students who 
were enrolled at the same 
public school for a full 
academic year. 
State holds LEAs 
accountable for students who 
transfer during the full 
academic year from one 
public school within the 
district to another public 
school within the district. 
State definition requires students to 
attend the same public school for 
more than a full academic year to be 
included in public school 
accountability. 
State definition requires students to 
attend school in the same district for 
more than a full academic year to be 
included in district accountability. 
State holds public schools 
accountable for students who have 
not attended the same public school 
for a full academic year. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
As described in the response to Critical Element 2.2, beginning in the 2003-2004 school year, a student 
is considered to be enrolled for a full academic year in a school, LEA or the State if the student is in 
membership in the school, LEA or the State by September 30 of the school year and continues in 
membership through test administration. 
Regardless of whether or not a student is present for a full academic year as defined above, the student 
will be required to participate in applicable statewide assessments. 
The state obtains student transfer information from the demographic pages of the Standards of Learning 
assessment student answer document. Each answer document contains a field labeled AYP 
ADJUSTMENT that is used by schools to indicate a students transfer status. The options are: 
A  Transfer from within division 
B  Transfer from outside division 
C  Transfer from outside state 
The field is only used for transfer students. 
Use of the AYP Adjustment field will enable the Department of Education to hold schools accountable for 
students who have been enrolled for a full academic year (AYP Adjustment field is blank), to hold LEAs 
accountable for students who have transferred from one public school within the district to another public 
school within the district (AYP Adjustment field is A), and to include students who transferred from one 
district to another within the state in the calculation of AYP for the state (AYP Adjustment field is B). 
29 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
3.1 How does the States 
definition of adequate yearly 
progress require all students 
to be proficient in 
reading/language arts and 
mathematics by the 20132014 academic year? 
The State has a timeline for 
ensuring that all students will 
meet or exceed the States 
proficient level of academic 
achievement in 
reading/language arts2 and 
mathematics, not later than 
2013-2014. 
State definition does not require all 
students to achieve proficiency by 
2013-2014. 
State extends the timeline past the 
2013-2014 academic year. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Consistent with NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, the following timeline is 
proposed as part of the adequate yearly progress definition, illustrating the requirement that all students 
be proficient in each of reading/language arts and mathematics by the 2013-2014 academic year: 
AYP Interim Goals and Annual Measurable Objectives for Student Performance on Reading/Language 
Arts Statewide Assessments, Described as Pass Rates. 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 

Int. 

Int. 

Int. 

Goal: 
(pass 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

100% 
rate %) 

(pass 

(pass 

(pass 
rate 

rate 

rate 
%) 

%) 

%) 

AYP Interim Goals and Annual Measurable Objectives for Student Performance on Mathematics 
Statewide Assessments, Described as Pass Rates. 

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 


Int. 

Int. 

Int. 

Goal: 
(pass 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

100% 
rate) 

(pass 

(pass 

(pass 
rate 

rate 

rate 
%) 

%) 

%) 

2 If the state has separate assessments to cover its language arts standards (e.g., reading and writing), 
the State must create a method to include scores from all the relevant assessments. 

30 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
3.2 How does the State 
Accountability System 
determine whether each 
student subgroup, public 
school and LEA makes AYP? 
For a public school and LEA to 
make adequate yearly 
progress, each student 
subgroup must meet or 
exceed the State annual 
measurable objectives, each 
student subgroup must have 
at least a 95% participation 
rate in the statewide 
assessments, and the school 
must meet the States 
requirement for other 
academic indicators. 
However, if in any particular 
year the student subgroup 
does not meet those annual 
measurable objectives, the 
public school or LEA may be 
considered to have made 
AYP, if the percentage of 
students in that group who did 
not meet or exceed the 
proficient level of academic 
achievement on the State 
assessments for that year 
decreased by 10% of that 
percentage from the preceding 
public school year; that group 
made progress on one or 
more of the States academic 
indicators; and that group had 
at least 95% participation rate 
on the statewide assessment. 
State uses different method for 
calculating how public schools and 
LEAs make AYP. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Statewide assessments include the following: 
Standards of Learning tests, including the Substitute Standards of Learning Evaluation Program 
for Certain Students with Disabilities Who Cannot Be Accommodated on Standards of Learning 
Tests; and state-approved assessments linked directly to Standards of Learning, as described in 
Critical Element 5.4 
Board-approved substitute tests listed at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/subassessment.pdf 
31 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Alternate assessments measured against alternate achievement standards, required by the 
1997 IDEA, taken by some students with disabilities and described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Sped/ 
Alternate assessments measured against regular achievement standards as described in the 
March 20, 2003 Federal Register, taken by some students with disabilities, as described in 
Critical Element 5.3 
Virginia allows high school students to use nationally recognized assessments such as Advanced 
Placement, International Baccalaureate, and SAT II subject tests as substitutes for the related 
Standards of Learning tests. The Board of Education approves the use of all substitute tests following an 
extensive review and standards-setting process that involves Department of Education staff and the 
Board of Educations Assessment and Accountability Advisory Committee. All substitute tests measure 
content that incorporates or exceeds the related Standards of Learning content. The number of students 
who take and pass substitute tests is calculated into AYP determinations in the same way as all other 
state assessments. 
More information is available at http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/suptsmemos/2003/inf206a.pdf. 
The State Accountability System will examine the data annually for assessments in each of the two 
content areas and other academic indicators by student subgroup, public school, and school division to 
determine if Adequate Yearly Progress has been made, consistent with section 1111(b)(2). The 
Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia specify that each student 
shall be expected to take the Standards of Learning tests in kindergarten through eighth grade, and that 
each student in middle and secondary schools shall take all applicable end-of-course SOL tests 
following course instruction. Each method of calculating and examining AYP as presented in the law 
and in the regulations issued on November 26, 2002 will be applied, and the results reviewed for each 
subgroup, public school, and school division. 
Specifically, for a public school and school division to make adequate yearly progress, all students and 
each student subgroup must meet or exceed the State annual measurable objectives for statewide 
assessments in reading and mathematics; all students and each student subgroup must have at least a 
95% participation rate in these statewide assessments; and the school must meet the State's annual 
measurable objective for graduation rate (for schools with a graduating class) or attendance rate or 
science (for elementary and middle schools and schools without a graduating class) or make progress 
toward meeting those objectives. School divisions must meet or make progress toward meeting the 
State's annual measurable objectives for graduation rate and attendance rate or science. However, if in 
any particular year the student subgroup does not meet the annual measurable objectives for the 
reading and mathematics assessments, the public school or school division may be considered to have 
made AYP, if the percentage of students in that group who did not meet or exceed the proficient level of 
academic achievement on the Standards of Learning assessments for that year decreased by 10% of 
that percentage from the preceding public school year; that group made progress on the additional 
indicators at the school level or, for school divisions, in both; and that group had at least 95% 
participation rate on the statewide assessments. 
In compliance with USED directives, Virginia will follow the procedures for calculating adequate yearly 
progress (AYP) stated above as approved by USED in the September 10, 2003, amended workbook. As 
a statement of public record, let it be clear that Virginia is agreeing to this directive only because the 
USED has made it clear it is mandating it. Virginias understanding of Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(iv) is that 
the definition of AYP must include an other academic indicator but decisions about AYP shall be based 
primarily on participation rates and student achievement on reading and mathematics assessments. 
Additionally, It is our interpretation that Section 1111(b)(2)(G) and Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) define how 
AYP is determined, and these sections permit the state and any division or school that meets the 95 
percent participation rate and meets or exceeds the annual measurable objectives on the reading and 
mathematics assessments for all students as well as each subgroup to be designated as making AYP. 
We believe Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) states the other academic indicators must be considered only if safe 
harbor is invoked. 
32 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Consistent with current practice, assessment data for a content area will be combined across all tested 
grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
percent of students (first-time test takers) scoring at least proficient when determining whether or not 
AYP has been made in that content area. Virginia will make AYP determinations based on data from 
the current school year or the most recent three year average. Virginia added reading and mathematics 
assessments in grades 4, 6, and 7 in 2005-2006. For calculation of the participation rate for all students 
and subgroups, current year tests in reading and mathematics from all grades (grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 
and end-of-course) are included. For performance calculations for all students and subgroups, the 
current year rate is based on reading and mathematics tests from all grades (grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 
end-of-course). The three-year rate will include results from grades 3, 5, 8, and end-of-course until 
Virginia has administered reading and mathematics tests in grades 3 - 8 for three consecutive years 
(2008-2009 reporting). 
Virginia will count in AYP determinations the passing scores of all students who retake tests needed for 
graduation. test results from expedited tests, a test given to students who miss the first test 
administration or fail it within a specified narrow margin, or did not pass due to exceptional and 
mitigating. 
In compliance with USED directives, Virginia will follow procedures for calculating adequate yearly 
progress (AYP) described above as approved by USED in the September 10, 2003, amended 
workbook. Virginia will include only the scores from the first official assessment administration or those 
taken prior to that time in determining AYP. As a statement of public record, let it be clear that Virginia is 
agreeing to this directive only because the USED has made it clear it is mandating it. We believe 
counting a students passing score on a retest rewards the student and the school for successful 
remedial efforts. 
Should the federal regulations or USED directives on calculating AYP for students with disabilities and 
students with limited English proficiency change, in the alternative, the Virginia SEA would request to 
calculate AYP determinations for the current academic year, 2002-2003, based upon SOL testing 
policies for student participation as legally required by current Virginia regulations that schools have 
followed since 1997. The Virginia SEA believes Virginias proposed alternative is sound and a fair policy 
for determining AYP. 
33 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
3.2a. What is the States 
starting point for calculating 
Adequate Yearly Progress? 
Using data from the 20012002 school year, the State 
established separate starting 
points in reading/language 
arts and mathematics for 
measuring the percentage of 
students meeting or 
exceeding the States 
proficient level of academic 
achievement. 
Each starting point is based, 
at a minimum, on the higher of 
the following percentages of 
students at the proficient level: 
(1) the percentage in the State 
of proficient students in the 
lowest-achieving student 
subgroup; or, (2) the 
percentage of proficient 
students in a public school at 
the 20th percentile of the 
States total enrollment among 
all schools ranked by the 
percentage of students at the 
proficient level. 
A State may use these 
procedures to establish 
separate starting points by 
grade span; however, the 
starting point must be the 
same for all like schools (e.g., 
one same starting point for all 
elementary schools, one same 
starting point for all middle 
schools). 
The State Accountability System uses 
a different method for calculating the 
starting point (or baseline data). 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
The calculation of starting points for AYP included scores from the following statewide assessments in 
reading/language arts and mathematics that were administered in 2001-2002: 
Standards of Learning (SOL) tests for grades 3, 5, 8 and end-of-course 
Board-approved substitute tests listed at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/subassessment.pdf 
34 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Alternate assessments, required by the 1997 IDEA, taken by some students with 
disabilities and described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Sped/ 
Consistent with final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, the following procedures were used to 
calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP) starting points: 
One AYP starting point for reading/language arts assessments has been determined that is the starting 
point for all students, all subgroups of students, all schools, all LEAs, and for the state. In Virginias 
current accountability system, student performance on all reading/language arts assessments given in a 
school is combined into one school-wide pass rate. Consequently, there is not a separate AYP starting 
point for each grade span in which tests are administered. 
One AYP starting point for mathematics assessments has been determined that is the starting point for all 
students, all subgroups of students, all schools, all LEAs, and for the state. In Virginias current 
accountability system, student performance on all mathematics assessments given in a school is 
combined into one school-wide pass rate. Consequently, there is not a separate AYP starting point for 
each grade span in which tests are administered. 
Each AYP starting point was determined consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(E) of NCLB and with final 
Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002. The AYP starting point for each of reading/language arts 
and mathematics is based upon the percentage of students scoring at least at the proficient level (pass 
rate) on statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics. In Virginias current 
accountability system, assessments for a given school year include those assessments administered in a 
summer, fall, spring cycle. A seven-step process was followed that used student performance data from 
the 2001-2002 school year (tests taken in summer 2001, fall 2001, and spring 2002) and data from 2000-
2001 and 1999-2000 school years (tests taken in summer 1999, fall 1999, and spring 2000; and summer 
2000, fall 2000, and spring 2001). 
Resulting potential starting points for each of reading/language arts and mathematics were compared to 
determine which set of data (single year or three-year trend data) yielded the starting points most 
reflective of where student achievement in Virginia started in relation to the current accountability 
system. 
The following seven steps were taken to find starting points for each of reading/language arts and 
mathematics using the above data sets: 
1. Included in calculations pass rates on SOL tests, available pass rates on Board-approved 
substitute tests, and pass rates on alternate assessments for grades 3, 5, 8 and end-of-course 
statewide assessments (included first-time test takers only). 
2. Calculated statewide pass rates for each of reading/language arts and mathematics (as a 
percentage) by dividing the number of students K-12 passing statewide assessments in each 
content area by the number of students taking tests in grades/courses for which there were 
associated statewide assessments in each content area, based upon K-12 statewide 
assessments taken in summer, fall, and spring of the school year(s) (first-time test takers). 
3. Disaggregated statewide data in each content area by subgroups, and identified the pass rate of 
the lowest performing subgroup. Subgroups were: limited English proficient; economically 
disadvantaged; students with disabilities as identified under IDEA; and major racial/ethnic groups 
(American Indian/Alaska Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; Hispanic; 
White, not of Hispanic origin; unspecified). 
4. Identified the 20th percentile pass rate for each of reading/language arts and mathematics by rank 
ordering schools from lowest school-wide pass rate to highest school-wide pass rate; and adding 
up the number of students enrolled, beginning with the lowest performing school and continuing 
until the school was reached that contained the student in the 20th percentile of students enrolled 
in all schools in the state. 
35 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
5. For each of reading/language arts and mathematics, compared the lowest disaggregated pass 
rate found in Step 3 to the 20th percentile pass rate found in Step 4. 
6. Chose the higher value as the starting point (20th percentile). 
7. Rounded each starting point to the nearest tenth of a percent. 
Three-year trend data, including 2001-2002 data, yielded the most accurate reflection of where student 
achievement in Virginia started, both for student performance on reading/language arts assessments 
and for mathematics assessments. The starting points for student performance on statewide 
assessments, expressed as pass rate percents, are: 
Reading/language arts: 60.7 
Mathematics: 58.4 
This consolidated application workbook is based on the interpretation of NCLB regulations as mandating 
a single starting point in both English and math for all reporting categories for purposes of establishing 
progress benchmarks for AYP between now and 2014. Should the NCLB regulations permit it, in the 
alternative, the Virginia SEA would request to establish individual starting points in each reporting 
category which would be based upon actual data of student performance in each reporting category for 
the prior three years. 
36 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
23.2b. What are the States 
annual measurable objectives 
for determining adequate 
yearly progress? 
State has annual measurable 
objectives that are consistent 
with a states intermediate 
goals and that identify for 
each year a minimum 
percentage of students who 
must meet or exceed the 
proficient level of academic 
achievement on the States 
academic assessments. 
The States annual 
measurable objectives ensure 
that all students meet or 
exceed the States proficient 
level of academic 
achievement within the 
timeline. 
The States annual 
measurable objectives are the 
same throughout the State for 
each public school, each LEA, 
and each subgroup of 
students. 
The State Accountability System uses 
another method for calculating annual 
measurable objectives. 
The State Accountability System does 
not include annual measurable 
objectives. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Annual Measurable Objectives for Reading/Language Arts 
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(G) of NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, one 
set of annual measurable objectives has been established for each school year beginning in 2002-2003 
and ending in 2013-2014. Annual measurable objectives are expressed as percent of students scoring at 
least proficient on statewide assessments (pass rates). When determining annual measurable objectives, 
consideration was given to the range between the starting point and the 100% goal in 2013-2014; the 
percent proficient at each interim goal; the pattern of past student performance; and the introduction of 
new tests. As allowable under final Title I regulations, annual measurable objectives will be reevaluated 
and adjusted periodically, especially as new tests are introduced (2005-06). 
These are the annual measurable objectives for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup 
identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs, and for the State, expressed as 
pass rate percents: 
37 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 
Int. 

Int. 

Int. 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal: 

61.0 

61.0 

70.0 

70.0 

80.0 

80.0 

90.0

60.7 

70.0 

80.0 

90.0 

90.0 

100% 

Consistent with current practice, assessment data for reading/language arts will be combined across all 
tested grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
percent of students scoring at least proficient when determining whether or not AYP has been made in 
reading/language arts. 

Annual Measurable Objectives for Mathematics 
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(G) of NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, one 
set of annual measurable objectives has been established for each school year beginning in 2002-2003 
and ending in 2013-2014. Annual measurable objectives are expressed as percent of students scoring at 
least proficient on statewide assessments (pass rates). When determining annual measurable objectives, 
consideration was given to the range between the starting point and the 100% goal in 2013-2014; the 
percent proficient at each interim goal; the pattern of past student performance; and the introduction of 
new tests. As allowable under final Title I regulations, annual measurable objectives will be reevaluated 
and adjusted periodically, especially as new tests are introduced (2005-06). 

These are the annual measurable objectives for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup 
identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs; and for the State, expressed as 
pass rate percents: 

2001

2002

2004

2005

2007

2008

2010

20132002 

2003

2006

2009

2011

2012

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 

Int. 

Int. 

Int. 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal: 

58.4 

59.0 

59.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

80.0 

80.0 

80.0 

90.0 

90.0 

90.0 

100% 

Consistent with current practice, assessment data for mathematics will be combined across all tested 
grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and percent 
of students scoring at least proficient when determining whether or not AYP has been made in 
mathematics. 

Virginia will revise the annual proficiency targets (annual measurable objectives) for reading and 
mathematics to reflect an annual increase. The targets currently increase from 61 percent in reading and 
59 percent in mathematics in 2003-2004 to 70 percent in reading and mathematics in 2004-2005. 
Beginning in 2004-2005, the revised proficiency target for reading will be 65 percent and the revised 
proficiency target for mathematics will be 63 percent. 

38 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Revised NCLB AYP Targets (Annual Measurable Objectives) 
Reading Mathematics Year 
%Prof 
Current 
%Prof 
Revised 
Increase %Prof Current %Prof 
Revised 
Increase 
2001-02 60.7 60.7 Base 58.4 58.4 Base 
2002-03 61 61 0 59 59 0 
2003-04 61 61 0 59 59 0 
2004-05 70 65 4 70 63 4 
2005-06 70 69 4 70 67 4 
2006-07 70 73 4 70 71 4 
2007-08 80 77 4 80 75 4 
2008-09 80 81 4 80 79 4 
2009-10 80 85 4 80 83 4 
2010-11 90 89 4 90 87 4 
2011-12 90 93 4 90 91 4 
2012-13 90 97 4 90 95 4 
2013-14 100 100 3 100 100 5 
Annual Measurable Objectives for Graduation Rate 
Virginia has historically calculated and reported a graduation rate for the state and school divisions that is 
defined as graduates as a percent of ninth-grade membership four years earlier. For the past 10 years, 
Virginias state graduation rate using this calculation has ranged from a low of 73.2 percent to a high of 

76.5 percent. The state graduation rate for 2002 is 74 percent (See Attachment A: Graduates as a Percent 
of Ninth-Grade Membership Four Years Earlier). 
Because Virginia does not have a student record system, this calculation does not account for school 
openings and closings, boundary changes, and the mobility of the student population. When 
disaggregated by school and student subgroup, the rate produces unreliable results. 

Virginia intends to implement a student record system over the next three to five years. This system will 
enable us to calculate a true longitudinal rate that is based on a cohort of first-time ninth graders plus 
incoming transfers on the same schedule to graduate divided by this same cohort minus students who 
transfer out (See Attachment A: Graduates as a Percent of Ninth-Grade Membership Four Years Earlier). 

In the meantime, Virginia has adopted a graduation rate that is consistent with the directive in Virginias 
July 1, 2003 USED letter of approval. Please refer to Critical Element 7.1 for additional information about 
graduation rate. 

The formula was used to calculate graduation rates for each school with a graduating class in 2001-2002. 
These rates ranged from a low of 27.4 percent to a high of 100 percent. Using this formula, the 2001-2002 
state graduation rate is 79.9 percent. 

The starting point for graduation rate, 57 percent, was determined by ranking the schools by graduation 
rate and selecting the median graduation rate of the schools in the lower decile. This is not meant to imply 
that approximately 40 percent of Virginia students will not earn a high school diploma. Based on historical 
data, this starting point is a reasonable beginning point by which to measure the progress of our schools, 
divisions, and state in making adequate yearly progress by subgroups. 

From this starting point, annual measurable objectives (state targets) for graduation rate were established 
that apply to the state, all school divisions, and all schools with a graduating class. These annual 
measurable objectives serve to determine if all students, and subgroups of students when applying "safe 
harbor" provisions, identified in section 1111 (b)(2)(C) made progress in this indicator. 

39 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
These are the annual measurable objectives for graduation rate, expressed as percents: 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Data 

57 

57 

57 

57 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD

57 


This definition of graduation rate and the state target will be used until a student record system is instituted 
(estimated to be within three to five years), which will provide a more accurate accounting of the 
graduation rate in Virginia. As suggested in the July 1, 2003, USED letter of approval, for purposes of 
calculating whether a school or division makes AYP using the safe harbor method, Virginia will use an 
alternative additional indicator that can be disaggregated until 2005-2006 when Virginia will be positioned 
to generate a graduation rate definition that can be disaggregated consistent with NCLB requirements. 
During this transition period, Virginia will use Science Standards of Learning assessment scores as the 
alternative additional indicator for safe harbor purposes at the high school level. The state annual 
measurable objective (state target) for measuring progress in science will be set at 70 percent proficient, 
consistent with provisions in the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in 
Virginia. 

Annual Measurable Objectives for Other Academic Indicator for Elementary and Middle Schools 

In the Consolidated Application approved by USED July 2, 2002, absenteeism was identified as the other 
academic indicator for all elementary and middle schools. This indicator has been redefined as 
attendance rate, to focus on an indicator of positive student behavior. The indicator for all elementary and 
middle schools and any school not having a graduating class is attendance rate, Prior to the beginning of a 
school year, each school division shall choose for each of its elementary and middle schools and schools 
without a graduating class either attendance or performance on state science assessments as the other 
academic indicator. The choice of using either attendance rate or science state assessment results as the 
other academic indicator also will apply to the safe harbor AYP calculation methodology. The 
attendance rate will be expressed as average daily attendance (ADA) percent. The annual measurable 
(state target) for measuring progress in science will be set a 70 percent proficient, consistent with 
provisions in the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia. 

ADA percent for a school year is calculated by dividing the average daily attendance by average daily 
membership. The annual measurable objectives established for ADA percent serve as annual measurable 
objectives for all elementary and middle schools and for any school not having a gradating class; for all 
LEAs and for the state. These annual measurable objectives serve to determine if all students, and 
subgroups of students when applying "safe harbor" provisions, identified in section 1111 (b)(2)(C) made 
progress in this indicator. For 2002-2003 AYP calculations, Virginia will use Science Standards of Learning 
assessment scores as the alternative additional indicator in lieu of attendance for purposes of calculating 
whether a school or division makes AYP using the safe harbor method. Virginia currently does not have 
disaggregated attendance rate data available for use in determining 2002-2003 AYP designations using 
the safe harbor method. 

Data were analyzed from 2001-2002 to determine an ADA percent for the first annual measurable 
objective. The first annual measurable objective for ADA percent is the median ADA percent of the 
schools in the lower decile, when ranking schools by ADA percent. Data were analyzed from 2001-2002 
to determine an ADA percent for the goal. The goal for ADA percent is the median ADA percent of the 
schools in the highest decile, when ranking schools by ADA percent. 

These are the annual measurable objectives in attendance for all students in the aggregate and for each 
subgroup identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs; and for the State, 

40 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
expressed as ADA percent: 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Data 

Goal: 

93.4 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

94.0 

95.0 

95.0 

95.0 

96.0 

96.0 

96.0 

97.0 

These are the annual measurable objectives in science, expressed as percents: 

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 

Int. 

Int. 

Int. 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal: 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0%

70.0 

70.0 

41 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
3.2c. What are the States 
intermediate goals for 
determining adequate yearly 
progress? 
State has established 
intermediate goals that 
increase in equal increments 
over the period covered by the 
State timeline. 
 The first incremental 
increase takes effect not 
later than the 2004-2005 
academic year. 
 Each following incremental 
increase occurs within 
three years. 
The State uses another method for 
calculating intermediate goals. 
The State does not include 
intermediate goals in its definition of 
adequate yearly progress. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Intermediate Goals for Reading/Language Arts 
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(H) of NCLB, one set of intermediate goals for all reading/language 
arts assessments has been established. The intermediate goals are expressed as percent of students 
scoring at least proficient on statewide assessments (pass rates). 
The intermediate goals are three years apart, beginning with the 2004-2005 school year. The increase 
in pass rate from one intermediate goal to the next is equal. To determine the values of the intermediate 
goals, the difference between the starting point and the goal was divided by four. That value determined 
the increase from one intermediate goal to the next. 
These are the intermediate goals for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup identified in 
section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs; and for the State, expressed as pass rate 
percents: 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 


Int. 

Int. 

Int. 

Goal: 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

100% 

60.7 
70.0 
80.0 
90.0 
The placement of intermediate goals and their corresponding pass rates will be re-evaluated in at least 
2004-2005 to reflect refinement of data collection systems and introduction of new tests in mathematics 
in 2005-2006. 
See Critical Element 3.2(b) for revised AYP targets beginning in 2004-2005. 
42 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Intermediate Goals for Mathematics 
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(H) of NCLB, one set of intermediate goals for all reading/language 
arts assessments has been established. The intermediate goals are expressed as percent of students 
scoring at least proficient on statewide assessments (pass rates). 
The intermediate goals are three years apart, beginning with the 2004-2005 school year. The increase 
in pass rate from one intermediate goal to the next is equal. The increase in pass rate from one 
intermediate goal to the next is equal. To determine the values of the intermediate goals, the difference 
between the starting point and the goal was divided by four. That value determined the increase from 
one intermediate goal to the next. 
These are the intermediate goals for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup identified in 
section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs; and for the State, expressed as pass rate 
percents: 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 


Int. 

Int. 

Int. 

Goal: 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

100% 

58.4 
70.0 
80.0 
90.0 
The placement of intermediate goals and their corresponding pass rates will be re-evaluated in at least 
2004-2005 to reflect refinement of data collection systems and introduction of new tests in mathematics 
in 2005-2006. 
See Critical Element 3.2(b) for revised AYP targets beginning in 2004-2005 
43 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
4.1 How does the State 
Accountability System make 
an annual determination of 
whether each public school 
and LEA in the State made 
AYP? 
AYP decisions for each 
public school and LEA are 
made annually.3 
AYP decisions for public schools and 
LEAs are not made annually. 
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
In September 2000, the Board of Education refined its Regulations Establishing Standards for 
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia, hereafter referred to as the Standards of Accreditation. The 
overriding goal of the Standards of Accreditation is to link statewide criterion-referenced tests to the 
Standards of Learning and to hold all students, all schools, and all LEAs accountable for results. The 
text of the Standards of Accreditation can be found at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf. 
Under this accountability system, certain percentages of students schoolwide must score at least at the 
proficient level on statewide assessments in each of the four content areas (mathematics, science, 
English [reading/language arts], and history and the social sciences) for schools to be eligible to receive 
one of four accreditation ratings. 
The Standards of Accreditation phase in, from 2000-2001 through 2003-2004, increasing student pass 
rate requirements called benchmarks that determine which of the accreditation ratings listed below is 
assigned to an individual school. The established annual benchmarks and accompanying ratings are 
found at http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf ,p. 44. 
The specific accreditation ratings, fully described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf, p. 37, are summarized below: 
Fully Accredited: at least 70 percent of students score proficient or better (pass) in each of four content 
areas, English (reading/language arts), mathematics, science, history/social sciences (except that grade 
3 science and history/social sciences are not required to be factored in until 2003-2004) 
Provisionally Accredited/Meets State Standards: the lowest schoolwide student pass rate is no lower 
than the benchmark in any one of the four content areas 
Provisionally Accredited/Needs Improvement: the lowest schoolwide student pass rate is between 1 
percent and 19 percent below the benchmark in any one of the four content areas 
Accredited with Warning: the lowest schoolwide student pass rate is 20 percent or more below the 
benchmark in any one of the four content areas 
Schools that have no tested grades are paired with other schools that serve students who attended 
those non-testing schools in a feeder relationship for accreditation and AYP determinations. 
3 Decisions may be based upon several years of data and data may be averaged across grades 
within a public school [1111(b)(2)(J)]. 

44 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Beginning with data from the 2002-2003 school year, school-level and division-level data regarding 
student pass rates [first-time test takers in the aggregate and for each subgroup identified in section 
1111(b)(2)(c)] on statewide assessments, graduation rate (secondary schools and division), and 
attendance rate or science (elementary, middle schools and division) will be analyzed to determine 
whether or not each school/LEA and the state has made AYP for that year. Schools and LEAs not 
making AYP will be identified for improvement or corrective action in a manner consistent with sections 
1116(b) and 1116(c) of NCLB and as described under Critical Element 1.6 of this consolidated 
accountability workbook. In addition, schools and LEAs receiving Title I, Part A funding will receive 
sanctions in a manner consistent with sections 1116(b) and 1116(c) of NCLB, respectively, and as 
described under Critical Element 1.6 of this consolidated application workbook. Schools exceeding AYP 
will be identified for recognitions. In addition, schools receiving Title I, Part A funding will receive 
recognition in a manner consistent with section 1117(b) of NCLB and as described and as described 
under Critical Element 1.6 of this consolidated application workbook. 
Consistent with current practice, assessment data for a content area will be combined across all tested 
grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
percent of students scoring at least proficient when determining whether or not AYP has been made in 
that content area. 
Beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, division-wide student performance data will be used to 
identify divisions making or not making adequate yearly progress. 
45 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
PRINCIPLE 5. All public schools and LEAs are held accountable for the achievement of 
individual subgroups. 

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
5.1 How does the definition of 
adequate yearly progress 
include all the required student 
subgroups? 
Identifies subgroups for 
defining adequately yearly 
progress: economically 
disadvantaged, major racial 
and ethnic groups, students 
with disabilities, and students 
with limited English 
proficiency. 
Provides definition and data 
source of subgroups for 
adequate yearly progress. 
State does not disaggregate data by 
each required student subgroup. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Consistent with NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, the Virginia Department of 
Education will disaggregate the data for all student subgroups identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) in order 
to make determinations regarding adequate yearly progress. 
The term economically disadvantaged means the student is eligible to participate in the Free or 
Reduced Lunch Program under the National School Lunch Act. 
The term racial/ethnic category describes the group which most clearly reflects the childs 
recognition of his or her community or with which the individual most identifies. Virginia will 
disaggregate student data by major racial/ethnic groups represented in the state. The major 
racial/ethnic groups in Virginia have been identified as White (not of Hispanic origin), Black (not of 
Hispanic origin), and Hispanic. These groups were selected because they exceed five percent of 
the student population in Virginia. Virginia will continue its practice of reporting student 
achievement for these racial/ethnic groups and for Alaskan/American Native and Asian/Pacific 
Islander, providing there are at least 10 students in these racial/ethnic groups as indicated in 
Critical Element 5.5. 
The term students with disabilities means the students are eligible for services under the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and who have individualized education programs (IEPs). 
Individualized education program means a written statement for a child with a disability that is 
developed, reviewed, and revised in a team meeting in accordance with the Regulations Governing 
Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia. The IEP specifies the individual 
educational needs of the child and what special education and related services are necessary to meet 
the needs. 
The term limited English proficient when used with respect to an individual, means an individual 
(A) who is aged 3 through 21; 
(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school; 
(C) (i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than 
46 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
English; 
(ii) (I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and 
(II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a 
significant impact on the individuals level of English language proficiency; or 
(iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes 
from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and 
(D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be 
sufficient to deny the individual 
(i) the ability to meet the States proficient level of achievement on State assessments described 
in section 1111(b)(3); 
(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; 
or 
(iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society. 
[P.L. 107-110, Title IX, Part A, Sec. 9101, (25)] 
Definitions are provided on the Virginia Department of Education Web site at: 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Publications/NCLB/student.html 
The Virginia Standards of Learning Assessments Manual for the Division Director of Testing provides 
definitions for identifying the subgroups, and it can be found at: 
pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/Fall02MCManuals/VA02FALL_DDOT_MC.pdf 
The state obtains subgroup information from the demographic pages of the Standards of Learning 
assessment student answer document. Each answer document includes fields that are used to identify 
each of the subgroup classifications/codes. 
The source of student subgroup information is the school or school divisions student information system. 
47 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING 
REQUIREMENTS 
5.2 How are public schools and 
LEAs held accountable for the 
progress of student subgroups in 
the determination of adequate 
yearly progress? 
Public schools and LEAs are 
held accountable for student 
subgroup achievement: 
economically disadvantaged, 
major ethnic and racial groups, 
students with disabilities, and 
limited English proficient 
students. 
State does not include student 
subgroups in its State 
Accountability System. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Annual Measurable Objectives for Reading/Language Arts 
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(G) of NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, 
one set of annual measurable objectives has been established for each school year beginning in 2002-
2003 and ending in 2013-2014. Annual measurable objectives are expressed as percent of students 
scoring at least proficient on statewide assessments (pass rates). When determining annual measurable 
objectives, consideration was given to the range between the starting point and the 100% goal in 2013-
2014; the percent proficient at each interim goal; the pattern of past student performance; and the 
introduction of new tests. As allowable under final Title I regulations, annual measurable objectives will 
be reevaluated and adjusted periodically, especially as new tests are introduced (2005-06). 
These are the annual measurable objectives for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup 
identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB and defined in critical element 5.1; for all schools; for all LEAs, 
and for the State, expressed as pass rate percents: 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point


Int. 

Int. 

Int. 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal: 

60.7 
61.0 
61.0 
70.0 
70.0 
70.0 
80.0 
80.0 
80.0 
90.0 
90.0 
90.0 
100% 


Consistent with current practice, assessment data for reading/language arts will be combined across all 
tested grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
percent of students scoring at least proficient when determining whether or not AYP has been made in 
reading language/arts. 

Annual Measurable Objectives for Mathematics 
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(G) of NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, 
one set of annual measurable objectives has been established for each school year beginning in 20022003 and ending in 2013-2014. Annual measurable objectives are expressed as percent of students 
scoring at least proficient on statewide assessments (pass rates). When determining annual measurable 
objectives, consideration was given to the range between the starting point and the 100% goal in 20132014; the percent proficient at each interim goal; the pattern of past student performance; and the 

48 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
introduction of new tests. As allowable under final Title I regulations, annual measurable objectives will 
be reevaluated and adjusted periodically, especially as new tests are introduced (2005-06). 
These are the annual measurable objectives for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup 
identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB and defined in critical element 5.1; for all schools; for all LEAs; 
and for the State, expressed as pass rate percents: 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 

Int. 

Int. 

Int. 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal: 

59.0 

59.0 

70.0 

70.0 

80.0 

80.0 

90.0

58.4 

70.0 

80.0 

90.0 

90.0 

100% 

Consistent with current practice, assessment data for mathematics will be combined across all tested 
grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
percent of students scoring at least proficient when determining whether or not AYP has been made in 
mathematics. 

Virginia will revise the annual proficiency targets (annual measurable objectives) for reading and 
mathematics to reflect an annual increase. The targets currently increase from 61 percent in reading and 
59 percent in mathematics in 2003-2004 to 70 percent in reading and mathematics in 2004-2005. 
Beginning in 2004-2005, the revised proficiency target for reading will be 65 percent and the revised 
proficiency target for mathematics will be 63 percent. 

Revised NCLB AYP Targets (Annual Measurable Objectives)
Year


Reading 

Mathematics 
%Prof 

%Prof 

Increase

 %Prof Current

 %Prof 

Increase 
Current 

Revised 

Revised
2001-02


 60.7 
60.7 
Base

 58.4 
58.4 
Base
2002-03


 61

 61

 0

 59

 59

 0
2003-04


 61

 61

 0

 59

 59

 0
2004-05


 70

 65

 4

 70

 63

 4
2005-06


 70

 69

 4

 70

 67

 4
2006-07


 70

 73

 4

 70

 71

 4
2007-08


 80

 77

 4

 80

 75

 4
2008-09


 80

 81

 4

 80

 79

 4
2009-10


 80

 85

 4

 80

 83

 4
2010-11


 90

 89

 4

 90

 87

 4
2011-12


 90

 93

 4

 90

 91

 4
2012-13


 90

 97

 4

 90

 95

 4
2013-14


 100

 100

 3

 100

 100

 5 

Annual Measurable Objectives for Graduation Rate 
Virginia has historically calculated and reported a graduation rate for the state and school divisions that is 
defined as graduates as a percent of ninth-grade membership four years earlier. For the past 10 years, 
Virginias state graduation rate using this calculation has ranged from a low of 73.2 percent to a high of 

76.5 percent. The state graduation rate for 2002 is 74 percent (See Attachment A: Graduates as a 
Percent of Ninth-Grade Membership Four Years Earlier). 
49 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Because Virginia does not have a student record system, this calculation does not account for school 
openings and closings, boundary changes, and the mobility of the student population. When 
disaggregated by school and student subgroup, the rate produces unreliable results. 
Virginia intends to implement a student record system over the next three to five years. This system will 
enable us to calculate a true longitudinal rate that is based on a cohort of first-time ninth graders plus 
incoming transfers on the same schedule to graduate divided by this same cohort minus students who 
transfer out (See Attachment A: Graduates as a Percent of Ninth-Grade Membership Four Years 
Earlier). 
In the meantime, Virginia has adopted a graduation rate that is consistent with the directive in Virginias 
July 1, 2003 USED letter of approval. Please refer to Critical Element 7.1 for additional information about 
graduation rate. 
The formula was used to calculate graduation rates for each school with a graduating class in 2001-2002. 
These rates ranged from a low of 27.4 percent to a high of 100 percent. Using this formula, the 2001-
2002 state graduation rate is 79.9 percent. 
The starting point for graduation rate, 57 percent, was determined by ranking the schools by graduation 
rate and selecting the median graduation rate of the schools in the lower decile. This is not meant to 
imply that approximately 40 percent of Virginia students will not earn a high school diploma. Based on 
historical data, this starting point is a reasonable beginning point by which to measure the progress of our 
schools, divisions, and state in making adequate yearly progress by subgroups. 
From this starting point, annual measurable objectives (state targets) for graduation rate were established 
that apply to the state, all school divisions, and all schools with a graduating class. These annual 
measurable objectives serve to determine if all students, and subgroups of students when applying "safe 
harbor" provisions, identified in section 1111 (b)(2)(C) made progress in this indicator. 
These are the annual measurable objectives for graduation rate, expressed as percents: 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Data 

57 

57 

57 

57 

57 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 


This definition of graduation rate and the state target will be used until a student record system is 
instituted (estimated to be within three to five years), which will provide a more accurate accounting of the 
graduation rate in Virginia. As suggested in July 1, 2003, USED letter of approval, for purposes of 
calculating whether a school or division makes AYP using the safe harbor method, Virginia will use an 
alternative additional indicator that can be disaggregated until 2005-2006 when Virginia will be positioned 
to generate a graduation rate definition that can be disaggregated consistent with NCLB requirements. 
During this transition period, Virginia will use Science Standards of Learning assessment scores as the 
alternative additional indicator for safe harbor purposes at the high school level. The state annual 
measurable objective (state target) for measuring progress in science will be set at 70 percent proficient, 
consistent with provisions in the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in 
Virginia. 

The state accountability system in Virginia prescribed in the Regulations Establishing Standards for 
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (the SOA or Standards of Accreditation) 
[ http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf ] includes all schools and LEAs. The 
standards for accrediting public schools require that In kindergarten through eighth grade, where SOL 

50 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
tests are administered, each student shall be expected to take the SOL tests... and Each student in 
middle and secondary schools shall take all applicable end-of-course SOL tests following course 
instruction.... Students enrolled in a grade level or course for which there are associated SOL tests are 
expected to participate in the testing program by taking one of the statewide assessments listed in Critical 
Element 3.2. 
Policies have been developed to ensure that all LEAs are held accountable. 
Annual Measurable Objectives for Other Academic Indicator for Elementary and Middle Schools 
In the Consolidated Application approved by USED July 2, 2002, absenteeism was identified as the other 
academic indicator for all elementary and middle schools. This indicator has been redefined as 
attendance rate, to focus on an indicator of positive student behavior. The indicator for all elementary 
and middle schools and any school not having a graduating class is attendance rate, Prior to the 
beginning of a school year, each school division shall choose for each of its elementary and middle 
schools and schools without a graduating class either attendance or performance on state science 
assessments as the other academic indicator. The choice of using either attendance rate or science 
state assessment results as the other academic indicator also will apply to the safe harbor AYP 
calculation methodology. The attendance rate will be expressed as average daily attendance (ADA) 
percent. The annual measurable (state target) for measuring progress in science will be set a 70 percent 
proficient, consistent with provisions in the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public 
Schools in Virginia. 
ADA percent for a school year is calculated by dividing the average daily attendance by average daily 
membership. The annual measurable objectives established for ADA percent serve as annual 
measurable objectives for all elementary and middle schools and for any school not having a gradating 
class; for all LEAs and for the state. These annual measurable objectives serve to determine if all 
students, and subgroups of students when applying "safe harbor" provisions, identified in section 1111 
(b)(2)(C) made progress in this indicator. For 2002-2003 AYP calculations, Virginia will use Science 
Standards of Learning assessment scores as the alternative additional indicator in lieu of attendance for 
purposes of calculating whether a school or division makes AYP using the safe harbor method. Virginia 
currently does not have disaggregated attendance rate data available for use in determining 2002-2003 
AYP designations using the safe harbor method. 
Data were analyzed from 2001-2002 to determine an ADA percent for the first annual measurable 
objective. The first annual measurable objective for ADA percent is the median ADA percent of the 
schools in the lower decile, when ranking schools by ADA percent. Data were analyzed from 2001-2002 
to determine an ADA percent for the goal. The goal for ADA percent is the median ADA percent of the 
schools in the highest decile, when ranking schools by ADA percent. 
These are the annual measurable objectives in attendance for all students in the aggregate and for each 
subgroup identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs; and for the State, 
expressed as ADA percent: 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Data 

Goal: 

93.4 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
94.0 
95.0 
95.0 
95.0 
96.0 
96.0 
96.0 
97.0 
51 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
These are the annual measurable objectives in science, expressed as percents: 
20012002 
Starting 
Point 
20022003 
20032004` 
20042005 
20052006 
20062007 
20072008 
20082009 
20092010 
20102011 
20112012 
70.0 70.0 70.0 
Int. 
Goal 
70.0 70.0 70.0 
Int. 
Goal 
70.0 70.0 70.0 
Int. 
Goal 
70.0 70.0 
20122013 
70.0 
20132014 
Goal: 
70.0% 

52 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT 
EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENT 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
5.3 How are students with 
disabilities included in the 
States definition of adequate 
yearly progress? 
All students with disabilities 
participate in statewide 
assessments: general 
assessments with or without 
accommodations or an 
alternate assessment based 
on grade level standards for 
the grade in which students 
are enrolled. 
State demonstrates that 
students with disabilities are 
fully included in the State 
Accountability System. 
The State Accountability System or 
State policy excludes students with 
disabilities from participating in the 
statewide assessments. 
State cannot demonstrate that 
alternate assessments measure 
grade-level standards for the grade in 
which students are enrolled. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 

Students with disabilities comprise one of the subgroups addressed in Critical Element 5.1. All students 
with disabilities will participate in the state assessment program either through the Standards of Learning 
assessments, with or without accommodations, or through the Virginia Alternate Assessment Program. 

Virginia will continue to assess students with the most significant cognitive disabilities with alternate 
assessments that are measured against alternate achievement standards defined under Sec. 200.1(d) 34 
CFR Part 200, Title I  Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Proposed Rule 
(Federal Register: March 20, 2003) and aligned with Virginias academic content standards. These 
alternate achievement standards are based upon the educational needs of students as identified by their 
IEP teams properly convened under the IDEA and reflecting the professional judgment of the highest 
learning standards possible for these students. For accountability purposes, the number or percentage of 
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities taking these alternate assessments as defined in 
Sec. 200.1(d) is not expected to exceed the limit established under federal regulations. Virginia will not 
adopt policies that limit the number or type of students with disabilities who can take such alternate 
assessments. Scores from both the Standards of Learning assessments and the alternate assessment 
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities will be included in the calculations of adequate 
yearly progress (AYP) for schools, school divisions and the state. Effective with the 2002-2003 20052006 academic year, the USED has directed Virginia to limit to 1% given Virginia the flexibility to include 

1.1 percent of the number of scores from these alternate assessments for children with the most severe 
cognitive disabilities that can be counted as proficient in AYP calculations. As a statement of public 
record, let it be clear that Virginia is agreeing to this directive under protest and only because the USED 
has made it clear it is mandating it. 
In addition, Virginia will develop and administer alternate assessments measured against achievement 
standards as defined in Sec. 200.1(c) of the final Title I regulations for standards and assessments 
(Federal Register: July 5, 2002) as determined appropriate by their IEP teams, for students with 
disabilities, as defined under section 1401(3) of the IDEA, who cannot participate in all or part of the state 
Standards of Learning assessments in English/reading, mathematics, and science, even with appropriate 
accommodations. These alternate assessments will be designed to yield results for the grade in which 
the student is enrolled. For accountability purposes, the number or percentage of students taking these 
alternate assessments measured against achievement standards as defined in proposed Sec. 200.1(c), 

53 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
as determined appropriate by their IEP teams, will not be limited. Scores of students participating in the 
newly-developed alternate assessments also will be included in the calculations of adequate yearly 
progress (AYP) for schools, school divisions and the state. 

To ensure accountability, Virginia will monitor the percentages of students with disabilities taking these 
alternate assessments to ensure that all students with disabilities are appropriately included in Virginias 
Standards of Learning assessment program. 

As directed by USED, beginning in the 2003-2004 academic year, students with disabilities participating 
in local assessments, as deemed appropriate by IEP teams under IDEA and under Virginia Board of 
Education regulations, will be counted as non-participants when calculating participation rates, even 
though school divisions were following testing policies required in the Regulations Establishing Standards 
for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia. As a statement of public record, let it be clear that Virginia is 
agreeing to this directive under protest and only because the USED has made it clear it is mandating it. 

Consistent with USED requirements of all states, newly-developed assessments will be used for 
measuring students proficiency after they have been approved through the USED Standards and Review 
process. 

Virginia will implement the Secretarys Transition Option #1 (2 percent proxy) for the inclusion of students 
with disabilities in the calculation of adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the 2005-2006 year, based on 
assessments administered to those students during the 2004-2005 school year and for the 2006-2007 
year, based on assessments administered to those students during the 2005-2006 school year. The 
proxy will be calculated in accordance with guidance disseminated by USED on May 10, 2005. The proxy 
percentages are 14 percent for reading and 17 percent for mathematics. In addition, Virginia will develop 
modified achievement standards in accordance with federal requirements. 

Documentation: 

Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia, approved by 
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, are consistent with 
requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the participation of students 
with disabilities in statewide assessment programs (8 VAC 20-80-62 E.5). The regulations are found at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Sped/varegs.pdf. 

Guidelines for the Participation of Students with Disabilities in the Assessment Component of Virginia's 
Accountability System, adopted by the Board of Education September 26, 2002, requires that all students 
with disabilities be included in the state accountability system through the Standards of Learning 
Assessments, with or without accommodations, or the Virginia Alternate Assessment program. The 
procedures also state the requirement that at least 95% of students with disabilities participate in 
assessments that measure adequate yearly progress of schools. The guidelines may be found at 

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/suptsmemos/2002/inf140a.pdf 

Virginia Department of Education's Procedures for Participation of Students with Disabilities in the 
Assessment Component of Virginia's Accountability System provides procedural guidance to LEAs in 
including students with disabilities in the state assessment program. This document describes standard 
and non-standard accommodations. The procedures may be found at 

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/suptsmemos/2002/inf140b.pdf 

A description of the current Virginia Alternate Assessment program may be found at 

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/Assess.PDF/imp-manual.pdf 

54 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
5.4 How are students with 
limited English proficiency 
included in the States 
definition of adequate 
yearly progress? 
All LEP students participate in 
statewide assessments: 
general assessments with or 
without accommodations or a 
native language version of the 
general assessment based on 
grade level standards. 
State demonstrates that LEP 
students are fully included in 
the State Accountability 
System. 
LEP students are not fully included in 
the State Accountability System. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Effective with the 2003-2004 academic year, all limited English proficient (LEP) students will participate in 
the Virginia state assessment program. LEP students in grades 3-8 at the lower levels (Level 1 and Level 
2) of English language proficiency will take the Standards of Learning assessments for English/reading 
and mathematics, with or without accommodations, or state-approved assessments linked to the 
Standards of Learning, such as those described below. LEP students cannot take assessments linked to 
the Standards of Learning for more than three consecutive years. Additionally, LEP students in their first 
year of enrollment in a U.S. school regardless of their English language proficiency level: 1) may take the 
Standards of Learning assessments for English/reading with or without accommodations, or state-
approved assessments linked to the Standards of Learning; and 2) will take the Standards of Learning 
assessments for mathematics with or without accommodations. LEP students who were enrolled on the 
first day of school and in continuous membership until the test administration will be considered as in their 
first year of enrollment in a U.S. school. Decisions regarding LEP student participation in the state 
assessment program will be guided by the school-based committee as described in the Regulations 
Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia, 8 VAC 131-30 G. 
Virginia is one of 17 states that received funding as a consortium under a USED Enhanced Assessment 
Instruments Grant for development of an English Language Proficiency Assessment. The consortium, 
under the auspices of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), is developing an English 
Language Proficiency (ELP) assessment that will be linked to the English Standards of Learning. The 
assessment instrument will be available for implementation statewide by spring 2004 2005. The Board of 
Education may approve the use of additional English Language Proficiency assessments that are linked 
to Standards of Learning grade-level content standards. For the 2003-2005 school years, the Stanford 
English Language Proficiency (SELP) test will be designated as the state-approved assessment 
instrument linked directly to the English/reading Standards of Learning. 
In compliance with USED directives, for purposes of calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 
2002-2003, Virginia students who were given a one-time exemption from taking the English or 
mathematics Standards of Learning tests will be counted as non-participating even though school 
divisions were following testing policies required in the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting 
Public Schools in Virginia. As a statement of public record, let it be clear that Virginia is agreeing to this 
directive under protest and only because the USED has made it clear it is mandating it. 
55 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year, the scores of LEP students during their first year of enrollment 
in a U.S. school on the English/reading and mathematics Standards of Learning assessments or 
assessments linked to the Standards of Learning will be counted toward the 95% participation rate for the 
purposes of AYP, but they will not be included in the AYP calculations. 
Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year, for purposes of AYP calculations only, LEP students will be 
counted in the LEP subgroup for two years after they have been reclassified as non-LEP. 
Consistent with USED requirements of all states, newly-developed assessments will be used for 
measuring students proficiency after they have been approved through the USED Standards and Review 
process. 
56 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
5.5 What is the State's 
definition of the minimum 
number of students in a 
subgroup required for reporting 
purposes? For accountability 
purposes? 
State defines the number of 
students required in a subgroup 
for reporting and accountability 
purposes, and applies this 
definition consistently across the 
State.4 

Definition of subgroup will result 
in data that are statistically 
reliable. 

State does not define the required 
number of students in a subgroup 
for reporting and accountability 
purposes. 

Definition is not applied 
consistently across the State. 

Definition does not result in data 
that are statistically reliable. 

STATUS: F 

Minimum Number Used to Determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

Given the task of identifying the minimum number of students necessary (both in the aggregate and by 
subgroups) to ensure that information used to make decisions about AYP is sufficiently valid and 
reliable, Virginia identified the following challenges: 

 To identify low performing schools without inappropriately identifying successful schools or 
permitting unsuccessful schools to avoid accountability 
 To select a number that does not allow for an unacceptable degree of variability and that does 
not exclude an unacceptable number of students 
To accomplish the task, processes were established to answer the following questions; 

 At what number does the gain in reliability (stability) from having more students level off? 
 What number is so high that an unacceptable number of groups or subgroups will be excluded 
from AYP? 
Research determined that various approaches are used to identify a number of data points (or data sets) 
below which results may be unreliable. Student performance on Virginias statewide assessments was 
analyzed to reveal trend stability data and potential student exclusion patterns. 

The challenge in choosing a minimum n-count is in selecting a number that is large enough to minimize 
the year-to-year fluctuations due to differences in the cohort groups and also small enough so that large 
numbers of students and even schools are not excluded from the accountability system. In making this 
decision, technical, practical, and policy considerations must be balanced. 

Given the challenges and guiding questions noted at the beginning of this section, Virginia will use 50 or 
1 percent of the enrolled student population, whichever is greater, as the minimum n for the purposes of 
determining AYP for schools, school divisions, and the state. A cap of 200 students will be applied to all 
1 percent calculations. While the expectation is that all students will participate in statewide 
assessments no matter the number of these students, if fewer than the minimum n count 50 students 
are in a group or subgroup, the performance of the group will be included in the all students group and 

4 The minimum number is not required to be the same for reporting and accountability. 

57 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
not included as a subgroup when making AYP determinations. It will be presumed that these students 
will have made AYP, in accordance with federal guidance on this issue. These students will also be 
included in aggregate and disaggregated AYP calculations at the next highest level of accountability 
(LEA level and/or state level). 
Data and explanations supporting this decision a minimum n of 50 are found in Attachment B at the end 
of this document. 
Consistent with current practice, assessment data for a content area will be combined across all tested 
grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
minimum n for AYP purposes. 
Minimum Number Used for Reporting Purposes 
While the expectation is that all students will participate in statewide assessments no matter the number 
of these students, if fewer than 10 students are in a group or subgroup, the performance of the groups or 
subgroups will not be reported. Although from a statistical perspective, a minimum subgroup size of 
three protects the identity of the subgroup members, a minimum of 10 students in a group or subgroup 
will ensure that individual students are not personally identifiable. 
Consistent with current practice, assessment data for a content area will be combined across all tested 
grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
minimum n for reporting purposes. 
This number is consistent with the policy of a number of other state education agencies. While some 
agencies have identified higher reporting thresholds, a minimum number of 10 students will meet the 
requirements of No Child Left Behind while providing a comfort zone of confidentiality and ensuring 
compliance with the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. 
58 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
5.6 How does the State 
Accountability System protect 
the privacy of students when 
reporting results and when 
determining AYP? 
Definition does not reveal 
personally identifiable 
information.5 
Definition reveals personally 
identifiable information. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
When pass rates are 100% or 0%, this will be reported using >X% and <X% formats, respectively. 
To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Virginia 
Department of Education will not report subgroup performance of groups comprised of fewer than 10 
students. Although from a statistical perspective, a minimum subgroup size of three protects the identity 
of the subgroups members, a minimum of 10 students in a subgroup will ensure that individual students 
are not personally identifiable. This number is consistent with the policy of a number of other state 
education agencies, and while some agencies have identified higher reporting thresholds, it is the belief 
of the Virginia Department of Education that a minimum group of 10 students will meet the requirements 
of No Child Left Behind while providing a comfort zone of confidentiality. Finally, to protect the privacy of 
all students, the results of individual students are never reported for public dissemination. 
5 The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits an LEA that receives Federal 
funds from releasing, without the prior written consent of a students parents, any personally 
identifiable information contained in a students education record. 

59 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
PRINCIPLE 6. State definition of AYP is based primarily on the States academic 
assessments. 

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
6.1 How is the States 
definition of adequate yearly 
progress based primarily on 
academic assessments? 
Formula for AYP shows that 
decisions are based primarily 
on assessments.6 
Plan clearly identifies which 
assessments are included in 
accountability. 
Formula for AYP shows that 
decisions are based primarily on nonacademic indicators or indicators 
other than the State assessments. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
The indicators used to determine AYP are: 
1. Student performance on statewide assessments in reading/language arts. Statewide assessments 
include the following: 
Standards of Learning tests, including the Substitute Standards of Learning Evaluation Program 
for Certain Students with Disabilities Who Cannot Be Accommodated on Standards of Learning 
Tests; and state-approved assessments linked directly to Standards of Learning, as described in 
Critical Element 5.4 
Board-approved substitute tests listed at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/subassessment.pdf 
Alternate assessments measured against alternate achievement standards, required by the 
1997 IDEA, taken by some students with disabilities and described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Sped/ 
Alternate assessments measured against regular achievement standards as described in the 
March 20, 2003 Federal Register, taken by some students with disabilities, as proposed in 
Critical Element 5.3 
2. Student performance on statewide assessments in mathematics. Statewide assessments include the 
following: 
Standards of Learning tests, including the Substitute Standards of Learning Evaluation Program 
for Certain Students with Disabilities Who Cannot Be Accommodated on Standards of Learning 
Tests; and state-approved assessments linked directly to Standards of Learning, as described in 
Critical Element 5.4 
Board-approved substitute tests listed at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/subassessment.pdf 
Alternate assessments measured against alternate achievement standards, required by the 
1997 IDEA, taken by some students with disabilities and described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Sped/ 
Alternate assessments measured against regular achievement standards as described in the 
March 20, 2003 Federal Register, taken by some students with disabilities, as proposed in 
Critical Element 5.3 
6 State Assessment System will be reviewed by the Standards and Assessments Peer Review 
Team. 

60 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
3. Graduation rate for secondary schools and any school having a graduating class. Graduation rate is 
defined in Critical Element 7.1 of this consolidated application workbook. 
4. Attendance rate or science for elementary and middle schools and any school not having a 
graduating class. 
a. Attendance rate is defined in Critical Element 7.2 of this consolidated application workbook. 
b. Student performance on statewide assessments in science. Statewide assessments include 
the following: 
Standards of Learning tests, including the Substitute Standards of Learning Evaluation 
Program for Certain Students with Disabilities Who Cannot Be Accommodated on 
Standards of Learning Tests; and state-approved assessments linked directly to 
Standards of Learning, as described in Critical Element 5.4 
Board-approved substitute tests listed at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/subassessment.pdf 
Alternate assessments measured against alternate achievement standards, required by 
the 1997 IDEA, taken by some students with disabilities and described at 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Sped/ 
Alternate assessments measured against regular achievement standards as described 
in the March 20, 2003 Federal Register, taken by some students with disabilities, as 
proposed in Critical Element 5.3 
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(G) of NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, 
one set of annual measurable objectives has been established for each of reading/language arts, 
mathematics, graduation rate (for secondary schools and any school having a graduating class), and for 
attendance rate or science (for elementary schools, middle schools, and any school not having a 
graduating class). Annual measurable objectives for each of the aforementioned indicators have been 
established for each school year beginning in 2002-2003 and ending in 2013-2014, and annual 
objectives may or may not increase at equal increments. 
Annual measurable objectives for all indicators are described in Critical Element 3.2b. These are the 
annual objectives for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup identified in section 
1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs; and for the State. 
For a school, LEA or the state to make adequate yearly progress the following conditions must exist, 
consistent with NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002: 
At least 95% of the students (in the aggregate and by subgroups) enrolled in the course or grade level 
for which there are statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics participate in each 
of those statewide assessments; AND 
the pass rate for all students and all subgroups of students on reading/language arts 
assessments must be at least at the level of the annual measurable objective; AND 
the pass rate for all students and all subgroups of students on mathematics assessments must 
be at least at the level of the annual measurable objective; AND 
schoolwide (or divisionwide or statewide), students must be at the annual measurable objective 
for the other academic indicator(s) (graduation rate and/or attendance rate or science) or have 
made progress in the indicator(s); 
OR, consistent with the safe harbor provision of NCLB, 
the pass rate for all students or for any subgroup(s) of students on reading/language arts 
assessments is below the annual measurable objective; AND/OR 
the pass rate for all students or for any subgroup(s) of students on mathematics assessments is 
below the annual measurable objective; AND 
the failure rate(s) of those students has been reduced by at least 10% from the year before on 
that assessment; AND 
61 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
the students have made progress in the other academic indicator(s) (graduation rate and/or 
attendance rate or science). 
In compliance with USED directives, Virginia will follow the procedures for calculating adequate yearly 
progress (AYP) stated above as approved by USED in the September 10, 2003, amended workbook. As 
a statement of public record, let it be clear that Virginia is agreeing to this directive only because the 
USED has made it clear it is mandating it. Virginias understanding of Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(iv) is that 
the definition of AYP must include an other academic indicator but decisions about AYP shall be based 
primarily on participation rates and student achievement on reading and mathematics assessments. 
Additionally, It is our interpretation that Section 1111(b)(2)(G) and Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) define how 
AYP is determined, and these sections permit the state and any division or school that meets the 95 
percent participation rate and meets or exceeds the annual measurable objectives on the reading and 
mathematics assessments for all students as well as each subgroup to be designated as making AYP. 
We believe Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) states the other academic indicators must be considered only if safe 
harbor is invoked. 
Consistent with current practice, assessment data for a content area will be combined across all tested 
grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
percent of students scoring at least proficient when determining whether or not AYP has been made in 
that content area. 
A school, LEA or the State cannot be determined to have made adequate yearly progress if students, 
either in the aggregate or by subgroups, meet only the annual measurable objectives for graduation rate 
and/or attendance rate or science. 
62 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
7.1 What is the State 
definition for the public high 
school graduation rate? 
State definition of graduation 
rate: 
 Calculates the percentage 
of students, measured from 
the beginning of the school 
year, who graduate from 
public high school with a 
regular diploma (not 
including a GED or any 
other diploma not fully 
aligned with the states 
academic standards) in the 
standard number of years; 
or, 
 Uses another more 
accurate definition that has 
been approved by the 
Secretary; and 
 Must avoid counting a 
dropout as a transfer. 
Graduation rate is included (in 
the aggregate) for AYP, and 
disaggregated (as necessary) 
for use when applying the 
exception clause7 to make 
AYP. 
State definition of public high school 
graduation rate does not meet these 
criteria. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
NCLB requires that graduation rate be used as another academic indicator for secondary schools and 
defines graduation rate as: 
the percent of students receiving a regular diploma in the standard number of years 
[1111(b)(2)(C)(vi)]. 
Final regulations issued November 26, 2002 define graduation rate as: 
the percentage of students, measured from the beginning of high school, who graduate from high 
See USC 6311(b)(2)(I)(i), and 34 C.F.R. 200.20(b) 
63 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
school with a regular diploma (not including an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the 
States academic standards, such as a certificate or GED) in the standard number of years 
In Virginia, graduation rate is the other academic indicator for secondary schools and for any school 
having a graduating class. In Virginia, the four diploma types are: Standard, Advanced Studies, 
Modified Standard, and Special. A student receiving any one of these diplomas is able to respond in the 
positive when asked if s/he has received a high school diploma, thus making him/her eligible to apply for 
post-secondary education or training. A student receiving any one of these diplomas is eligible to apply 
for federal tuition grants. 
The Standard, Advanced Studies, and Modified Standard diplomas have specific course content 
requirements that are fully aligned with the states Standards of Learning. The Special Diploma is 
awarded to certain students with disabilities. In accordance with the requirements of [Virginias] 
Standards of Quality, students with disabilities who complete the requirements of their Individualized 
Education Program (IEP) and do not meet the requirements for other diplomas shall be awarded Special 
Diplomas (8 VAC 20-131-50.E). As directed by USED, Virginia will not include the Special Diploma in 
calculating graduation rate. 
The Modified Standard Diploma program is intended for certain students at the secondary level who 
have a disability and are unlikely to meet all of the requirements for a Standard Diploma. Eligibility and 
participation in the Modified Standard Diploma program shall be determined by the students Individual 
Education Program (IEP) team and the student, where appropriate, at any point after the students 
eighth grade year. The requirements for earning this diploma include 20 standard units of credit, 
including rigorous coursework in the Standards of Learning for English, mathematics, science, history 
and social science. In addition to earning prescribed standard units of credit in the core subjects, 
students pursuing the Modified Standard Diploma must take and pass English/reading and mathematics 
Standards of Learning tests. This Modified Standard Diploma is recognized as a diploma by institutions 
of higher education. The Board of Education created the Modified Standard Diploma for appropriate 
students to earn and it believes this diploma is a valid educational objective for appropriate students. 
However, in compliance with USED directives, for purposes of calculating graduation rate for NCLB, 
Virginia will not include recipients of the Modified Standard Diploma in its graduation rate formula. 
Virginia has historically calculated and reported a graduation rate for the state and school divisions that 
is defined as graduates as a percent of ninth-grade membership four years earlier. For the past 10 
years, Virginias state graduation rate using this calculation has ranged from a low of 73.2 percent to a 
high of 76.5 percent. The state graduation rate for 2001-2002 is 74 percent (See Attachment A: 
Graduates as a Percent of Ninth-Grade Membership Four Years Earlier). 
Because Virginia does not have a student record system, this calculation does not account for school 
openings and closings, boundary changes, and the mobility of the student population. When 
disaggregated by school and student subgroup, the rate produces unreliable results. 
Virginia intends to implement a student record system over the next three to five years. This system will 
enable us to calculate a true longitudinal rate that is based on a cohort of first-time ninth graders plus 
incoming transfers on the same schedule to graduate divided by this same cohort minus students who 
transfer out (See Attachment A: Graduates as a Percent of Ninth-Grade Membership Four Years 
Earlier). 
In the meantime, as agreed to in Virginias August 20, 2003, response to USED letter of July 1, 2003, 
Virginia will calculate a graduation rate for high schools that includes all recipients of any type of 
certificate or diploma (as well as students who have dropped out of or transferred into a high school) in 
the denominator and will include only those students receiving a standard diploma (excluding students 
receiving a Special Diploma, Modified Standard Diploma, Certificate of Attendance, or GED certificate) 
in the standard number of years in the numerator. 
64 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
The standard number of years for graduation is defined as four years or less. 
Virginia will allow the IEP team to determine the standard number of years for the graduation rate for 
students with disabilities. School-based LEP teams will determine the standard number of years for the 
graduation rate for LEP students based on Department of Education guidelines. 
A detailed explanation of the formula as it applies to Virginia follows: 
GRi = G i 
G i + (number of students receiving Special Diploma, Modified Standard Diploma, Certificate 
of Attendance, and GED certificates for year i.) + D i + D (i-1) + D (i-2) + D (i-3) 
Where: 
GRi is the graduation rate for a given year (i) between 2002 and 2014 
Gi is the number of students achieving a regular high school diploma (excluding Special Diploma, 
Modified Standard Diploma, Certificate of Attendance, and GED certificates) for year i. 
D i is the number of dropouts in grade 12 for year i. 
D (i-1) is the number of dropouts in grade 11 for the first previous year (i-1). 
D (i-2) is the number of dropouts in grade 10 for the second previous year (i-2). 
D (i-3) is the number of dropouts in grade 9 for the third previous year (i-3). 
Graduation rates will be reported at the school (where applicable), division (LEA), and state levels. Data 
collection systems are being modified to collect and report graduation rate by student subgroup. Since 
Virginia will use a graduation rate definition that includes a dropout count in the denominator (i.e., NCES 
defines a dropout as not returning to school by October 1) adequate yearly progress will be calculated 
based on the previous school years graduation rate. Hence, graduation rate data will be available in 
time to make AYP determinations and report them to LEAs and schools before the beginning of the 
school year. 
65 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
7.2 What is the States 
additional academic indicator 
for public elementary schools 
for the definition of AYP? For 
public middle schools for the 
definition of AYP? 
State defines the additional 
academic indicators, e.g., 
additional State or locally 
administered assessments not 
included in the State 
assessment system, grade-tograde retention rates or 
attendance rates.8 

An additional academic 
indicator is included (in the 
aggregate) for AYP, and 
disaggregated (as necessary) 
for use when applying the 
exception clause to make 
AYP. 

State has not defined an additional 
academic indicator for elementary 
and middle schools. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
In the Consolidated Application approved by USED July 2, 2002, absenteeism was identified as the 
other academic indicator for all elementary and middle schools. This indicator has been redefined as 
attendance rate, to focus on an indicator of positive student behavior. The indicator for all elementary 
and middle schools and any school not having a graduating class is attendance rate, Prior to the 
beginning of a school year, each school division shall choose for each of its elementary and middle 
schools and schools without a graduating class either attendance or performance on state science 
assessments as the other academic indicator. The choice of using either attendance rate or science 
state assessment results as the other academic indicator also will apply to the safe harbor AYP 
calculation methodology. The attendance rate will be expressed as average daily attendance (ADA) 
percent. The annual measurable (state target) for measuring progress in science will be set a 70 
percent proficient, consistent with provisions in the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting 
Public Schools in Virginia. 
ADA percent for a school year is calculated by dividing the average daily attendance by average daily 
membership. To facilitate reporting of attendance prior to the beginning of the school year, Virginia will 
institute a new data collection requirement for the annual March 31 average daily membership (ADM) 
data collection, beginning in March, 2004. Until that time, Virginia will use the most current attendance 
data available to make AYP determinations prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. 
The annual measurable objectives established for attendance rate and science (described in Critical 
Element 3.2b) serve as annual measurable objectives for elementary and middle schools; for any school 
not having a graduating class; for all LEAs and for the state. These annual measurable objectives serve 
to determine if all students, and subgroups of students when applying "safe harbor" provisions, identified 
in section 1111 (b)(2)(C) made progress in this indicator. For 2002-2003 AYP calculations, Virginia will 
use Science Standards of Learning assessment scores as the alternative additional indicator in lieu of 
8 NCLB only lists these indicators as examples. 

66 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
attendance for purposes of calculating whether a school or division makes AYP using the safe harbor 
method. Virginia currently does not have disaggregated attendance rate data available for use in 
determining 2002-2003 AYP designations using the safe harbor method. 
67 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
7.3 Are the States academic 
indicators valid and reliable? 
State has defined academic 
indicators that are valid and 
reliable. 
State has defined academic 
indicators that are consistent 
with nationally recognized 
standards, if any. 
State has an academic indicator that 
is not valid and reliable. 
State has an academic indicator that 
is not consistent with nationally 
recognized standards. 
State has an academic indicator that 
is not consistent within grade levels. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Academic indicators identified for Virginia include graduation rates and student attendance or 
performance on state science assessments. Average daily attendance is calculated by dividing the 
average daily attendance by average daily membership. The use of science assessments is further 
described in Critical Elements 3.2b and 6.1. 
Annual graduation rates are computed using the formula defined in Critical Element 7.1 
Validity and reliability of these measures are ensured through a well established, consistent, and 
standardized method of data collection and computation for both indicators. 
68 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
8.1 Does the State measure 
achievement in 
reading/language arts and 
mathematics separately for 
determining AYP? 
State AYP determination for 
student subgroups, public 
schools and LEAs separately 
measures reading/language 
arts and mathematics. 9 
AYP is a separate calculation 
for reading/language arts and 
mathematics for each group, 
public school, and LEA. 
State AYP determination for student 
subgroups, public schools and LEAs 
averages or combines achievement 
across reading/language arts and 
mathematics. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Annual Measurable Objectives for Reading/Language Arts 
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(G) of NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, 
one set of annual measurable objectives has been established for each school year beginning in 2002-
2003 and ending in 2013-2014. 
These are the annual measurable objectives for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup 
identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs, and for the State, expressed as 
pass rate percents: 
2001

2002

2004

2005

2007

2008

2010

20132002 

2003

2006

2009

2011

2012

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point


Int. 

Int. 

Int. 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal: 

60.7 
61.0 
61.0 
70.0 
70.0 
70.0 
80.0 
80.0 
80.0 
90.0 
90.0 
90.0 
100% 


Annual Measurable Objectives for Mathematics
Consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(G) of NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002, 
one set of annual measurable objectives has been established for each school year beginning in 20022003 and ending in 2013-2014. 


These are the annual measurable objectives for all students in the aggregate and for each subgroup 
identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C) of NCLB; for all schools; for all LEAs; and for the State, expressed as 
pass rate percents: 

9 If the state has more than one assessment to cover its language arts standards, the State must 
create a method for including scores from all the relevant assessments. 

69 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

20132002 

2003 

2004` 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Starting 
Point 

Int. 

Int. 

Int. 
Goal 

Goal 

Goal 

Goal: 

58.4 

59.0 

59.0 

70.0 

70.0 

70.0 

80.0 

80.0 

80.0 

90.0 

90.0 

90.0 

100% 

Virginia will revise the annual proficiency targets (annual measurable objectives) for reading and 
mathematics to reflect an annual increase. The targets currently increase from 61 percent in reading and 
59 percent in mathematics in 2003-2004 to 70 percent in reading and mathematics in 2004-2005. 
Beginning in 2004-2005, the revised proficiency target for reading will be 65 percent and the revised 
proficiency target for mathematics will be 63 percent. 

Revised NCLB AYP Targets (Annual Measurable Objectives)
Year


Reading 

Mathematics 

%Prof 

%Prof 

Increase

 %Prof Current

 %Prof 

Increase 
Current 

Revised 

Revised
2001-02


 60.7 
60.7 
Base

 58.4 
58.4 
Base
2002-03


 61

 61

 0

 59

 59

 0
2003-04


 61

 61

 0

 59

 59

 0
2004-05


 70

 65

 4

 70

 63

 4
2005-06


 70

 69

 4

 70

 67

 4
2006-07


 70

 73

 4

 70

 71

 4
2007-08


 80

 77

 4

 80

 75

 4
2008-09


 80

 81

 4

 80

 79

 4
2009-10


 80

 85

 4

 80

 83

 4
2010-11


 90

 89

 4

 90

 87

 4
2011-12


 90

 93

 4

 90

 91

 4
2012-13


 90

 97

 4

 90

 95

 4
2013-14


 100

 100

 3

 100

 100

 5 

For a school, LEA or the state to make adequate yearly progress the following conditions must exist, 
consistent with NCLB and final Title I regulations issued November 26, 2002: 

At least 95% of the students (in the aggregate and by subgroups) enrolled in the course or grade level 
for which there are statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics participate in each 
of those statewide assessments; AND 

 the pass rate for all students and all subgroups of students on reading/language arts 
assessments must be at least at the level of the annual measurable objective; AND 
 the pass rate for all students and all subgroups of students on mathematics assessments must 
be at least at the level of the annual measurable objective; AND 
 schoolwide (or divisionwide or statewide), students must be at the annual measurable objective 
for the other academic indicator(s) (graduation rate and/or attendance rate or science) or have 
made progress in the indicator(s); 
OR, consistent with the safe harbor provision of NCLB, 

 the pass rate for all students or for any subgroup(s) of students on reading/language arts 
70 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
assessments is below the annual measurable objective; AND/OR 
the pass rate for all students or for any subgroup(s) of students on mathematics assessments is 
below the annual measurable objective; AND 
the failure rate(s) of those students has been reduced by at least 10% from the year before on 
that assessment; AND 
the students have made progress in the other academic indicator(s) (graduation rate and/or 
attendance rate or science). 
In compliance with USED directives, Virginia will follow the procedures for calculating adequate yearly 
progress (AYP) stated above as approved by USED in the September 10, 2003, amended workbook. As 
a statement of public record, let it be clear that Virginia is agreeing to this directive only because the 
USED has made it clear it is mandating it. Virginias understanding of Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(iv) is that 
the definition of AYP must include an other academic indicator but decisions about AYP shall be based 
primarily on participation rates and student achievement on reading and mathematics assessments. 
Additionally, It is our interpretation that Section 1111(b)(2)(G) and Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) define how 
AYP is determined, and these sections permit the state and any division or school that meets the 95 
percent participation rate and meets or exceeds the annual measurable objectives on the reading and 
mathematics assessments for all students as well as each subgroup to be designated as making AYP. 
We believe Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(i) states the other academic indicators must be considered only if safe 
harbor is invoked. 
Consistent with current practice, assessment data for a content area will be combined across all tested 
grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and the state to calculate participation rate and 
percent of students scoring at least proficient when determining whether or not AYP has been made in 
that content area. 
71 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
9.1 How do AYP 
determinations meet the 
States standard for 
acceptable reliability? 
State has defined a method for 
determining an acceptable 
level of reliability (decision 
consistency) for AYP 
decisions. 
State provides evidence that 
decision consistency is (1) 
within the range deemed 
acceptable to the State, and 
(2) meets professional 
standards and practice. 
State publicly reports the 
estimate of decision 
consistency, and incorporates 
it appropriately into 
accountability decisions. 
State updates analysis and 
reporting of decision 
consistency at appropriate 
intervals. 
State does not have an acceptable 
method for determining reliability 
(decision consistency) of 
accountability decisions, e.g., it 
reports only reliability coefficients for 
its assessments. 
State has parameters for acceptable 
reliability; however, the actual 
reliability (decision consistency) falls 
outside those parameters. 
States evidence regarding 
accountability reliability (decision 
consistency) is not updated. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Decision consistency and estimates of school level reliability will be computed after each spring 
administration using the methodology outlined in Determining the Reliability of School Scores, Hill and 
DePascale, 2002. Virginia will continue to review new methodologies and add to, or adjust, the method 
for calculating these estimates as improvements in the research emerge. Additionally, for test level 
information, decision consistency, reliability, and estimates of testing error will continue to be reported 
every year after the spring administration. These statistics include: Livingston and Lewis decision 
consistency and accuracy; KR 20s; classical SEMs; conditional SEMs; and inter-rater reliability. More 
details about these analyses can be viewed in the technical manuals at: 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/home.shtml 
72 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
9.2 What is the State's 
process for making valid AYP 
determinations? 
State has established a 
process for public schools and 
LEAs to appeal an 
accountability decision. 
State does not have a system for 
handling appeals of accountability 
decisions. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Because Virginias accountability system is primarily based on results from the Standards of Learning 
tests, the basis for the validity of the accountability program may be found in the validity of the Standards 
of Learning testing program. The validity of Virginias testing program is both explicitly studied and 
implicitly built in to the development of the tests. The following are validity studies that have been 
conducted: Study of the Effectiveness of the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) Reform, Standards 
Work, 2003 http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/VASOLstudy.pdf; 
Review of Selected Technical Characteristics of the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) 
Assessments, Hambleton, R.K., Crocker, L., Cruse, K., Dodd, B., Plake, B., and Poggio, J. 2001. 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/virginiareport.pdf; 
Standards of Learning (SOL) Tests Validity and Reliability Information: Spring 1998 Administration, 
Phillips, S.E., Lenke, J., McMillan, J., Moon, T. 1999 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/validity.PDF 
The implicitly built in validity of the tests lies in the content validation that takes place at several steps 
during the development of the test items. That is, at three separate times during the development of the 
test items, groups of teachers and content experts examine the items and confirm that the items match 
the content that it purports to measure. An extensive discussion of the procedure to ensure content 
validity can be found in any of the technical manuals for the testing program. 
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/home.shtml 
The state has developed a process for appeal of accountability designations of improvement and the 
imposition of sanctions and corrective actions for school divisions (LEAs). Division superintendents will 
receive notification from the Department of Education (DOE) on the criteria and procedural guidelines 
that will be used for appeals. 
The appeals process includes the following: 
1. Criteria and circumstances forming the basis of an appeal 
2. Time period for appeals for claims of errors in scoring or reporting of data 
3. Demonstration of basis for appeal through supporting evidence by the school division and/or 
school 
4. Audit of information and data related to the appeal by the DOE 
5. Time period for review of appeal and determination of result 
6. Written notification of decision to division superintendent 
Upon meeting the appeals process criteria for the re-evaluation of an accountability determination or 
identification for improvement, sanctions, or corrective action, a division superintendent has the right to 
Title I schools may appeal to the division, and if a change is recommended, the division superintendent 
provides the AYP determination. A superintendent must complete an Appeals Report and provide it to 
the Department of Education within 15 calendar days for validation and inclusion in statewide data 
reports, consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act. School divisions appealing their AYP status or 
identification for sanctions or corrective action will appeal directly to the Department of Education. The 
73 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 

Department of Education, on behalf of the Board of Education, will make a decision regarding the appeal 
within 15 calendar days. The decision by the department is final. 

74 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
9.3 How has the State 
planned for incorporating into 
its definition of AYP 
anticipated changes in 
assessments? 
State has a plan to maintain 
continuity in AYP decisions 
necessary for validity through 
planned assessment changes, 
and other changes necessary 
to comply fully with NCLB.10 
State has a plan for including 
new public schools in the 
State Accountability System. 
State has a plan for 
periodically reviewing its State 
Accountability System, so that 
unforeseen changes can be 
quickly addressed. 
States transition plan interrupts 
annual determination of AYP. 
State does not have a plan for 
handling changes: e.g., to its 
assessment system, or the addition 
of new public schools. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
Currently Virginia administers tests in reading and mathematics at grades 3, 5, and 8 and at the high 
school level. Initially the calculation of AYP will include student performance on these tests. In 
accordance with the NCLB legislation we will implement tests in reading and mathematics in grades 4, 
6, and 7 in 2005-2006. As permitted by the law, Virginia may also re-examine the selected starting 
points and intermediate goals at this point. However, there will be no interruption in the calculation of 
AYP. To ensure that no interruption occurs, linking studies will be conducted whenever the content 
measured by a test is modified. 
LEAs are required to report to the SEA through the School and Staff Administration data collection 
information on all new schools that will be opening as well as changes in the operational status or grade 
configuration of schools that were open the previous school year. As described in the Standards of 
Accreditation, new schools are given ratings of Conditionally Accredited, as no tests were administered 
in the school the previous year. Such new schools will receive no AYP determination until the end of the 
first year, and the first AYP determination will be based upon available data from the schools first year 
of operation. 
Changes to the regulatory provisions of the state accountability system are made in accordance with the 
states Administrative Process Act ( 2.2-4000 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) and the Virginia Register 
Act ( 2.2-4100 et seq. of the Code of Virginia). While the process normally is extremely cumbersome, 
changes dictated by federal or state law can be accomplished through an abbreviated process. The 
Administrative Process Act requires periodic review of all state agency regulations. 
10 Several events may occur which necessitate such a plan. For example, (1) the State may need 
to include additional assessments in grades 3-8 by 2005-2006; (2) the State may revise content 
and/or academic achievement standards; (3) the State may need to recalculate the starting point 
with the addition of new assessments; or (4) the State may need to incorporate the graduation 
rate or other indicators into its State Accountability System. These events may require new 
calculations of validity and reliability. 

75 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

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

CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
10.1 What is the State's 
method for calculating 
participation rates in the State 
assessments for use in AYP 
determinations? 
State has a procedure to 
determine the number of 
absent or untested students 
(by subgroup and aggregate). 
State has a procedure to 
determine the denominator 
(total enrollment) for the 95% 
calculation (by subgroup and 
aggregate). 
Public schools and LEAs are 
held accountable for reaching 
the 95% assessed goal. 
The state does not have a procedure 
for determining the rate of students 
participating in statewide 
assessments. 
Public schools and LEAs are not held 
accountable for testing at least 95% 
of their students. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
For accountability purposes schools are required to submit a test answer document for each student 
enrolled in a grade level or course for which a state assessment is administered. Reasons for students 
not tested must be specified on the answer document. From this information, it is possible to identify the 
percent of students tested. Virginia will use three years of data in determining if a school, school 
division, or the state has met the 95% participation rate. Essentially, the number of answer documents 
becomes the denominator for the participation rate and the number of students who took the test 
becomes the numerator over a three-year period. Consistent with current practice, assessment data for 
a content area will be combined across all tested grade levels or all tested courses in a school, LEA and 
the state to calculate participation rate. 
Students who were not assessed due to documented significant medical emergencies during the testing 
window will be excluded from the participation rate formula. Since 1998 Virginia has collected 
information about students who were not tested on the Standards of Learning assessments due to a 
medical emergency Students who fall into this category are those who are absent for the entire testing 
window due to hospitalization or serious illness as well as those who become ill while testing and who 
are then absent due to illness during the make-up period. Significant medical emergencies must be 
documented by a medical doctor. 
76 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
CRITICAL ELEMENT EXAMPLES FOR 
MEETING STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
EXAMPLES OF 
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
10.2 What is the States policy 
for determining when the 95% 
assessed requirement should 
be applied? 
State has a policy that 
implements the regulation 
regarding the use of 95% 
allowance when the group is 
statistically significant 
according to State rules. 
State does not have a procedure for 
making this determination. 

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS 
STATUS: F 
The Board of Education holds the expectation that all eligible students will participate in statewide 
assessments. The minimum number of students in a subgroup or group below which the 95 percent 
participation requirement for AYP will not be required is 50 as explained in Critical Element 5.5. The 
performance of the students will be disaggregated for AYP determination purposes only at the next 
highest level(s) of reporting. The percent participation of eligible students in subgroups identified in 
section 1111(b)(2)(C) will be verified with each testing administration through analysis of data compiled 
from answer documents. 
77 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
Attachment A: Graduates As Percent of 
Ninth Grade Membership 
Four Years Earlier* 

Graduate Year Fall 
Membership 
in Ninth 
Grade for 
Standard 
Diploma 
Advanced 
Studies 
Diploma 
Special 
Diploma 
Certificate of 
Program 
Completion 
GED 
Certificate 
GED 
Certificate 
ISAEP 
Modified 
Standard 
Diploma 
Total 
(Diplomas & 
Certificates) 
Percentage 
Earning 
Diplomas & 
Certificates of 
Total 
(Standard, 
Advanced 
Studies, 
Percentage 
Earning 
Diplomas of 
Ninth Grade 
Percent 
Difference 
Four Years 
Earlier 
Ninth Grade 
Membership 
for Four Years 
Special, & 
Modified 
Standard 
Membership 
for Four Years 
Earlier 
Earlier Diplomas) 
1991-92 77,504 31,882 25,456 540 769 58,647 75.7 57,878 74.7% 1.0 
1992-93 76,717 31,241 25,707 792 523 58,263 75.9 57,740 75.3% 0.6 
1993-94 77,522 29,954 26,186 571 716 57,427 74.1 56,711 73.2% 0.9 
1994-95 81,088 29,914 28,346 642 742 59,644 73.6 58,902 72.6% 1.0 
1995-96 77,797 29,015 29,153 800 697 59,665 76.7 58,968 75.8% 0.9 
1996-97 80,328 29,254 31,333 878 793 62,258 77.5 61,465 76.5% 1.0 
1997-98 84,447 29,335 32,442 961 649 698 64,085 75.9 62,738 74.3% 1.6 
1998-99 86,779 29,329 33,482 1,064 623 847 65,345 75.3 63,875 73.6% 1.7 
1999-2000 88,766 29,386 34,958 1,252 672 942 248 67,458 76.0 65,596 73.9% 2.1 
2000-01 88,374 28,650 36,058 1,322 606 898 1,022 37 68,593 77.6 66,067 74.8% 2.8 
2001-02 89,818 32,543 31,991 1,724 599 714 1,316 216 69,103 76.9 66,474 74.0% 2.9 
*No adjustments have been made to 
reflect the mobility of the population. 
Source: Superintendent's 
Annual Report 

78 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
Attachment B: Data supporting Critical Element 5.5 

AYP Calculations: Impact @ Minimum N 

School with Grades 3  8 & Grade 11 

2002  2003 Fall Enrollment 

Number/% of Schools/Divisions Excluded From AYP Calculations at Each Minimum N 

All Students Ethnicity SWD ESL Poverty 
MinN* #Sch %Sch #Div #Sch %Sch #Div #Sch %Sch #Div #Sch %Sch #Div #Sch %Sch #Div 
30 17 1 0 
585 
34 12 
119 
7 0 875 71 53 99 6 0 
40 30 2 0 
699 
41 14 
235 
13 0 915 74 60 
144 
8 0 
50 44 2 0 
803 
47 19 
381 
22 0 967 78 64 
188 
11 0 
60 58 3 0 
881 
51 22 
559 
32 1 990 80 66 
239 
14 0 
70 78 4 0 
957 
56 24 
765 
44 2 1019 83 68 
282 
17 0 
80 101 6 0 1014 60 27 
956 
54 2 1041 84 70 
344 
20 1 
90 130 7 0 
1085 
63 29 
1106 
63 2 1061 86 73 415 24 2 
100 154 9 0 
1138 
67 33 
1212 
69 4 1079 88 76 477 28 2 

* Minimum number of students enrolled to be included in AYP calculations 
NOTES: 

 N = 1794 schools reporting enrollment in at least one grade 3-8 and/or grade 11 
 N = 133 divisions (excludes VSDBH, VSDBS, SOP) 
 data for categories All Students and Ethnicity derived from fall 02-03 enrollment file 
 data for categories SWD, ESL, and poverty derived from 01-02 school year 
 ethnicity represents African-American students 
 students eligible for free/reduced lunch is a proxy for poverty 
 grade 11 is proxy for estimating students sitting for English RLR SOL test 
 fall 02 enrollment may differ from actual numbers tested during spring 03 administration 
 data represents impact of specified minimum N, not a representation of schools making AYP 
79 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
Variability in test results for various group sizes: 

For sample schools having small groups of <20, <30, <40, and <50 (indicated by different line segments), these are the average pass rates over 
the three year period in English (Chart 1) and Mathematics (Chart 2). Fifty (50) is used as a minimum group size because of pass rate stability 
evidenced in these graphs. 

Chart 1. SOA Accreditation Pass Rates: English 

Minimum N English 

90 

Pass Rate 

80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
1999 2000 2001 
20 90 35 70 
30 63 80 67 
40 48 75 57 
50 70 82 88 

80 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.
Chart 2. SOA Accreditation Pass Rates: Mathematics 

Minimum N Mathematics 

95 

85 
75 
65 
55 
45 
35 
25 
15 
1999 2000 2001 
20 30 50 15 
30 63 90 60 
40 70 33 82 
50 62 75 96 

81 Adopted by the 
Virginia Board of Education: April 29, 2003 
Amended: June 9, 2003, September 10, 2003, May 26, 2004, June 22, 2005, & July 24, 2006 

.