State of Arizona

Consolidated State Application

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

Revised May 21, 2007

Final Submission

Submitted to:

U. S. Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Washington, D.C. 20202
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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 [email protected].

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

2
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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.

3
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Summary of Implementation Status for Required Elements of

State Accountability Systems

Status State Accountability System Element

Principle 1: All Schools

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

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

F 1.3 Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement standards.

P 1.4 Accountability system provides information in a timely manner.

F 1.5 Accountability system includes report cards.

P 1.6 Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions.

Principle 2: All Students

P 2.1 The accountability system includes all students

2.2 The accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic year.
P
2.3 The accountability system properly includes mobile students.
F

Principle 3: Method of AYP Determinations

F 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
P schools, and LEAs made adequate yearly progress.

3.2a Accountability system establishes a starting point.

P
3.2b Accountability system establishes statewide annual measurable objectives.
P
3.2c Accountability system establishes intermediate goals.
P
Principle 4: Annual Decisions

P 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

4
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Principle 5: Subgroup Accountability

P 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
P subgroups.

5.3 The accountability system includes students with disabilities.

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

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

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

Principle 6: Based on Academic Assessments

F 6.1 Accountability system is based primarily on academic assessments.

Principle 7: Additional Indicators

F 7.1 Accountability system includes graduation rate for high schools.

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

F 7.3 Additional indicators are valid and reliable.

Principle 8: Separate Decisions for Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics

P 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.

9.2 Accountability system produces valid decisions.

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

Principle 10: Participation Rate

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

P 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

5
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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.

6
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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

schools and LEAs.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.1 How does the State Every public school and LEA is A public school or LEA is not
Accountability System required to make adequate required to make adequate yearly
include every public school yearly progress and is included in progress and is not included in
and LEA in the State? the State Accountability System. the State Accountability System.

State has a definition of “public State policy systematically

school” and “LEA” for AYP excludes certain public schools
accountability purposes. and/or LEAs.
• 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).

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Under Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) §15-241 (AZ LEARNS), public elementary schools
[grades K-8, or most combinations of those grades] and public secondary schools [grades 9-12,
or any combination of those grades] are included in the state’s accountability system and are
required to make the federal definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) as detailed in the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Arizona’s single statewide accountability system will
include both Title I and non-Title I schools (traditional schools, charter schools, alternative
schools, and new schools). The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) will evaluate K-2
schools based on assessment (AIMS) results of the school into which their students feed. For
example, the AYP determination for a K-2 school will be based on the third (3 rd) grade
assessment results of the school in which its students enroll the following year.

The ADE will include all public schools, all student subgroups (e.g. major racial and ethnic
groups, limited English proficiency students, economically disadvantaged students, and students
with disabilities) and districts in the statewide accountability system by completing an

7
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Achievement Profile analysis for each entity. A core component of the Achievement Profile
analysis is the determination of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The ADE will determine
whether a school has made AYP or failed to make AYP based on the criteria established under
NCLB [Title I, Part A, Section 1111 (2) (B-I)] provided the subgroup meets the minimum
analysis size of forty pupils.

8
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.2 How are all public schools All public schools and LEAs are Some public schools and LEAs
and LEAs held to the same systematically judged on the are systematically judged on the
criteria when making an AYP basis of the same criteria when basis of alternate criteria when
determination? making an AYP determination. making an AYP determination.

If applicable, the AYP definition is

integrated into the State
Accountability System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The ADE will include all public schools and districts in the statewide accountability system by
completing an Achievement Profile analysis for each entity. A core component of the
Achievement Profile analysis is the determination of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). An AYP
determination will be made for each public school and district as required by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

As stated above, the Arizona Department of Education must compile an annual Achievement
Profile, as detailed in A.R.S. § 15-241, which will be used to determine a school classification
that designates each public school as one of the following 1.) Excelling; 2.) Highly Performing;
3.) Performing [Adequate Performance]; 4.) Underperforming; and 5.) Failing.

The determination of all school site designations/classifications (through the Achievement

Profile) will be made on the analysis of the following measures (please refer to Table A below):

9
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Table A: Arizona’s Single Statewide Accountability System

Achievement Profile School Classification

Adequate Yearly + AZ LEARNS

Progress (AYP) + calculation

Rewards
Yes

No Services

Federal State

Sanctions

Federal State

The model detailed above fully integrates NCLB stipulations for AYP and state accountability
requirements. Depending on classification, a school will be included in the rewards system or
will face sanctions, which may require them to deliver services to eligible students (depending
on federal and/or state statute). Regardless of a school classification, a Title I school determined
not to have made AYP will be required to implement federal services and undergo the necessary
sanctions prescribed by NCLB. In no way does the integration of AYP into the Achievement
Profile compensate or diminish the effect of NCLB legislation. The Arizona Department of
Education strongly believes that the integration of AYP into the Achievement Profile (illustrated
on page 8) ensures that schools, districts and the state will maintain focus on the federal
requirements outlined in NCLB.

10
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.3 Does the State have, at a State has defined three levels of Standards do not meet the
minimum, a definition of student achievement: basic, legislated requirements.
basic, proficient and proficient and advanced.1
advanced student
achievement levels in Student achievement levels of
reading/language arts and proficient and advanced
mathematics? determine how well students are
mastering the materials in the
State’s 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.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Arizona has defined four levels of student achievement (performance/achievement standards) in

reading and math:
1.) Exceeds the Standard [Advanced]; 2.) Meets the Standard [Proficient]; 3.) Approaches the
Standard; and 4.) Falls Far Below the Standard.

Exceeds the Standard: This level denotes demonstration of superior academic performance
evidenced by achievement substantially beyond the expected goal of all students.

Meets the Standard: This level denotes demonstration of solid academic performance on
challenging subject matter reflected by the content standards. This includes knowledge of
subject matter, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and content relevant
analytical skills. Attainment of at least this level is the expectation for all Arizona students.

Approaches the Standard: This level denotes understanding of the knowledge and application
of the skills that are fundamental for proficiency in the standards.

Falls Far Below the Standard: This level denotes sufficient evidence that the prerequisite
knowledge and skills needed to approach the standard have not been met. Students who perform
at this level have serious gaps in knowledge in skills related to Arizona’s Academic Standards.

For a more detailed definition of each performance level associated with the content areas of
reading and mathematics, please refer to:
1
System of State achievement standards will be reviewed by the Standards and Assessments Peer
Review. The Accountability Peer Review will determine that achievement levels are used in determining
AYP.

11
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

www.ade.az.gov/standards/aims/PerformanceStandards/performancelevels.asp

For a more detailed explanation of how the achievement standards are incorporated into
Arizona’s accountability system (AZ LEARNS), please refer to the AZ LEARNS Technical
Manual.

12
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.4 How does the State provide State provides decisions about Timeline does not provide
accountability and adequate adequate yearly progress in time sufficient time for LEAs to fulfill
yearly progress decisions for LEAs to implement the their responsibilities before the
and information in a timely required provisions before the beginning of the next academic
manner? beginning of the next academic year.
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.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Presently, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) produces Achievement Profiles for each
public elementary and secondary school by October 15 of each year. The October 15 th deadline
provides the necessary time to validate all relevant calculations and to conduct the necessary
analyses. To promote the timely release of relevant data, the ADE has developed a secure online
application for LEAs and schools to access and download Achievement Profile results, reports,
data, and calculations. The availability of an on-line application reduces the amount of time
required to disseminate this information to LEAs and schools by eliminating the need for
printing, copying, and mailing. LEAs and schools will have direct access to the information
necessary for them to inform parents of enrolled students attending schools identified for school
improvement of the school’s status, the option of transfer, and supplemental education services
as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in a more timely manner.

Schools designated as Underperforming under the 2002 Achievement Profile were required to
notify all community members residing within each school’s respective attendance area of its
status and improvement efforts (including actions prescribed in Title I, Section 1116 of the No
Child Left Behind Act). Title I schools receiving an Underperforming classification and therefore
determined to have not made AYP were immediately placed in the first year of federal school
improvement. As such, these schools were required to provide choice options for eligible
students and are expected to continue to do so during the 2003-2004 academic year in
accordance with NCLB regulations.

Beginning with the 2002-2003 Adequate Yearly Progress determination, the Arizona Department
of Education (ADE) will no longer place Title I schools into federal school improvement based

13
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

on a single Underperforming designation. With this said, the ADE will release the 2002-2003
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations and related data to all schools no later than the
Friday prior to Labor Day. This will ensure that Title I schools may notify parents of enrolled
students of the school’s AYP determination and offer the option of transfer and supplemental
services if necessary in a timely manner as mandated by Title I, Section 1116 of The No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. Title I schools designated as Underperforming on the 2002
Achievement Profile (and automatically in year one of federal school improvement) will be the
first to receive 2002-2003 AYP calculations, thus allowing them the opportunity to complete the
AYP appeals process within the thirty (30) days outlined in NCLB and offer services to eligible
students.

Due to the varying start dates for Arizona schools (year round schedules, charter schools and
traditional schools) the ADE has determined the “first day of school” for the state to be
September 1st. The ADE provides preliminary AYP determinations by August 1st and final AYP
determinations by September 1st. Because September 1 occurs on a Saturday in 2007, the
department will release final AYP determinations for 2007 to the public on September 5, 2007.

14
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.5 Does the State The State Report Card includes The State Report Card does not
Accountability System all the required data elements include all the required data
produce an annual State [see Appendix A for the list of elements.
Report Card? required data elements].
The State Report Card is not
The State Report Card is available to the public.
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

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The ADE will produce its first annual state report card prior to the 2003-2004 academic year. It is
important to note that the first annual report card will reflect the 2002-2003 academic year and
will disaggregate data for the following subgroups: 1.) all students; 2.) race/ ethnicity; 3.)
disability; 4.) gender; and 5.) English language learners [ELL]. The ADE uses eligibility for a
free or reduced lunch status as a proxy indicator of low socio-economic status (SES). SES
student subgroup data will be disaggregated in the state report card.

Arizona currently provides a School Report Card that is available for each public school in the
state. These school-level report cards are available on-line and in print at each school. At this
time, the information presented in the school-level report cards includes assessment results as
well as other relevant school information. School-level report cards will be updated in the
immediate future to reflect requirements (i.e. assessment data disaggregated by student
subgroups) mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The ADE intends to model the
state report card based on the information available in the school report card. The ADE plans to
provide the information presented on the various report cards in a user-friendly format, primarily
through the use of graphs and visual aids. The intent is to provide accurate information in a
format that is easily understandable to diverse populations residing within the state. Please refer
to the state report card prototype attached.

15
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.6 How does the State State uses one or more types of State does not implement
Accountability System rewards and sanctions, where rewards or sanctions for public
include rewards and the criteria are: schools and LEAs based on
sanctions for public schools adequate yearly progress.
and LEAs?2 • Set by the State;

• Based on adequate yearly

progress decisions; and,

• Applied uniformly across

public schools and LEAs.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Currently, the state’s accountability system focuses attention on sanctions associated with the
school improvement process. These sanctions include: 1.) public identification of school
performance, as determined by the ADE and approved by the Arizona State Board of Education
[which could also be viewed as a reward if the school demonstrated positive performance]; 2.)
placement into school improvement status [when applicable]; 3.) the development of a school
improvement plan; 4.) implementation of the school improvement plan. These sanctions are
implemented immediately following a school’s designation as Underperforming (or Failing) on
the Achievement Profile. It should be noted that Title I schools must also complete additional
requirements as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The ADE plans to continue to publicly recognize Arizona’s Title I distinguished schools and Blue
Ribbon Schools. The criteria used to make these determinations will include AYP calculations.
The implementation of non-monetary rewards (i.e., school/district recognition certificates, Blue
Ribbon Program awards, distinguished Title I schools awards) will be applied for the 2003
Achievement Profile. The ADE strongly desires to expand its reward system and is currently
investigating a number of options. Possible additional rewards include but are not limited to:

• Small grants to top schools/districts to enhance academic instruction and curriculum

development (based on increased student achievement)
• The use of peer-mentoring to highlight the performance of top schools/districts and
enable this leadership to assist in the improvement of lower performing schools

2
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)].

16
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Keeping in mind state budgetary restrictions, the ADE is in active discussions with the business
community and various education organizations with regard to developing an expanded system.
The ADE will present the system to the Arizona State Board of Education in the fall of 2003 for
final approval. Implementation of the expanded rewards system will occur during the 2004-2005
academic year.

17
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

2.1 How does the State All students in the State are Public school students exist in
Accountability System included in the State the State for whom the State
include all students in the Accountability System. Accountability System makes no
State? provision.
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.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Arizona’s Achievement Profile model includes the following public school students:

• Elementary students in grades 3-8, or any combination of these grades

• High school students in grades 10-12, or any combination of these grades

Within the grades evaluated, the following student subgroups are included:

• Special education students

• English language learners
• All major racial and ethnic groups (White, African American, Hispanic, Native American,
Asian/Pacific Islander)
• Socio-economic status (SES), students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch will be
considered economically disadvantaged. The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) is
requiring that LEAs enter this information for individual students into the ADE’s
student-level data base.

The following public school students will be evaluated beginning with the 2003 Achievement
Profile and continuing through to 2013-2014 academic year:

• Students in grade K-2.

• Students enrolled in “extremely small schools”.
• Students enrolled in Alternative/Accommodation schools.
• Students enrolled in new schools. The Achievement Profile for “new schools” will be
calculated based on data collected from the first year of operation.

These student groups will be included in school wide Adequate Yearly Progress determinations
for all schools, LEAs and the State.

18
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

2.2 How does the State define The State has a definition of “full LEAs have varying definitions of
“full academic year” for academic year” for determining “full academic year.”
identifying students in AYP which students are to be included
decisions? in decisions about AYP. The State’s definition excludes
students who must transfer from
The definition of full academic one district to another as they
year is consistent and applied advance to the next grade.
statewide.
The definition of full academic
year is not applied consistently.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The ADE will determine a full academic year by identifying students enrolled at the start of the
school year (within the first two weeks of instruction) and those students who are presently
enrolled during the first day of administration of AIMS. Students who do not meet this criterion
will be accounted for at the LEA level. If a student has not attended the LEA for a full academic
year, that student will be accounted for at the state level. The ADE will audit data collected
during testing via the Student Details system. This student level tracking system also collects
information submitted by schools and districts for school funding purposes. Due to the fact that
these data are directly related to school funding, both the ADE and the individual schools are
obligated to maintain the accuracy of collected and reported data. The Student Details system is
validated and checked for integrity by the ADE on a regular schedule, which ensures that
inaccuracies can be corrected in a timely manner.

19
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

2.3 How does the State State holds public schools State definition requires students
Accountability System accountable for students who to attend the same public school
determine which students were enrolled at the same public for more than a full academic
have attended the same school for a full academic year. year to be included in public
public school and/or LEA for school accountability.
a full academic year? State holds LEAs accountable for
students who transfer during the State definition requires students
full academic year from one to attend school in the same
public school within the district to district for more than a full
another public school within the academic year to be included in
district. 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

In order to determine whether a student has been enrolled for a full academic year the ADE
determines via its statewide, student tracking system if a student was enrolled in the school and
district at any time during the first two weeks of the academic year of the particular entity. The
ADE continuously strives to ensure the accuracy of all achievement data. To that end, the ADE
conducts mandatory annual pre-test workshops. All public schools including charter schools are
required to attend these workshops. The ADE provides standard instructions with common
definitions to testing coordinators regarding the completion of all non-test indicators. These
instructions are also provided for testing coordinators on the ADE web site,
http://www.ade.az.gov/standards/downloads/NTI1-12.pdf.

20
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.1 How does the State’s The State has a timeline for State definition does not require
definition of adequate yearly ensuring that all students will all students to achieve proficiency
progress require all students meet or exceed the State’s by 2013-2014.
to be proficient in proficient level of academic
reading/language arts and achievement in reading/language State extends the timeline past
mathematics by the 2013- arts3 and mathematics, not later the 2013-2014 academic year.
2014 academic year? than 2013-2014.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

In order to promote compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Arizona
Department of Education (ADE) has adopted an appropriate timeline stipulating that all students
demonstrate proficiency in the Arizona Academic Standards no later than the 2013-2014
academic year, as prescribed by federal mandate. It should be noted that this timeline is not
mandated by State statute. This timeline will incorporate annual measurable objectives and
intermediate goals to facilitate the calculation of the State’s definition of adequate yearly
progress (AYP). Starting points, annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals are set
separately for reading and mathematics for grades three through eight and ten to better facilitate
the incorporation of additional assessments into the accountability system. Depending on school
configuration, assessed grades/subject combinations are aggregated at the school level.
Assessment data is also aggregated at the district level and state level. The AYP determination is
based on a conjunctive model.

3
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.

21
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.2 How does the State For a public school and LEA to State uses different method for
Accountability System make adequate yearly progress, calculating how public schools
determine whether each each student subgroup must and LEAs make AYP.
student subgroup, public meet or exceed the State annual
school and LEA makes measurable objectives, each
AYP? student subgroup must have at
least a 95% participation rate in
the statewide assessments, and
the school must meet the State’s
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 State’s academic indicators;
and that group had at least 95%
participation rate on the
statewide assessment.

22
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

In determining whether each subgroup, school site, LEA, and the state-as-a whole make adequate
yearly progress (AYP), Arizona will determine the percentage of students completing Arizona’s
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), calculate the percentage of students meeting or
exceeding the standard in reading and mathematics and implement the safe harbor provision as
mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Participation Requirements: Schools and districts in which at least ninety-five percent (95%)
of students enrolled at the time of the test administration complete the state assessments will
meet the AYP standard established in federal statute. The participation rate will be the higher of
the current year’s participation rate or a three-year, weighted average of the participation rate.
Schools and districts in which fewer than ninety-five percent (95%) of any student subgroup
complete the state-mandated assessments will not meet the AYP standard, provided that the size
of the subgroup meets the minimum number of students required for the analysis, forty students.

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding the Standard: The ADE will calculate the
percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standard in reading and mathematics in order to
determine if each subgroup met the annual measurable objectives for each subject/grade. If all
student subgroups meet the annual measurable objectives the school is considered to have met
the AYP standard. If all student subgroups fail to meet the annual measurable objectives the
school is considered to not have met the AYP standard. To ensure that AYP decisions are valid
and reliable, the ADE will use confidence intervals for all subgroups, schools, districts and state
determinations. The ADE will utilize a 99% confidence level to make valid AYP determinations
for each of these groups by subject area (reading and mathematics).

Additional Indicator(s): The ADE will calculate the percentage of students in the aggregate
that demonstrate adequate progress on the additional academic indicator (elementary or
secondary) or meet the threshold percentage for the additional indicator as determined by the
ADE and approved by the Arizona State Board of Education. The additional AYP indicators will
be attendance rate at the elementary and middle school/district and graduation rate at the
secondary school/district. The performance levels schools and LEAs must meet to make AYP
are a 90 percent attendance rate, or a 71 percent graduation rate. In either case a school or LEA
is deemed to have met the goal if it demonstrates a one percentage point improvement over the
previous year.

Safe Harbor Provision: If a school or LEA fails to meet the annual measurable objective, or if
one or more subgroups fail to meet the annual measurable objectives, then a school or LEA is
considered to have made AYP if both of the following criteria are met:

1.) the percentage of tested students in a particular subgroup, school, or LEA below the
proficient (meets or exceeds the standard) achievement level decreases by at least ten
percent (10%) from the proceeding year.

2.) the students in a particular subgroup, school, or LEA either

23
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

• make progress on the additional academic indicator; or

• meet the threshold for the other academic indicator

24
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.2a What is the State’s starting Using data from the 2001-2002 The State Accountability System
point for calculating school year, the State uses a different method for
Adequate Yearly established separate starting calculating the starting point (or
Progress? points in reading/language arts baseline data).
and mathematics for measuring
the percentage of students
meeting or exceeding the State’s
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 State’s 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…).

25
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

In order to compute the starting points for all subjects and grades, all schools in Arizona were
ranked in descending order according to the percentage of students in each grade and subject
combination that met or exceeded the standard on the State’s standards-based assessment, the
Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). Then, enrollment counts were paired with
each school. The starting points were set at the 20th percentile for student enrollment. For grades
3,5,8, and 10 this evaluation was based on baseline data of 2001-2002. For grades 4,6, and 7 the
baseline year is 2004-05.

The following table provides the State’s starting points for each of the subjects and grades
evaluated:

Grade Reading Mathematics

3 44 32
4 45 54
5 32 20
6 45 43
7 49 48
8 31 7
10 23 10

26
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.2b What are the State’s annual State has annual measurable The State Accountability System
measurable objectives that are consistent uses another method for
objectives for determining with a state’s intermediate goals calculating annual measurable
adequate yearly progress? and that identify for each year a objectives.
minimum percentage of students
who must meet or exceed the The State Accountability System
proficient level of academic does not include annual
achievement on the State’s measurable objectives.
academic assessments.

The State’s annual measurable

objectives ensure that all
students meet or exceed the
State’s proficient level of
academic achievement within the
timeline.

The State’s annual measurable

objectives are the same
throughout the State for each
public school, each LEA, and
each subgroup of students.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) has calculated the annual measurable objectives
for each of the subjects and grades assessed by the Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards
(AIMS) and evaluated in the Achievement Profiles. These represent the State’s expectation for
students, schools, and LEAs in order to comply with all students reaching proficiency no later
than 2013-2014. The annual measurable objectives will utilize the same percent proficient as the
most recent intermediate goal.

Arizona has established separate reading and mathematics annual measurable objectives for
grades three through eight and ten that serve to identify a minimum percentage of students (all
students and each student subgroup) that must meet or exceed the standard.

The reading and mathematics annual measurable objectives will be applied to each school and
LEA, including each subgroup at the each site and LEA, as well as the state-level.

The rationale for setting all annual measurable objectives (and corresponding intermediate goals)
in the progressive manner demonstrated in this document was based on three key principles:

1.) The ADE had recently completed a grade-level articulation of Arizona’s Academic
Content Standards. The progressive setting of annual measurable objectives and

27
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

corresponding intermediate goals allows schools the necessary time to align these grade-
level standards with school curricula/resources and implement these standards via
instruction.

2.) The ADE was developing new assessments for grades four (4), six (6), and seven (7) for
reading and mathematics, as well as a science assessment to be administered on an annual
basis in grades three (3), five (5), eight (8), and high school as mandated by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. The progressive setting of annual measurable objectives and
intermediate goals allows schools the opportunity to effectively prepare students for these
assessments.

3.) Currently, the academic performance of several disaggregated student subgroups is below
(in some cases, far below) the state’s starting points in reading and mathematics. Many
schools and districts have initiated scientifically based research programs and other
instructional practices to assist students in this circumstance. In addition, the ADE has
implemented a comprehensive K-3 reading program designed to have all students
proficient in the state’s reading standards by the third grade. By setting the state’s annual
measurable objectives and corresponding intermediate goals in a progressive manner,
schools, districts, and the state are given the necessary time to effectively implement
these programs and initiatives, giving students in this circumstance an opportunity to
catch up with the aggregated student population as represented by the state’s starting
points.

28
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.2c What are the State’s State has established The State uses another method
intermediate goals for intermediate goals that increase for calculating intermediate goals.
determining adequate in equal increments over the
yearly progress? period covered by the State The State does not include
timeline. intermediate goals in its definition
of adequate yearly progress.
• The first incremental
increase takes effect not
later than the 2004-2005
academic year.

• Each following
incremental increase
occurs within three
years.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Arizona has established separate reading and mathematics intermediate goals for grades three
through eight and ten that increase in equal increments over the twelve year timeline mandated
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. There will be six intermediate goals for each
subject/grade combination. The intermediate goals are to take effect with the 2004-2005, 2007-
2008, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 academic years.

The intermediate goals for each subject/grade combination will be applied to each school and
LEA, including each subgroup at each site and LEA, as well as the state-level.

In order to meet the expectations represented by Arizona’s annual measurable objectives and
intermediate goals, schools and districts must make significant and continuous improvement. The
rationale for setting all annual measurable objectives (and corresponding intermediate goals) in
the progressive manner demonstrated in this document is based on three key principles:

4.) The ADE had recently completed a grade-level articulation of Arizona’s Academic
Content Standards. The progressive setting of annual measurable objectives and
corresponding intermediate goals allows schools the necessary time to align these grade-
level standards with school curricula/resources and implement these standards via
instruction.

5.) The ADE was developing new assessments for grades four (4), six (6), and seven (7) for
reading and mathematics, as well as a science assessment to be administered on an annual
basis in grades three (3), five (5), eight (8), and high school as mandated by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. The progressive setting of annual measurable objectives and

29
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

intermediate goals allows schools the opportunity to effectively prepare students for these
assessments.

6.) Currently, the academic performance of several disaggregated student subgroups is below
(in some cases, far below) the state’s starting points in reading and mathematics. Many
schools and districts have initiated scientifically based research programs and other
instructional practices to assist students in this circumstance. In addition, the ADE has
implemented a comprehensive K-3 reading program designed to have all students
proficient in the state’s reading standards by the third grade. By setting the state’s annual
measurable objectives and corresponding intermediate goals in a progressive manner,
schools, districts, and the state are given the necessary time to effectively implement
these programs and initiatives, giving students in this circumstance an opportunity to
catch up with the aggregated student population as represented by the state’s starting
points.

30
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

In accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Arizona Department of Education
(ADE) has established the following intermediate goals:

Arizona AMOs
Reading AMO Math AMO (percent
Grade 3
(percent passing) passing)
2005-07 53.3 43.3
2008-10 62.6 54.6
2011 71.9 65.9
2012 81.2 77.2
2013 90.5 88.5
2014 100 100
Grade 4
2005-07 45 54.0
2008-10 56 63.2
2011 67 72.4
2012 78 81.6
2013 89 90.8
2014 100 100
Grade 5
2005-07 43.3 33.3
2008-10 54.6 46.6
2011 65.9 59.9
2012 77.2 73.2
2013 88.5 86.5
2014 100 100
Grade 6
2005-07 45 43
2008-10 56 54.4
2011 67 65.8
2012 78 77.2
2013 89 88.6
2014 100 100
Grade 7
2005-07 49 48
2008-10 59.2 58.4
2011 69.4 68.8
2012 79.6 79.2
2013 89.8 89.6
2014 100 100
Grade 8
2005-07 42.5 22.5
2008-10 54.0 38.0
2011 65.5 53.5
2012 77.0 69.0
2013 88.5 84.5
2014 100 100
High School
2005-07 35.8 25
2007-08 48.6 40
2010-11 61.4 55
2011-12 74.2 70
2012-13 87.0 85
2013-14 100 100

31
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

The following graphs represent the Arizona Department of Education’s starting points,
intermediate goals and annual measurable objectives reflected in the previous tables:
Arizona Grade 3 Reading

120

100 100

80
71.9
62.6
60 All Students
53.3
44
40

20

0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

Arizona Grade 3 Math

120

100 100

80

65.9
60 All Students
54.6

43.3
40
32

20

0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

32
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Arizona Grade 4 Reading

120

100 100

89

80 78

67
60 All Students
56

45
40

20

0
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

Arizona Grade 4 Math

120

100 100

90.8

80 81.6

72.4

63.2
60 All Students
54

40

20

0
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

33
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Arizona Grade 5 Reading

120

100 100

80

65.9
60 All Students
54.6

43.3
40
32

20

0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

Arizona Grade 5 Math

120

100 100

80

60 59.9 All Students

46.6
40
33.3

20 20

0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

34
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Arizona Grade 6 Reading

120

100 100

89

80 78

67
60 All Students
56

45
40

20

0
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

Arizona Grade 6 Math

120

100 100

88.6

80
77.2

65.8
60 All Students
54.4

43
40

20

0
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

35
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Arizona Grade 7 Reading

120

100 100

89.8

80 79.6

69.4

60 59.2 All Students

49

40

20

0
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

Arizona Grade 7 Math

120

100 100

89.6

80 79.2

68.8

60 58.4 All Students

48
40

20

0
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

36
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Arizona Grade 8 Reading

120

100 100

80

65.5
60 All Students
54

42.5
40

31

20

0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

Arizona Grade 8 Math

120

100 100

80

60 All Students
53.5

40 38

22.5
20

7
0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

37
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Arizona HS Reading

120

100 100

80

60 61.4 All Students

48.6
40
35.8

23
20

0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

Arizona HS Math

120

100 100

80

60 All Students
55

40 40

25
20

10

0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

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

38
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

4.1 How does the State AYP decisions for each public AYP decisions for public schools
Accountability System school and LEA are made and LEAs are not made annually.
make an annual annually.4
determination of whether
each public school and LEA
in the State made AYP?

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Arizona’s statewide accountability system allows the Arizona Department of Education (ADE)
the opportunity to analyze AYP in a manner consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. All Title I schools that fail to meet annual measurable objectives in the same content area
(math and reading/language arts) or the additional indicator (attendance rate or graduation rate)
for two consecutive years are identified as in improvement status or moved to the next
improvement category. All Title I districts which fail to meet annual measurable objectives in
the same content area (math and reading/language arts) or the additional indicator (attendance
rate or graduation rate) for two consecutive years in both their elementary/middle school and
high school levels are identified as in LEA Improvement status, or moved to the next
improvement category, which is LEA Corrective Action. Districts which contain only one grade
span level, either elementary/middle or high school, and fail to meet annual measurable
objectives in the same content area (math and reading/language arts) or the additional indicator
for two consecutive years are identified in LEA Improvement or moved to the next improvement
category, LEA Corrective Action.

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

4
Decisions may be based upon several years of data and data may be averaged across grades within a
public school [§1111(b)(2)(J)].

39
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.1 How does the definition of Identifies subgroups for defining State does not disaggregate data
adequate yearly progress adequate yearly progress: by each required student
include all the required economically disadvantaged, subgroup.
student subgroups? 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 RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

All public elementary and secondary schools and districts serving such schools will be
accountable for the academic performance of student subgroups (race/ethnicity [White, African
American, Hispanic, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander], limited English proficiency
students, students economically disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities) through
the AYP determination, as long as the disaggregated student subgroup meets the minimum group
size requirement.

As described in section 2.2, schools and districts submit individual student-level data, which
includes demographic and programmatic information, through the Student Details System
(SAIS). The ADE will utilize this data to make AYP decisions for all schools, LEAs and all
required student subgroups.

40
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

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

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

As noted in section 3.1, student subgroups (as mandated by NCLB requirements) are evaluated
for AYP based on the percentage of students completing Arizona’s Instrument to Measure
Standards (AIMS), and the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standard in reading
and mathematics as determined by the annual measurable objectives, meeting the threshold or
demonstrating adequate gain on the additional indicator. The ADE will implement the safe
harbor provision as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

41
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.3 How are students with All students with disabilities The State Accountability System
disabilities included in the participate in statewide or State policy excludes students
State’s definition of assessments: general with disabilities from participating
adequate yearly progress? assessments with or without in the statewide assessments.
accommodations or an alternate
assessment based on grade level State cannot demonstrate that
standards for the grade in which alternate assessments measure
students are enrolled. grade-level standards for the
grade in which students are
State demonstrates that students enrolled.
with disabilities are fully included
in the State Accountability
System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) is administered to all students, regardless
of disability. Currently, students with disabilities may participate in statewide assessments either
by:

• Receiving accommodations (i.e., presentation format)

• Testing using an Alternate Form (i.e., AIMS Form A)

Arizona State Board of Education Rule (R7-2-401) mandates that all students with disabilities
who are educated within Arizona public schools participate in the statewide testing program.
Having all students, regardless of disability or group membership, participate in statewide testing
will allow for a comprehensive accountability system that includes all students in both district
and statewide assessment programs.

The scores for students with disabilities who take the regular assessment with standard or non-
standard accommodations will be included with the results of students who take these tests
without accommodations. For reporting purposes, the Department will maintain a record of the
number of students in each school and district taking assessments with non-standard
accommodations. The Department intends to closely monitor schools and districts to ensure the
proper use of standard and non-standard accommodations. Please see the attached guidance
document (AIMS document 2A).

As indicated above, AIMS A serves as the state’s alternate assessment and is only administered to
those students with the lowest cognitive abilities. AIMS A measures the performance of students
based on an alternative set of state standards. These standards represent functional level skills
and abilities. Like AIMS, AIMS A has four associated achievement levels (please refer to
attached document titled “Alternate State Achievement Test (ASAT), Student Report Form 9,

42
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Standards Status Report Form 2”). The scores for students with disabilities who take the
alternate assessment will be included in the assessment data in the accountability system.

43
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.4 How are students with All LEP student participate in LEP students are not fully
limited English proficiency statewide assessments: general included in the State
included in the State’s assessments with or without Accountability System.
definition of adequate accommodations or a native
yearly progress? language version of the general
assessment based on grade level
standards.

State demonstrates that LEP

students are fully included in the
State Accountability System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

All limited English proficient (LEP) students are required to participate in the statewide
assessment program (AIMS) designed to measure proficiency in Arizona’s academic content
standards. The LEP subgroup for a school or LEAs is required to meet the participation
requirement and the annual measurable objectives for the entity to make AYP.

The math and language arts scores of recently arrived LEP students will not be included when
determining AYP for a school or LEA. A recently arrived LEP student is an LEP student who has
attended schools in the U.S. for less than twelve months.

For AMO determinations, reclassified LEP students who have become proficient are included in
the English language learner subgroup for two additional years. However, reclassified LEP
students are not included in the LEP subgroup when determining if the number of LEP students
is sufficient to yield statistically reliable information.

44
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.5 What is the State's State defines the number of State does not define the required
definition of the minimum students required in a subgroup number of students in a subgroup
number of students in a for reporting and accountability for reporting and accountability
subgroup required for purposes, and applies this purposes.
reporting purposes? For definition consistently across the
accountability purposes? State.5 Definition is not applied
consistently across the State.
Definition of subgroup will result in
data that are statistically reliable. Definition does not result in data
that are statistically reliable.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) reports assessment data publicly in accordance to
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations. The ADE has determined that
the minimum number of students required for reporting test result data publicly will be ten (10)
students per report. The minimum group size for accountability purposes is 40 students.

The ADE will make AYP determinations for extremely small schools based on aggregate data for
the subjects and grades assessed (reading and mathematics). Extremely small schools are defined
as schools having no grade above the minimum group size of 40. To obtain valid group sizes the
ADE will aggregate data by subject and grade level over the most recent three years. This will
be done both to determine if the school has met the proficiency goal and the 95 percent goal for
students assessed.

5
The minimum number is not required to be the same for reporting and accountability.

45
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.6 How does the State Definition does not reveal Definition reveals personally
Accountability System personally identifiable identifiable information.
protect the privacy of information.6
students when reporting
results and when
determining AYP?

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) does not report student level data or data that may
be used to personally identify students in schools, LEAs or the State. The Achievement Profile is
reported at the school level; no student level information is publicly available. The ADE will
utilize a methodology that provides a definition of AYP based on all students. Thus, the
individual privacy of student subgroups is inherently protected at the school, LEA and State
levels. It should be noted that the minimum number for reporting accountability data will be the
same as the minimum required for accountability analysis (40 students). The ADE asserts that an
N count of forty represents a stable number for making AYP determinations. Additionally, the
ADE will publicly report values in ranges that obfuscate the actual values enough to prevent
calculations, which may result in the ability to discern student level detail from aggregate
analysis.

6
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits an LEA that receives Federal funds
from releasing, without the prior written consent of a student’s parents, any personally identifiable
information contained in a student’s education record.

46
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

PRINCIPLE 6. State definition of AYP is based primarily on the State’s academic

assessments.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

6.1 How is the State’s definition Formula for AYP shows that Formula for AYP shows that
of adequate yearly decisions are based primarily on decisions are based primarily on
progress based primarily assessments.7 non-academic indicators or
on academic indicators other than the State
assessments? Plan clearly identifies which assessments.
assessments are included in
accountability.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The ADE will complete an adequate yearly progress (AYP) analysis for all public schools and
districts serving such schools. Arizona’s definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) is based
primarily on reading and mathematics results on Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards
(AIMS). Although the required additional academic indicators mandated in Section 1111
(b)(2)(C)(vi) of The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 are part of the AYP analysis, Arizona will
examine the percentage of students that complete AIMS, calculate the percentage of students
who meet or exceed the standards in reading, and mathematics, and implement the safe harbor
provision stipulated by federal statute.

7
State Assessment System will be reviewed by the Standards and Assessments Peer Review Team.

47
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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).

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

7.1 What is the State definition State definition of graduation rate: State definition of public high
for the public high school school graduation rate does not
graduation rate? • Calculates the percentage meet these criteria.
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 state’s
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
clause8 to make AYP.

8
See USC 6311(b)(2)(I)(i), and 34 C.F.R. 200.20(b)

48
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Graduation Rate is a four-year, longitudinal measure of how many students graduate from
high school. Any student who receives a traditional high school diploma within the first four
years of starting high school is considered a four (4) year graduate as defined by the Arizona
Department of Education’s Graduation Rate Study (please see attached study). A four (4) year
rate is derived from dividing the sum of all four (4) year graduates in each year by the sum of
those who should have graduated and did not transfer to another qualified educational facility or
die. By examining a cohort of students who began high school at the same time, the graduation
rate assesses how many students actually complete high school within a four-year period.
Students who receive a diploma in the summer after their fourth year are included as part of the
graduating cohort. It should be noted that this calculation of the graduation rate does not include
dropouts as transfer students or those who obtain a Graduate Equivalent Diploma (GED).

Graduation Number of Cohort members who graduated after four years

Rate = + Transfers - Transfers - Deceased X 100
Original Cohort
Membership In Out

49
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

7.2 What is the State’s State defines the additional State has not defined an
additional academic academic indicators, e.g., additional academic indicator for
indicator for public additional State or locally elementary and middle schools.
elementary schools for the administered assessments not
definition of AYP? For included in the State assessment
public middle schools for system, grade-to-grade retention
the definition of AYP? rates or attendance rates.9

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 RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Arizona’s additional indicator for all public elementary and middle schools (grades K-8, or any
combination of those grades) for the definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) is student
attendance.

Average daily attendance days of students

Attendance =
Average daily membership days of students

For the purposes of AYP, unless required for the “safe harbor” provision, attendance will be
applied at the school and district level, in the aggregate rather than by disaggregated student
subgroups.

9
NCLB only lists these indicators as examples.

50
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

7.3 Are the State’s academic State has defined academic State has an academic indicator
indicators valid and indicators that are valid and that is not valid and reliable.
reliable? reliable.
State has an academic indicator
State has defined academic that is not consistent with
indicators that are consistent with nationally recognized standards.
nationally recognized standards, if
any. State has an academic indicator
that is not consistent within grade
levels.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Arizona has selected two academic indicators for the elementary (grades K-8 or any
combination) and high school Achievement Profile model. Arizona’s Instrument to Measure
Standards (AIMS) is the primary academic indicator in the elementary and secondary models. It
should be noted that AIMS has undergone technical review by Harcourt Brace Educational
Measurement (contractor) as well as independent review solicited by the Arizona Department of
Education (ADE). This review entailed reliability and validity testing; these tests result in
reliability coefficients ranging from .77 to .91 (these values are based on 2002 analysis). A brief
description of the process pertaining to the statistical reliability and validity of AIMS is outlined
below. For more detailed information please refer to the AIMS Technical manual.

In addition to the involvement of teachers in every step of standards and test development as a
primary piece of validity evidence, the following technical studies will be used to determine test
score validity and reliability. Reliability is considered to be a piece of validity evidence.

Field test statistics

Item analysis statistics will be used to determine whether a field test item is to be included in the
AIMS item bank. Content and bias will be part of the selection criteria. Teacher teams will
review item calibrations based on Rasch difficulty estimates and based on traditional difficulties
(p-values). Item response distributions will be studied for all respondents, for high-, middle-,
and low-ability groups. Point-biserial correlations (item to total correlations) as well as a
high/low student response index values are included in the decision-making. Rasch outfit mean
squares are used as a between-group measure to evaluate the agreement between the observed
item characteristic curve for best fit over ability sub-groups, and Rasch infit mean squares are
used as a within-group measure to summarize the degree of misfit remaining within ability
groups after between-group misfit has been removed from the total. Differential item
functioning (DIF) procedures are used to compare subgroup performance to a reference group. A
generalized Mantel-Haenel chi-square procedure will be used to assess DIF.

AIMS item bank

All items that are determined to be of operational quality will be put into the AIMS item bank
and will carry all related statistics and history in terms of test forms. Information stored in the

51
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

item bank includes for each item the item code, grade level, content area, performance objective,
concept, strand, field test date, test form, and item statistics.

Equating and scale score derivation procedures

To ensure that students taking one form of a test are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged,
common items on each form of AIMS are used to equate test forms. A common item, non-
equivalent groups design is used for collecting data. The Rasch model is used to obtain
parameter estimates. This procedure will result in the item parameters for all forms being on the
same ability scale.

Reliability of test scores

Test score reliability coefficients will be produced using a stratified coefficient alpha for
constructed responses, and Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 and Cronbach Alpha coefficients for
selected response items. Standard errors of measure will be provided. Within form correlations
and between multiple choice and constructed-response for each set of AIMS will be calculated.

Decision consistency and pass score accuracy

The accuracy of a decision to classify a student as above or below the standard cut score is the
extent to which the decision would agree with decisions that would be made if each student
could somehow be tested with all possible parallel forms of a test form. The consistency of the
decision is the extent to which it would agree with the decisions that would be made if the
students had taken a different form of the test, equal in difficulty and covering the same content
as the form they actually took. Statistical analyses will be used to estimate the accuracy and
consistency of the decisions for passing. Decision tables will be provided showing cells with
correct classifications and misclassifications (false positives and false negatives) for test forms
taken.

Ongoing validity studies to provide test score validity evidence

The National Assessment and Accountability Advisory Committee, consisting of nationally
recognized measurement consultants provide, guidance on all aspects of AIMS development
including validity studies. Jerry D’Agostino has a contract with the Arizona Department of
Education to conduct a series of validity studies including content, curricula, and construct
validity studies. The Department’s assessment and research units will conduct additional studies.

A State Assessment and Accountability Advisory Committee meets regularly with the state
director of assessment to provide input and recommendations regarding the state’s testing
program. This committee deals primarily with local issues. Two members of the state
committee are representatives to the national committee. One member of the national committee
is a representative to the state committee.

Based on the reliability and validity studies of AIMS and the cooperation of the state’s advisory
committees to continue to consult on validity studies, the ADE is confident that the AZ LEARNS
component of the Achievement Profiles is both valid and reliable. It is still unclear whether the
AYP determinations that will be made for the 2003 Achievement Profiles are valid or reliable.
The ADE intends to utilize its resources, NAAAC, SAAAC and the Technical Advisory

52
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

committee, to conduct validity studies based on the results of this year’s (2003) Achievement
Profiles.

53
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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

achievement objectives.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

8.1 Does the state measure State AYP determination for State AYP determination for
achievement in student subgroups, public student subgroups, public
reading/language arts and schools and LEAs separately schools and LEAs averages or
mathematics separately for measures reading/language arts combines achievement across
determining AYP? and mathematics. 10 reading/language arts and
mathematics.
AYP is a separate calculation for
reading/language arts and
mathematics for each group,
public school, and LEA.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) calculates an Achievement Profile based on the
separate evaluation of subjects as well as grades assessed at the school level. Reading and
mathematics are evaluated independently to determine areas of strength and weakness within
each grade level as well as at the school level. The ADE has determined the starting point,
annual measurable objectives, intermediate goals and growth expectations for each subject and
grade.

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

10
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.

54
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

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

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

During the spring and summer of 2003, the ADE will meet with district and educational
representatives to modify the existing state accountability system in order to integrate the
requirements established by NCLB. This group deals with the fundamental questions regarding
school accountability and seeks to develop a fair, accurate, valid and reliable system to measure
student achievement and school performance. The ADE will make AYP determinations for all
student subgroups; schools, district and the state based on a 99% confidence level that the
decisions made regarding the performance of schools are accurate. The ADE will determine the
confidence interval for the percent proficient for each subject and grade to determine that the
probability of a particular subgroup, school or district making the annual measurable objective
(AMO) falls within a 99% confidence level, (p = .01). The ADE will utilize statistical methods,
confidence intervals, to ensure that AYP decisions meet the state’s standards for acceptable
reliability. AYP decisions will be made separately by subject (reading and mathematics).

55
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

9.2 What is the State's process State has established a process State does not have a system for
for making valid AYP for public schools and LEAs to handling appeals of accountability
determinations? appeal an accountability decision. decisions.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

In accordance with Title I, Section 1116 (2) (A-C) of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Arizona
Department of Education (ADE) will provide schools proposed for failure to make adequate
yearly progress (AYP), which may result in an identification for school improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring, the opportunity to review the school-level data (including assessment
data) on which the proposed identification is based. If the principal of a school proposed for
failure to make AYP believes, or a majority of the parents of the students enrolled in such school
believe that the proposed identification is in error for statistical or other substantive reasons, the
principal may provide supporting evidence to the ADE for further consideration prior to the final
AYP determination. This procedure established by Title I, Section 1116 (2) (A-C) of the No
Child Left Behind Act will serve as the basis for AYP appeals. The AYP appeal procedure
established by the ADE effectively completes the process for making valid AYP determinations.
A final AYP determination and public release will occur no longer than thirty (30) days after the
release of preliminary AYP determinations.

56
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

9.3 How has the State planned State has a plan to maintain State’s transition plan interrupts
for incorporating into its continuity in AYP decisions annual determination of AYP.
definition of AYP anticipated necessary for validity through
changes in assessments? planned assessment changes, State does not have a plan for
and other changes necessary to handling changes: e.g., to its
comply fully with NCLB.11 assessment system, or the
addition of new public schools.
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.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The most immediate challenge is the incorporation of additional grades assessed within the
accountability system as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. As noted earlier in
Section 8.1 a school classification is based on the combination of the grades and subjects
assessed (this is based primarily on grade configurations). Therefore, the inclusion of additional
grades into State assessment simply requires the ADE to determine starting points and growth
point groupings for these new grades, as well as reevaluate previous data in grades 3, 5 and 8.
The ADE will determine the appropriate Subject/Grade Value Scales based on these new grade
levels and provide a recommendation to the State Board of Education at such a time that this is
appropriate. The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) will evaluate the current
performance/achievement standards in order to determine if said standards are set at appropriate
levels when AIMS is articulated grades 3 through 8 in 2004-2005.

11
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.

57
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

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.
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

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

Public schools and LEAs are held

accountable for reaching the 95%
assessed goal.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Participation Requirements: Schools and districts in which at least ninety-five percent (95%)
of students enrolled at the time of the test administration complete the state assessments will
meet the AYP standard established in federal statute. Schools and districts in which fewer than
ninety-five percent (95%) of any student subgroup completes the state-mandated assessments
will not meet the AYP standard, provided that the size of the subgroup meets the minimum
number of students required for the analysis, forty (40) students.

The ADE intends to use the following formula to determine the percentage of students assessed
for each grade level and subject in elementary and middle schools:

Number of students assessed

% Assessed = X 100
Number of students enrolled

The ADE plans to utilize flexibility given for the calculation of 95% tested. ADE will calculate
percent tested for the current year, then, if an assessed category does not meet the required
threshold, ADE will use data from the current and previous two years to calculate a weighted
average of the participation rate. If an assessed category meets the requirement using either
method, that category will make the percent tested requirement and be credited toward the
school, district and state’s overall AYP determination.

58
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

The ADE will utilize school finance and MIS data that has undergone extensive integrity and
validity checks to calculate the percent of students assessed. School and district funding is
determined based on the data that is provided to the ADE through the Student Details System.
These data will be utilized to the extent possible starting in the 2002-2003 academic year for
calculating the 2003 Achievement Profile. Detailed descriptions of the integrity and validity
checks utilized by the ADE can be provided if necessary. Furthermore, under A.R.S. §15-241
schools must provide accurate data necessary for the calculation of the Achievement Profiles,
including AYP data, or risk the loss of classroom site funds if found not to be compliant. The
ADE has authority to audit and monitor school data for compliance.

59
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

10.2 What is the State's policy State has a policy that State does not have a procedure
for determining when the implements the regulation for making this determination.
95% assessed regarding the use of 95%
requirement should be allowance when the group is
applied? statistically significant according
to State rules.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The ADE will apply the 95 percent tested requirement to all subgroups within a school or LEA
that have at least 40 students enrolled on the day of testing. For small schools and LEAs (entities
that do not have 40 students enrolled in any grade) the ADE will apply the requirement to all
subgroups that have had a total of 40 students enrolled over the most current three years.

60
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Appendix A
Required Data Elements for State Report Card

1111(h)(1)(C)

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.

2. Information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement levels of each student
subgroup and the State’s annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of the
academic assessments.

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.

4. The most recent 2-year trend in student achievement in each subject area, and for each grade level,
for the required assessments.

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.

6. Graduation rates for secondary school students disaggregated by student subgroups.

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.

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.

61