FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
€
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
F. PHILIP HANDY,
Chairman
€
T. WILLARD FAIR,
Vice Chairman
€
Members
€
SALLY BRADSHAW
€
LINDA J. EADS, ED.D.
€
CHARLES PATRICK GARCÍA
€
JULIA L. JOHNSON
€
WILLIAM L. PROCTOR, PH.D.
€
May 8, 2003
MEMORANDUM
JIM HORNE
Commissioner of Education
TO:
FROM:
Lavan Dukes
District School Superintendents, District School Report Contacts, MIS Directors
SUBJECT:
?
Public Reporting Requirements and Data Verification for the 2002-03 “No Child
Left Behind” (NCLB) School Public Accountability Reports (SPARs)
To qualify for federal funding under provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, local
and state education agencies must meet new requirements for public reporting on the status of
schools. NCLB legislation requires that school districts provide parents with an annual school
status report prior to the beginning of each school year (see Attachment 1, Critical Dates). To
assist Florida school districts in preparing these reports, known as the NCLB School Public
Accountability Reports (SPARs), the Department of Education will produce a downloadable file
by district (
DPS##.GE.F70396.Y0203
) containing data for most of the required NCLB
indicators, including the indicator on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Certain other indicators,
which are identified later in this memorandum, must be added locally to the reports prior to
distribution to parents.
Additional selected indicators formerly featured on the annual School
Advisory Council Reports are included on the NCLB SPARs in the DOE-prepared data file. Key
features of the NCLB SPAR are noted below.
Disaggregation of Data and Summary of NCLB Reporting Requirements
NCLB legislation requires reporting on specific subgroups of students for FCAT results, the
graduation rate, and other indicators as reflected on the attached mockup of the NCLB SPAR
(see Attachment 3).
The NCLB-required information for the annual state and district report
cards (SPARs) comprises the following data:
GARNET L. DUKES. JR.
Bureau Chief
€
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
€
325 W. GAINES STREET • SUITE 852 • TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0400 • (850) 487-2280 • www.fldoe.org
•
?
?
FCAT results by performance level and subgroup (see SPAR mockup in Attachment 3),
including state-adopted proficiency targets for Reading and Math, the percentage of students
achieving proficiency in those areas, and the percentage of students not tested.
•
Graduation rates by subgroup.
•
?
Performance of school districts on adequate yearly progress measures (AYP), including the
number of schools in need of improvement (see Attachment 4).
•
?
The percentage of teachers teaching in-field and out-of-field and the percentage of classes
not taught by highly qualified teachers, including a comparison between high- and low-
poverty schools.
Replacement of Annual School Advisory Council Reports
Note that the Florida Legislature’s repeal and replacement of prior state education goals has
resulted in discontinuance of the School Advisory Council Reports (SACRs).
In effect, the
SACRs are being replaced by the NCLB SPARs to meet both federal and state requirements for
educational accountability through annual public disclosure reports.
NCLB SPAR Indicators
The listing below shows the indicators that are required for the annual public disclosure reports
under NCLB provisions (including DOE-prepared indicators and locally added indicators), as
well as additional indicators providing data of interest on the status of Florida’s public schools.
Indicators are described in more detail in a publication titled “Guide to Calculations for the
NCLB School Public Accountability Report,” which can be requested by e-mailing Ed Croft at
ed.croft@fldoe.org.
Indicators Prepared by the DOE
•
Kindergarten
Readiness
•
NCLB
Graduation
Rate
•
Dropout
Rate
•
Postsecondary
Readiness
•
Student Test Results (FCAT and Alternate Assessments)
•
New Teachers and Staff
•
School Evaluation for Unsafe School Choice Option
•
Teachers by Professional Degree
•
Classes Taught by Teachers Teaching In-Field/Out-of-Field*
•
Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers*
•
October
Membership
•
School Performance Grade
•
NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress Indicator
* Available for district review/verification beginning May 20, 2003.
In-field/out-of-field verification file = DPS##.GE.F70406.Y0203
Highly qualified teacher verification file = DPS##.GE.F70407.Y0203
Page 2
Indicators Added Locally
•
?
School Safety and Environment: Reported Incidents.
(This will be prepared by the DOE
after 2002-03.)
•
Results of an annual locally administered school learning environment survey.
•
?
The number and percent of teachers, administrators, and staff who received satisfactory
annual evaluations.
•
?
The number and percent of School Advisory Council members by membership type and by
racial/ethnic category.
•
?
The amount of Education Enhancement Trust Fund (Lottery) dollars received and allocated
by the district and by the school, including how and for which programs such allocations
were used for educational enhancement and school improvement.
•
Summary of school improvement plan results.
•
Notice of availability of the school financial report.
Data for District Review and Verification
Many of the NCLB SPAR indicators for the 2002-03 report have been calculated in advance for
prior publications (such as the graduation and dropout rates, which present data from the
previous year). Considering this, and in light of the compressed production timeline for these
reports (see Attachment 1), districts are being asked to review data for only two new indicators:
Classes Taught by In-Field and Out-of-Field Teachers and the Percentage of Classes Not Taught
by Highly Qualified Teachers.
2002-03 Data for District Verification Prior to Release
Indicator
Source of Data
Classes Taught by In-
Field and Out-of-
Field Teachers
DOE Automated Student
Information Database; Teacher
Course format, Survey 2
Classes Not Taught
by Highly Qualified
Teachers
DOE Automated Student
Information Database; Student
Demographic, Student Course,
Teacher Course; Survey 2
The file names/numbers for these indicators are as follows:
In-field/out-of-field verification file =
DPS##.GE.F70406.Y0203
Highly qualified teacher verification file =
DPS##.GE.F70407.Y0203
Page 3
Mockups of NCLB SPAR and AYP Indicator Report
Attachments 3 and 4 provide mockups of the main body of the NCLB SPAR and the AYP
Report. These models can be produced for the final reports that districts will make available to
parents on August 1, 2003.
Distribution Requirements
Districts and schools may elect to send a multi-page copy of
the report (including the AYP
Report) to parents or guardians of all their students. However, considering ongoing efforts to
reduce printing costs and to take advantage of efficiencies promoted by paperless forms of
communication, the Florida Department of Education is suggesting local consideration of certain
alternative methods for meeting this public disclosure requirement as described below.
In lieu of sending the NCLB SPAR itself, districts and schools may send notification of the
report’s availability to parents or guardians of every student, indicating where and how the report
can be viewed or obtained. At a minimum, a printed copy of the report must be kept at both the
school and district offices for viewing, and a copy must be sent to parents, guardians, or
community members upon request.
Examples of other forms of access to the reports (which may reduce individual requests for
printed copies) include the following:
•
Copies are placed in public libraries or other public areas.
•
Each report is web-based with a print option.
•
?
Reports are printed in local newspapers, newsletters, or other general distribution print
formats.
•
Reports are shown frequently on local cable access channels.
Pending Availability of a COBOL Record Layout
A record layout that could be used for production of a printable report will be available later in
the production cycle (approximately May 19, 2003).
The file name is
DPS.FORMAT.TECH.Y0203.
Preparation of the AYP Report Separately from the NCLB SPAR
Because of the complexity of the calculation required to assess schools’ progress toward AYP,
and because the indicator must be adequately explained to parents, the Department has elected to
provide a report mockup that focuses solely on AYP and is separate from the NCLB SPAR
mockup. As noted above, the mockup for the AYP report is included in Attachment 4. Note that
the data for the AYP indicator will be included in the raw data file for the NCLB SPARs. (See
Attachment 5 for a list of applicable data files.) As with the NCLB SPAR, the AYP report must
be distributed prior to the beginning of the school year.
Page 4
Attachments
The following attachments are provided to assist you and/or your staff in finalizing the reports.
1)
List of Critical Dates for NCLB SPAR production.
2)
?
Technical Assistance for New Indicators: Percentage of Classes Taught by In-Field/Out-of-
Field Teachers and Percentage of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
(Calculations & Programming)
3)
Mockup of NCLB SPAR report.
4)
Mockup of AYP Report (to be distributed in conjunction with NCLB SPAR).
5)
Data set names (file numbers).
Questions should be directed to Edward Croft, Director, Education Accountability Reports
Services, at (850) 487-2280, SunCom 277-2280, Fax (850) 922-8041, or e-mail
ed.croft@fldoe.org. After May 27, 2003, contact EIAS at (850) 245-0400.
Thank you for your assistance in providing accurate and useful educational data to Florida’s
citizens.
/ec
cc:
?
School District Superintendents
School Improvement Contacts
School
District
Council of MIS
Student Data Base Contacts
Staff Data Base Contacts
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Critical Dates for 2002-03
€
NCLB School Public Accountability Report Production
€
January – May 5, 2003
?
Project development:
Indicators finalized, mockups
developed. Guide to Calculations drafted. DOE develops
programming for new indicators.
May 8, 2003
?
Memo to Superintendents, School Report Contacts, and
appropriate district staff providing NCLB SPAR reporting
requirements, list of indicators, description of data
verification for new indicators, resources, distribution
requirements, and timeline.
May 9- 12, 2003
?
DOE runs sample reports to include Survey 2 indicators +
prior year’s graduation rate, dropout rate, and
postsecondary readiness data.
May 12-14, 2003
DOE review of sample reports.
May 20, 2003*
?
Districts may access verification file for “Teachers Teaching
In-Field and Out-of-Field” and “Classes Not Taught by
Highly Qualified Teachers.”
NCLB SPAR record layout
available.
In-Field/Out-of-Field:
DPS##.GE.F70406.Y0203
Highly Qualified Teachers:
DPS##.GE.F70407.Y0203
COBOL record layout file:
DPS.FORMAT.TECH.Y0203
May 30, 2003
?
DOE imports Kindergarten Readiness data and
assessment data into NCLB data file.
June 3 – 10, 2003
DOE calculates AYP data.
June 11, 2003
?
DOE imports AYP data and school grade data into NCLB
SPAR data file.
June
13,
2003
?
Last day for districts to update Survey 2 data for
inclusion in NCLB SPARs.
June 23, 2003
?
DOE runs final data; begins extensive data review and
verification of sample reports.
July/August 2003
NCLB SPARs are made available to districts via electronic
file.
Raw data file =
DPS##.GE.F70396.Y0203
August 2003
Schools and districts distribute reports.
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Technical Assistance for Calculation of “Classes Taught by
Teachers Teaching In-Field and Out-of-Field” and “Classes not
Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers”
INDICATOR:
?
CLASSES TAUGHT BY TEACHERS TEACHING IN-
FIELD/OUT-OF-FIELD
YEAR:
2002-03
EXPLANATION:
?
The percentage of classes being taught by classroom teachers
teaching in-field versus out-of-field for core academic courses.
Core academic courses are English, reading, language arts,
mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics, government,
economics, arts, history, and geography. Results are reported for
the school, district, and state.
REPORTED AS
Percentage
CALCULATED BY SCHOOL TYPE (for district and state data)?
Yes
No _X
SOURCE:
DOE Student Information Data Base
FORMATS/DATA ELEMENTS USED:
Teacher Course
/
District Number, Current Instruction
(Survey 2)
?
School Number, Current Instruction
Course
Number
Period Number (Begin); Period Number (End)
Social Security Number (teacher I.D.)
Primary Instructor Indicator
Term (= 1,2,3, 6-9, B-O)
Certification/Licensure Status (A,I,M,S,N =
In-Field; O,B = Out-of-Field)
The following courses are core academic courses:
•
?
Courses for which the first 2 digits of the Course Number begin with 01, 03, 04,
07, 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, or 24 (except 2400200 through 2400300).
•
?
Courses for which the first 4 digits are 5001, 5003, 5007, 5010, 5012, 5013, 5020,
5021, 5100, or 5200 (except 52005).
•
Courses that are numbered 7755040, 7855040, and 7967010.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
€
CALCULATION:
1.
Compile classes.
Denominator
Compile teacher course records for which
•
the course number is within the specified range (shown on prior page),
•
Term
= one of the following codes: 1,2,3, 6-9, B-O,
•
the
Primary Instructor Indicator
is Y, and
•
Certification/Licensure Status
is coded as A,B,I,M,O,S, or N.
2.
Calculate percentage of In-Field and Out-of-Field classes.
School%:
In-Field
=
?
(the number of core academic classes taught at a school
with teachers teaching in-field [Certification/Licensure
Status A,I,M,S,N]
÷
the total number of core academic
classes taught in this school)
×
100
Out-of-Field =
?
(the number of core academic classes taught at a school
with teachers teaching out-of-field [Certification/Licensure
Status B,O]
÷
the total number of core academic classes
taught in this school)
×
100
District and state percentages are calculated in the same manner as for schools.
Percentages for Out-of-Field and In-Field teachers will add to 100%
Continued on next page for “Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers.”
ATTACHMENT 2
INDICATOR:
YEAR:
EXPLANATION:
REPORTED BY:
CATEGORY:
SUBGROUP:
SCHOOL TYPE:
3
CLASSES NOT TAUGHT BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
2002-03
The percentage of core academic classes not being taught by
highly qualified classroom teachers at the school level, district
level, and state level.
At the state level, these percentages are
disaggregated by high poverty schools and low poverty schools as
defined in federal law.
Number
__
Percent
X
Grade
__
Race
__
Sex
__
High Poverty/Low Poverty
_X_:
€
Poverty groupings are determined by Lunch Status.
€
Elementary
X
Middle
X
High
X_
Exceptional
X
Alternative
X_
Other
_X_
CALCULATED BY SCHOOL TYPE?
Yes
_
No _ X_
SOURCE:
Student Information Data Base
FORMATS/DATA ELEMENTS USED:
For Free/Reduced Price Lunch Membership (to Determine High/Low Poverty Schools)
Student Demographic Information
/
District Number, Current Enrollment
(Survey 2)
?
School Number, Current Enrollment
Grade Level (PK-12)
Lunch Status (codes 2, 3, 4)
Student Number Identifier, Florida
Student Number Identifier—Alias, Florida
Student Course Schedule
/
(Must have at least 1 matching Student Course
(Survey 2)
Schedule record.)
For Highly Qualified Teacher Data
Teacher Course
/
District Number, Current Enrollment
(Survey
3
)
?
School Number, Current Enrollment
Course
Number
Period Number (Begin); Period Number (End)
Primary Instructor Indicator
Term (= 1,2,3, 6-9, B-O)
Highly Qualified Teacher (N = “No”)
ATTACHMENT 2
4
INDICATOR:
CLASSES NOT TAUGHT BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
(cont.)
CALCULATION:
Compilation of Core Academic Classes
The following courses are core academic courses:
•
?
Courses for which the first 2 digits of the Course Number begin with 01, 03, 04, 07,
10, 12, 13, 20, 21, or 24 (except 2400200 through 2400300).
•
?
Courses for which the first 4 digits are 5001, 5003, 5007, 5010, 5012, 5013, 5020,
5021, 5100, or 5200 (except 52005).
•
Courses that are numbered 7755040, 7855040, and 7967010.
Denominator
Compile teacher course records for which
•
the course number is within the specified range (shown above),
•
Term
= one of the following codes: 1,2,3, 6-9, B-O,
•
the
Primary Instructor Indicator
is Y, and
•
the
Highly Qualified Teacher
indicator is Y, N, or Z.
High Poverty/Low Poverty Schools (for State-Level Calculation)
High poverty schools in the state are determined by first calculating the
percentage of students with Free and Reduced Price Lunch status (%FRPL)
within each school.
% FRPL
?
(the October count of PK-12 students eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch at this school (codes 2,3, and 4)
÷
the
unduplicated count of PK-12 students who were enrolled at
this school in October)
×
100
All schools are then sorted by % FRPL. The top quartile of schools (top 25%)
are considered “high poverty” schools.
The lower quartile of schools (bottom
25%) are considered “low poverty” schools.
The percentage of Highly Qualified
Teachers within these designated “high poverty” and “low poverty schools” are
reported at the state level only. If there are schools with the same percentage of
FRPL students and those schools push the top quartile or bottom quartile beyond
25%, all schools with that same ranking will be included in the quartile
regardless.
ATTACHMENT 2
5
€
Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
School
%
=
?
(the number of core academic classes in the school that are
not taught by highly qualified teachers [Code = N]
÷
the total
number of core academic classes taught in the school)
×
100
The calculation is repeated to determine district percentages.
State
%:
All Schools
=
?
(the number of core academic classes in the state not taught
by highly qualified teachers [Code = N]
÷
the total number of
core academic classes taught in the state)
×
100
High Poverty
=
?
(the number of core academic classes in the state not taught
by highly qualified teachers [Code = N] in “High Poverty”
schools [as determined above]
÷
the total number of core
academic classes taught in the state in “High Poverty”
schools )
×
100
Low Poverty
=
?
(the number of core academic classes in the state not taught
by highly qualified teachers [Code = N] in “Low Poverty”
schools [as determined above]
÷
the total number of core
academic classes taught in the state in “Low Poverty”
schools)
×
100
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
NCLB SCHOOL PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
The School Public Accountability Report contains several types of data (indicators) designed to inform
parents and the general public about the progress of Florida’s public schools. This report meets the public
reporting requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) educational funding program and
includes certain additional information of interest on the status of Florida’s schools.
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
October membership
The following table provides information on the composition of the student population at the school, district,
and state levels.
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Number of Students
Enrolled in October
School %
District %
State %
Female Male
2001-02
2000-01
2001-02
2000-01
2001-02
2000-01
WHITE
344
294
38.8
40.6
61.4
62.9
54.6
55.7
BLACK
449
378
50.3
50.0
29.9
29.7
23.1
23.3
HISPANIC
23
19
2.6
2.2
4.5
4.3
19.0
17.9
ASIAN
68
54
7.4
6.4
3.1
2.4
2.3
2.2
AM.INDIAN
1
3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
MULTIRACIAL
9
3
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
DISABLED 100
105
12.5
12.3
30.2
31.5
30.5
30.6
ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
205 255
28.0
28.9
45.2
45.5
46.7
46.8
LEP 10
13
1.4
1.5
20.7
20.6
30.7
31.8
MIGRANT 2
3
0
.1
9.2
8.9
10.2
10.8
FEMALE
894
54.3
51.0
51.3
50.1
49.8
49.7
MALE
751
45.7
49.0
48.7
49.9
50.2
50.3
TOTAL
1645
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
READINESS TO START SCHOOL
Florida requires that communities and schools collaborate to prepare children and families for children's
success in school.
Kindergarten screening for school readiness
Kindergarten students were screened during the first 45-calendar days of the beginning of school using a
developmental screening instrument: the
Early Screening Inventory--Kindergarten (ESI-K).
Percentages
show the proportion of children scoring across the three results categories titled “Ready Now,” “Getting
Ready,” and “Not Ready Yet.”
“Ready Now” means that the development and abilities of the student were within the range of what is
expected for children of this age level. “Getting Ready” indicates that the student did not attain expected
levels of readiness but scored close enough to readiness that his or her placement could have been affected by
external factors influencing performance on the day of screening.
Some schools may have elected to re-
administer the screening at a later date. “Not Ready Yet” means that age-appropriate development was not
evidenced during the screening.
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
The following table shows results of the early screening inventory.
Category Number
of
Students
Evaluated and
Where They
Placed
School %
District %
State %
2002-03
2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02
Ready Now
75
64.1
NA
60.1
NA
62.1
NA
Getting
Ready
25 21.4
NA
17.4
NA
19.4
NA
Not Ready
Yet
17 14.5
NA
10.5
NA
12.5
NA
TOTAL 117
100.0
NA
100.0
NA
100.0
NA
GRADUATION RATE AND READINESS FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
Florida high schools strive to ensure that students graduate and are prepared to enter the workforce and
postsecondary education.
Graduation rate
The graduation rate shows the percentage of students who graduated within four years of initial entry into
ninth grade. Graduates include students who received a standard high school diploma, a special diploma, or
a State of Florida diploma (GED) earned through a GED Exit Option program.
School %
District %
State %
2001-02 2000-01 2001-02 2000-01 2001-02 2000-01
ALL STUDENTS
62.6
56.8
66.4
61.2
67.9
63.8
WHITE
65.4
62.3
69.4
66.3
70.4
67.3
BLACK
57.3
54.9
61.3
58.9
62.3
59.9
HISPANIC
52.3
50.1
56.3
54.1
57.3
55.1
ASIAN
70.5
69.9
74.5
73.9
75.5
74.9
AM. INDIAN
56.5
52.4
60.5
56.4
61.5
57.4
MULTIRACIAL 55.3
54.7
55.2
51.7
56.0
55.9
DISABLED
50.1
49.3
54.1
53.3
55.1
54.3
ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
43.2
40.1
47.2
44.1
48.2
45.1
LEP
42.1
40.2
46.1
44.2
47.1
45.2
MIGRANT
30.2
28.9
34.2
32.9
35.2
33.9
FEMALE 62.6
56.8
66.4
61.2
67.9
63.8
MALE 62.6
56.8
66.4
61.2
67.9
63.8
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
Dropout rate
Dropouts are students who leave school before graduation and do not enroll in another institution or
educational program before the end of the school year. Percentages show by race and gender the proportion
of students from the total 9-12 enrollment who dropped out of school.
Number of
€
Dropouts During
School %
District %
State %
€
the School Year
€
Racial/
€
Ethnic Group
Female
Male 2001-02 2000-01 2001-02 2000-01 2001-02 2000-01
€
WHITE 2
10
1.8
4
3.9
4.9
2.6
3.1
BLACK 23
33
6.1
6.8
7.8
8.2
3.9
4.7
HISPANIC 1
2.2
2.6
5.1
5.6
3.8
4.7
ASIAN
1
1.5
0.9
1.7
2.1
AM.INDIAN 1 25 8.3
11.8
2.5
3.1
MULTIRACIAL
1
6.7
10
4.2
6.9
2.2
3
FEMALE 27
2.8
4.7
4.8
5.6
2.8
3.4
MALE
44
5.4
5.8
5.7
6.4
3.5
4.1
TOTAL 71
4
5.3
5.2
6.1
3.2
3.8
Postsecondary readiness--graduates who passed college entry-level placement tests (reading, writing,
and mathematics)
Shown in the tables are the reported numbers of 2001 (calendar year) graduates who enrolled in Florida
public community colleges or universities between May 2001 and April 2002, who entered a degree program,
and who took college preparatory placement tests. Also shown are the number and percentage of students
who passed these placement tests and who are considered ready for college courses in each academic area.
Students who did not attend a Florida public community college or state university, such as those who
attended out-of-state or private colleges and universities, are not included.
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Number of
Graduates
Who Took
College
Placement
Reading
Tests
Number of
Who Passed
Reading
Placement
Tests
School % District %
State %
WHITE 86
83
96.5
85.4
81.7
BLACK 62
32
51.6
46.8
55.4
HISPANIC 7
6
85.7
80.4
65.5
ASIAN 13
13
100
85.3
75.4
AM.INDIAN
100
73.1
UNKNOWN
100
65.7
FEMALE 102
78
76.5
76.5
73.8
MALE 66
56
84.8
77.1
75.3
UNKNOWN
66.7
TOTAL 168
134
79.8
76.7
74.4
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Number of
Graduates
Who Took
College
Placement
Writing
Tests
Number of
Who Passed
Writing
Placement
Tests
School % District %
State %
WHITE
86
83
98.8
89.7
86.3
BLACK
62
32
61.3
58.0
63.0
HISPANIC
7
6
85.7
89.1
74.2
ASIAN
13
13
100.0
94.0
80.8
AM.INDIAN
100.0
77.7
UNKNOWN
100.0
72.7
FEMALE
102
83
81.4
83.1
81.0
MALE
66
59
89.4
82.8
79.1
UNKNOWN
100.0
TOTAL
168
142
84.5
83.0
80.2
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Number of
Graduates
Who Took
College
Placement
Math Tests
Number of
Who Passed
Math
Placement
Tests
School % District %
State %
WHITE
86
82
95.3
76.1
73.3
BLACK
62
32
51.6
47.3
50.5
HISPANIC
7
6
85.7
73.9
58.6
ASIAN
13
13
100.0
94.1
82.1
AM.INDIAN
75.0
65.2
UNKNOWN
100.0
58.0
FEMALE
102
76
74.5
68.3
65.0
MALE
66
57
86.4
73.1
70.8
UNKNOWN
66.7
TOTAL
168
133
79.2
70.3
67.4
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
€
Page 4
€
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Florida’s students are expected to compete at the highest levels nationally and internationally and become
prepared to make well-reasoned, thoughtful, and healthy lifelong decisions.
Standardized Tests
Although test scores should not be used to draw absolute conclusions about student learning and
performance, they provide measured results of student progress toward educational goals. The tests
administered to Florida students are described below.
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
The FCAT measures student performance in writing, reading, and mathematics. The FCAT has two main
parts: one part consisting of tests that measure skills prescribed by the Sunshine State Standards, and the
other part consisting of norm-referenced tests that rank student performance on a percentile basis.
Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities
An alternate assessment for students with disabilities is a performance-based assessment designed to evaluate
the progress of students with disabilities on the Sunshine State Standards for Special Diploma measures.
Alternate assessments are used with students who are functioning at a cognitive level such that they would
not be expected to participate in FCAT, would not be expected to graduate from school with a standard
diploma, and for whom the traditional state and district assessment program is not an appropriate measure of
performance. Alternate assessments for students with disabilities are given for writing/communication,
reading, and math.
Alternate Assessments for Students who are Limited English Proficient
Students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) and who have been in an English for Speakers of Other
Languages (ESOL) program for less than one year may be individually exempted from the FCAT. In these
limited circumstances, locally developed alternate assessments are used to evaluate the academic
performance of that student. Alternate assessments for LEP students are given for writing, reading, and
math.
I .
FCAT Sunshine State Standards Tests
The FCAT Sunshine State Standards (SSS) tests measure student performance on selected benchmarks
defined by the Sunshine State Standards. Students who take an alternate assessment have their results
reported in categorical classifications that include the designation of “Proficient,” so that their performance is
counted with those of other students.
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
Writing Assessment
For this assessment, students are given 45 minutes to read their assigned topic, plan what to write, and then
write their responses. Scores range from 1.0 (lowest) to 6.0 (highest). Alternate assessments have been
merged with the FCAT scores for reporting purposes.
Writing Assessment Results
(Sunshine State Standards and Alternate Assessments)
Percent of Students Scoring 3 and Above
School
District
State
2002-03 2001-02
2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02
ALL STUDENTS
60.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
55.0
53.0
WHITE
74.0
73.0
71.0
70.0
69.0
67.0
BLACK
32.0
31.0
29.0
28.0
27.0
26.0
HISPANIC
50.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
43.0
ASIAN
80.0
78.0
77.0
73.0
75.0
73.0
AM. INDIAN
65.0
60.0
62.0
60.0
60.0
58.0
MULTIRACIAL
DISABLED
55.0
53.0
52.0
50.0
50.0
48.0
ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
42.0
41.0
39.0
37.0
37.0
35.0
LEP
29.0
28.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
23.0
MIGRANT
29.0
28.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
21.0
FEMALE
57.0
56.0
54.0
53.0
52.0
50.0
MALE
61.0
60.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
55.0
Reading and Mathematics Assessments
On the FCAT SSS reading and mathematics tests, students can attain one of five possible achievement levels,
ranging from Level 1 (lowest) to Level 5 (highest).
Student Achievement Level Descriptions
Level 5: Performance at this level indicates that the student has success with the most
€
challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards. A Level 5 student answers most of the
€
test questions correctly, including the most challenging questions.
€
Level 4: Performance at this level indicates that the student has success with the
€
challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards. A Level 4 student answers most of the
€
test questions correctly, but may only have some success with questions that reflect the
€
most challenging content.
€
Level 3: Performance at this level indicates that the student has partial success with the
€
challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards, but performance is inconsistent. A
€
Level 3 student answers many of the test questions correctly, but is generally less
€
successful with questions that are most challenging.
€
Level 2: Performance at this level indicates that the student has limited success with the
€
challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards.
€
Level 1: Performance at this level indicates that the student has little success with the
€
challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards.
€
Results of alternate assessments have been merged with the FCAT scores for reporting purposes.
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
Mathematics Assessment Results
(Sunshine State Standards and Alternate Assessments)
Percent of Students Scoring at Level 3 and Above
School
District
State
2002-03
Results
State
Objective
% Not
Tested
2002-03
Results
State
Objective
% Not
Tested
2002-03
Results
State
Objective
% Not
Tested
ALL STUDENTS
60.0
38.0
4.1
57.0
38.0
4.0
55.0
38.0
3.9
WHITE
74.0
38.0
4.0
71.0
38.0
3.9
69.0
38.0
3.8
BLACK
32.0
38.0
4.9
29.0
38.0
4.8
27.0
38.0
4.7
HISPANIC
50.0
38.0
4.5
47.0
38.0
4.4
45.0
38.0
4.3
ASIAN
80.0
38.0
2.0
77.0
38.0
1.9
75.0
38.0
1.8
AM. INDIAN
65.0
38.0
3.1
62.0
38.0
3.0
60.0
38.0
2.9
MULTIRACIAL
DISABLED
55.0
38.0
5.0
52.0
38.0
4.9
50.0
38.0
4.8
ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
42.0
38.0
4.9
39.0
38.0
4.8
37.0
38.0
4.7
LEP
29.0
38.0
4.5
26.0
38.0
4.4
24.0
38.0
4.3
MIGRANT
29.0
38.0
4.9
26.0
38.0
4.8
24.0
38.0
4.7
FEMALE
57.0
38.0
4.2
54.0
38.0
4.1
52.0
38.0
4.0
MALE
61.0
38.0
3.9
58.0
38.0
3.8
56.0
38.0
3.7
Reading Assessment Results
(Sunshine State Standards and Alternate Assessments)
Percent of Students Scoring at Level 3 and Above
School
District
State
2002-03
Results
State
Objective
% Not
Tested
2002-03
Results
State
Objective
% Not
Tested
2002-03
Results
State
Objective
% Not
Tested
ALL STUDENTS
37.0
31.0
4.1
34.0
31.0
4.0
32.0
31.0
3.9
WHITE
49.0
31.0
4.0
46.0
31.0
3.9
44.0
31.0
3.8
BLACK
18.0
31.0
4.9
15.0
31.0
4.8
13.0
31.0
4.7
HISPANIC
26.5
31.0
4.5
23.5
31.0
4.4
21.5
31.0
4.3
ASIAN
47.5
31.0
2.0
44.5
31.0
1.9
42.5
31.0
1.8
AM. INDIAN
40.5
31.0
3.1
37.5
31.0
3.0
35.5
31.0
2.9
MULTIRACIAL
DISABLED
34.0
31.0
5.0
31.0
31.0
4.9
29.0
31.0
4.8
ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
21.5
31.0
4.9
18.5
31.0
4.8
16.5
31.0
4.7
LEP
7.0
31.0
4.5
4.0
31.0
4.4
2.0
31.0
4.3
MIGRANT
7.0
31.0
4.9
4.0
31.0
4.8
2.0
31.0
4.7
FEMALE
39.0
31.0
4.2
36.0
31.0
4.1
34.0
31.0
4.0
MALE
36.0
31.0
3.9
33.0
31.0
3.8
31.0
31.0
3.7
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
€
Page 7
€
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
Assessment Results by Grade: Percent Scoring at Level 3 or Above
School
Reading Math
2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02
Grade 3
63.0
65.0
62.0
64.0
Grade 4
58.0
60.0
54.0
56.0
Grade 5
56.0
58.0
52.0
54.0
Grade 6
55.0
57.0
46.0
48.0
Grade 7
52.0
54.0
50.0
52.0
Grade 8
48.0
50.0
56.0
58.0
Grade 9
32.0
34.0
51.0
53.0
Grade 10
38.0
40.0
63.0
65.0
District
Reading
Math
2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02
Grade 3
60.0
62.0
59.0
61.0
Grade 4
55.0
57.0
51.0
53.0
Grade 5
53.0
55.0
49.0
51.0
Grade 6
52.0
54.0
43.0
45.0
Grade 7
49.0
51.0
47.0
49.0
Grade 8
45.0
47.0
53.0
55.0
Grade 9
29.0
31.0
48.0
50.0
Grade 10
35.0
37.0
60.0
62.0
Reading
State Totals
2002-03
2002-03 2001-02
Grade 3
58.0
60.0
57.0
59
Grade 4
53.0
55.0
49.0
51
Grade 5
51.0
53.0
47.0
49
Grade 6
50.0
52.0
41.0
43
Grade 7
47.0
49.0
45.0
47
Grade 8
43.0
45.0
51.0
53
Grade 9
31.0
29.0
46.0
48
Grade 10
33.0
35.0
58.0
60
Math
2001-02
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
II. FCAT Norm-Referenced Test (NRT)
The FCAT NRT measures student achievement on a test that was given to a national sample of students.
Percentile scores on a norm-referenced test show a student's performance in relation to the performance of
students in the national sample. For example, a score in the 60th percentile means the student has scored
higher than 60% of the students in the national sample.
NRT Reading, Mathematics
The median national percentile rank (NPR) represents the middle percentile score of the students for whom
results are presented. A median NPR of 50 equals the national average.
NRT Results
Subject (Grade)
Number Tested
Median National Percentile Rank
School
School
District
State
Reading (Gr. 3)
438
54
52
44
Mathematics (Gr. 3)
436
77
73
65
Reading (Gr. 4)
373
50
56
50
Mathematics (Gr. 4)
374
66
70
67
Reading (Gr. 5)
438
54
52
44
Mathematics (Gr. 5)
436
77
73
65
Reading (Gr. 6)
373
50
56
50
Mathematics (Gr. 6)
374
66
70
67
Reading (Gr. 7)
438
54
52
44
Mathematics (Gr. 7)
436
77
73
65
Reading (Gr. 8)
373
50
56
50
Mathematics (Gr. 8)
374
66
70
67
Reading (Gr. 9)
438
54
52
44
Mathematics (Gr. 9)
436
77
73
65
Reading (Gr. 10)
373
50
56
50
Mathematics (Gr. 10)
374
66
70
67
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
SCHOOL SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
Schools and communities must provide an environment that is drug free and protects the health, safety, and
civil rights of everyone in the school.
School environmental safety: reported incidents*
The information displayed in the table should be used to assess school safety needs and to develop plans for
improvement.
*THIS DATA WILL BE REPORTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL FOR 2002-03
Number of Incidents Reported
Type of Incident
School Total District Total
State Total
2002-03
NA for 2002-03 NA for 2002-03
Alcohol
Arson
Battery
Breaking and Entering
Disorderly
Conduct
Drugs, Excluding Alcohol
Fighting
Homicide
Kidnapping
Larceny/Theft
Motor Vehicle Theft
Robbery
Sex
Offenses
Sexual
Battery
Sexual
Harassment
Threat/Intimidation
Tobacco
Trespassing
Vandalism
Weapons
Possession
Unclassified
Offenses
TOTAL
School Evaluation for “Unsafe School Choice Option” Requirements
The No Child Left Behind Act provides for an Unsafe School Choice Option, which ensures that students
who attend a persistently dangerous school are allowed the option of attending a safe school within the same
district.
This school has been evaluated according to federal and state criteria for safety and has not been identified as
a persistently dangerous school.
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 10
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
TEACHERS AND STAFF
Schools, districts, and the state ensure that teachers and staff are professionally qualified. School boards
must provide a learning environment conducive to teaching and learning.
New staff
The table shows the number and percentage of instructional staff and school-based administrators who were
newly hired at this school in 2002-03.
Staff Type
Total Number Number Newly School % District % State %
for 2002-03
Hired for
2002-03
Instructional Staff
99
22
22.2
18.5
16.6
School-Based Administrators
44
2
50.0
15.0
17.6
Total
103
24
23.3
18.3
16.6
The Professional Qualifications of Teachers
Degree Level
This table shows the number and percentage of teachers at each degree level.
School %
District %
State %
Degree
Level
Number 2001-02 2000-01 2001-02 2000-01 2001-02 2000-01
Bachelor's Degree
34
39.5
41.1
44.1
42.2
62.0
60.3
Master's Degree
43
50.0
50.0
47.6
49.1
35.2
35.9
Specialist Degree
4
4.7
3.3
4.8
4.7
1.3
2.2
Doctorate
5
5.8
5.6
3.5
4
1.5
1.6
Total All Degrees
86
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
In-Field and Out-of-Field Teachers
The following chart shows the percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers teaching in-field
compared to the percentage of classes taught by teachers teaching out-of-field. When a teacher in a district
school system is assigned teaching duties in a class dealing with subject matter that is outside the field in
which the teacher is certified, outside the field that was the applicant's minor field of study, or outside the
field in which the applicant has demonstrated sufficient subject area expertise, as determined by district
school board policy in the subject area to be taught, that teacher is teaching “out-of-field.” Core academic
subjects are English, reading, language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics, government,
economics, arts, history, and geography.
School % District % State %
Percentage of Classes
with Teachers Teaching
In-Field
80.0
85.0
85.0
Percentage of Classes
with Teachers Teaching
Out-of-Field
20.0
15.0
15.0
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 11
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
The chart below shows the percentage of classes not taught by “Highly Qualified Teachers” in core academic
subjects as defined in federal statute. A “highly qualified teacher” has earned at least a bachelor’s degree and
holds a Florida teaching certificate with appropriate certification for each assignment. Federal law requires
that all public elementary, middle, and secondary teachers of core academic subjects meet the federal
definition of “highly qualified” no later than the 2005-06 school year. Core academic subjects are English,
reading, language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics, government, economics, arts, history,
and geography.
School % District %
State %
All
Schools
High
Poverty
Schools
Low Poverty
Schools
Classes Not Taught by
Highly Qualified
Teachers
14.4
14.0
9.7
13.7
7.1
* High poverty schools are schools ranking in the top 25% of schools based on the percentage of students eligible for free/reduced-price
lunch. Low poverty schools rank in bottom quartile of schools based on free/reduced-price lunch enrollment. That is, low poverty
schools have the lowest enrollment in free/reduced-price lunch as a percentage of total membership.
FLORIDA SCHOOL PERFORMANCE GRADE AND ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)
School Performance Grade
Public schools in Florida are graded annually based on student performance on the FCAT and the percentage
of students making learning gains. Schools are assigned a letter grade (A through F) corresponding with
their rated performance, with grade A representing the highest performance rating and grade F representing a
failed rating. A rating of “I” indicates that grading is incomplete. A grade of N indicates that the school is
not graded. While the vast majority of Florida’s schools receive a performance grade, certain types of
schools are exempt from grading, including exceptional student education (ESE) centers and Department of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities.
2002-03 School Performance Grade*: B
* As of June 25, 2003.
Certain school grades may be subject to modification pending appeal.
For more information on school grades and grading procedures, contact your principal’s office or your local
school board, or visit the web page at www.firn.edu/doe/schoolgrades
.
NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report
Federal NCLB legislation requires schools to report Adequate Yearly Progress based on annual objectives for
students in reading, mathematics, and writing, as well as the high school graduation rate.
A separate report
that presents and explains AYP results for your school, your school district, and the state is distributed in
conjunction with this document and is also available from the office of your school’s principal and/or your
local school board. The AYP report includes information on the number and percentage of schools identified
for school improvement and how parents can participate in improving the quality of their children’s schools.
REQUIRED LOCALLY ADDED INDICATORS
The following information shall be added locally to the School Public Accountability Report:
•
number and percent of teachers, administrators, and staff who received satisfactory annual evaluations;
•
?
number and percent of School Advisory Council members by membership type and by racial/ethnic
category; and
•
summary of school lottery budget.
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 12
ATTACHMENT 3
[School Name]
[Grades Taught]
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL NCLB LEGISLATION
A.
Notice of School Improvement Status and Options
School districts must notify parents when their child’s school has been identified for school
improvement, for corrective action, or for restructuring. The school district must also include an
explanation of the parents’ option to transfer their child to another public school, with transportation
provided when required, or to obtain supplemental educational services. Sec. 1116(b)(6).
School improvement status is indicated by the school performance grade included herein.
B.
State’s Obligation To Assist Schools and Districts in Reporting
The Department of Education shall ensure that each school district collects appropriate data and includes
in each school’s annual report the information included in the state annual report card as well as the
number and percentage of schools identified for school improvement and how long the schools have
been so identified. Sec. 1111(h)(2)(B)
C.
Notice of Local Education Agency (LEA) Improvement Status
Parents of students attending a school in a district identified for improvement are entitled to know why
the school district was identified for improvement.
The state is responsible for providing an explanation
to parents in an easily understood format. The explanation must include information on how parents can
assist in the improvement efforts.
Sec. 1116(c)(6)
Additional required information is included in the accompanying Adequate Yearly Progress Report.
Additional statistics and information of interest may be found in the Florida School Indicators Report on the
department’s website at www.myfloridaeducation.com or at http://info.doe.state.fl.us/fsir .
[District, School#] NCLB School Public Accountability Report, 2002-03
run date:
Page 13
ATTACHMENT 4
[School Name]
Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) To Meet Requirements of the “No
Child Left Behind” (NCLB) Program for Education Funding
Schools are evaluated for adequate yearly progress (AYP) in order to receive federal funding for
education. Schools that do not make AYP are identified, and, if they fail to make AYP in consecutive
years, are required to undergo corrective action as a condition for continued funding.
Federal guidelines for the calculation of AYP are combined with the graduation rate and results on the
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) to measure the performance of the overall student
population as well as that of students in defined subgroups:
racial/ethnic groups (Am. Indian, Asian,
black, Hispanic, multiracial, and white); students in Free/Reduced-Price Lunch programs; students in
Limited English Proficient (LEP) programs; and students with disabilities.
AYP Criteria
•
?
Schools must have tested at least 95 percent of students in each subgroup where 30 or more students
are enrolled.
•
?
Schools in which less than 90 percent of students are proficient in FCAT Writing must show at least
a 1-percent improvement in student proficiency over the previous year.
•
?
High schools with a graduation rate less than 85% must show at least a 1-percent improvement in the
rate over the previous year.
•
The school performance grade must be other than a D or F.
•
?
Schools must attain proficiency targets in FCAT Reading and Mathematics for each subgroup in
which at least 30 students are enrolled.
This requirement is satisfied if proficiency targets were met
by subgroups either of the past two years.
Schools missing proficiency targets for subgroups may still make AYP through a Safe Harbor
provision if the following conditions were met for the subgroups missing the targets:
1)
?
The percentage of non-proficient students in the subgroup(s) decreased by at least 10 percent
from the prior year.
2)
?
The percentage of the subgroup’s students who tested proficient in FCAT Writing increased by
at least 1 percent.
3)
The graduation rate of students in the subgroup(s) increased by at least 1 percent. (high schools)
AYP Status, 2002-03
The table below shows the AYP status of the school, district, and state for the 2002-03 school year.
Data used to calculate AYP for 2002-03 includes FCAT data for 2002-03 and 2001-02, graduation rate
data for 2001-02 and 2000-01, and the school performance grade assigned in 2003.
School AYP Status
District AYP Status
State AYP Status
2 1 1
Key:
0 = “Did not make AYP.”
1 = “Made AYP.”
2 = “AYP not applicable.” *
* Certain schools fall below federal minimum enrollment requirements for evaluation of AYP criteria. Certain
new schools may not have baseline data from which to assess annual progress.
[District & School#], print date
Adequate Yearly Progress Report, 2002-03
ATTACHMENT 4
[School Name]
2
The following table shows the schools in your district that did not make AYP.
Schools That Did Not Make AYP in the District, 2002-03:
District Number
School Number
School Name
xx
xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
€
[District & School #], print date
Adequate Yearly Progress Report, 2002-03
€
Attachment 5:
€
File Names for NCLB SPAR Production and Data Verification
€
Data set names are listed below, with a double pound sign (##) used as a placeholder for
the two-digit district number.
•
NCLB SPAR raw data file:
DPS##.GE.F70396.Y0203
•
?
Classes Taught by In-Field/Out-of-Field Teachers, Verification File:
DPSxx.GE.F70406.Y0203
•
?
Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, Verification File:
DPSxx.GE.F70407.Y0203
•
?
COBOL record layout (pending):
DPS.FORMAT.TECH.Y0203
