Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
Principle 5: Subgroup Accountability
F
5.1
The accountability system
includes all the required student subgroups
.
F
5.2
The accountability system holds
schools and LEAs accountable for the progress of
student
subgroups
.
F
5.3
The accountability system includes
students with disabilities
.
F
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.
F
5.6
The State has strategies to protect the privacy of individual students in reporting
achievement results and in determining whether schools and LEAs are making adequate
yearly progress on the basis of disaggregated subgroups.
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 school
s.
F
7.2
Accountability system includes an
additional academic indicator for elementary and middle
school
s.
F
7.3
Additional indicators are valid and reliable.
Principle 8: Separate Decisions for Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics
F
8.1
Accountability system holds students, schools and districts separately accountable for
reading/language arts
and
mathematics
.
Principle 9: System Validity and Reliability
F
9.1
Accountability system produces
reliable decisions
.
F
9.2
Accountability system produces
valid decisions
.
F
9.3
State has a plan for addressing
changes in assessment and student population
.
Principle 10: Participation Rate
F
10.1
Accountability system has a means for calculating the
rate of participation
in the statewide
assessment.
F
10.2
Accountability system has a means for
applying the 95% assessment criteria to student
subgroups
and small schools.
STATUS Legend:
F – Final policy
P – Proposed Policy, awaiting State approval
W– Working to formulate policy
3
Florida NCLB 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.
4
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
PRINCIPLE 1. A single statewide Accountability System applied to all
public schools and LEAs.
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
1.1 How does the State
Accountability System
include every public school
and LEA in the State?
Every public school and LEA is
required to make adequate
yearly progress and is
included in the State
Accountability System.
State has a definition of “public
school” and “LEA” for AYP
accountability purposes.
•
The State Accountability
System produces AYP
decisions for all public
schools, including public
schools with variant
grade configurations
(e.g., K-12), public
schools that serve
special populations (e.g.,
alternative public
schools, juvenile
institutions, state public
schools for the blind) and
public charter schools. It
also holds accountable
public schools with no
grades assessed (e.g.,
K-2).
A public school or LEA is not
required to make adequate
yearly progress and is not
included in the State
Accountability System.
State policy systematically
excludes certain public
schools and/or LEAs.
5
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
The State of Florida is submitting a comprehensive and unified plan for
accountability that includes all required aspects of NCLB and that relies on and
compliments current state assessment and accountability provisions initiated by
Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature. All public schools in the state will
be included in the NCLB accountability program. Florida statutes do not
differentiate between public schools for purposes of accountability.
Florida will adopt a single statewide accountability system for all public schools
that includes multiple measures. These are: adequate yearly progress as defined
by federal law, school grades as defined by state law, individual student progress
towards annual learning targets to reach proficiency, and a return on investment
measure that links dollars spent to student achievement. All schools will be rated
on each of these measures. Schools meeting all standards will be designated as
highly effective and efficient.
Some schools do not contain grade levels presently assessed by the existing
statewide assessment program, such as a K-2 school. In these cases, the school
will be assigned the AYP classification of the school to which it sends students.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See Sections 1000.03 and 1000.04, F.S. for
definitions of public education, public schools, and governance thereof.
6
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
1.2 How are all public schools
and LEAs held to the
same criteria when
making an AYP
determination?
All public schools and LEAs
are systematically judged on
the basis of the same criteria
when making an AYP
determination.
If applicable, the AYP
definition is integrated into the
State Accountability System.
Some public schools and
LEAs are systematically
judged on the basis of
alternate criteria when making
an AYP determination.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
All public schools will be judged according to the requirements of NCLB when
making AYP decisions, subject to limitations of cell size discussed elsewhere.
The AYP decisions will be made on the basis of “status comparisons” required in
law.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendices A and E attached hereto.
7
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
1.3 Does the State have, at a
minimum, a definition of
basic
,
proficient
and
advanced
student
achievement levels in
reading/language arts and
mathematics?
State has defined three levels
of student achievement:
basic
,
proficient
and
advanced
.
1
Student achievement levels of
proficient
and
advanced
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.
Standards do not meet the
legislated requirements.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) uses five Achievement
Levels, numbered 1-5 with 1 the lowest level and 5 the highest level. For
purposes of NCLB implementation, Level 1 is “Below Basic,” Level 2 is “Basic,”
Levels 3 and 4 are “Proficient,” and Level 5 is “Advanced.” FCAT results will
continue to be reported with the original numbering system, but all NCLB reports
will include references to the titles required in federal legislation.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendix B, Table 5 attached hereto.
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.
8
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
1.4 How does the State
provide accountability and
adequate yearly progress
decisions and information
in a timely manner
State provides decisions
about adequate yearly
progress in time for LEAs to
implement the required
provisions before the
beginning of the next
academic year.
State allows enough time to
notify parents about public
school choice or supplemental
educational service options,
time for parents to make an
informed decision, and time to
implement public school
choice and supplemental
educational services.
Timeline does not provide
sufficient time for LEAs to fulfill
their responsibilities before the
beginning of the next
academic year.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
The FCAT is administered in late February and early March with test results
available to schools prior to the end of the school term in May. The data are
released in waves with the first release describing district and state summary
data and the second wave providing student-by-student test results. To expedite
the release of student level data, the Department’s test support contractor
provides the means whereby districts can access their data electronically from a
secure server prior to shipment of the printed reports. State summary data are
available in early May and can be used to determine if the state objective targets
have been met.
As soon as the final data files have been produced in early May, work can begin
on assembling the information with which to determine school and district AYP.
The reports will be available in time for parents to make informed “school choice”
decisions prior to the beginning of the following school year in August.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendix B attached hereto. Also, see
Section 1008.22, F.S.
9
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
1.5 Does the State
Accountability System
produce an annual State
Report Card?
The State Report Card
includes all the required data
elements [see Appendix A for
the list of required data
elements].
The State Report Card is
available to the public at the
beginning of the academic
year.
The State Report Card is
accessible in languages of
major populations in the State,
to the extent possible.
Assessment results and other
academic indicators (including
graduation rates) are reported
by student subgroups
The State Report Card does
not include all the required
data elements.
The State Report Card is not
available to the public.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
For many years, Florida has released school, district, and state level student
assessment results. Each district is required to prepare an annual report that
must include information about student achievement and other relevant
information. State, district and school reports provide data similar to those
required by NCLB. Additional required elements will be included to become fully
compliant. The Department is committed to the release of a State Report Card
that meets the requirements of NCLB. The data elements found in Appendix A of
this document will be included, and the report will be available by the beginning
of the school academic year.
The state reports will be available through the Department’s Internet web site.
As Spanish is the second most used language in Florida, the State Report Card
also will be available in this language.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See chart in Appendix A attached here to. Also,
see Section 1008.385, F.S. and the following web site:
http://info.doe.state.fl.us/fsir/.
10
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
1.6 How does the State
Accountability System
include rewards and
sanctions for public
schools and LEAs?
2
State uses one or more types
of rewards and sanctions,
where the criteria are:
•
•
•
Set by the State;
Based on adequate
yearly progress
decisions; and,
Applied uniformly
across public schools
and LEAs.
State does not implement
rewards or sanctions for public
schools and LEAs based on
adequate yearly progress.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
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)].
11
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
Florida law provides for various rewards and sanctions, depending on
performance results. Section 1002.31, F.S., mandates a “school choice”
program for each district. Section 1002.38, F.S., provides “opportunity
scholarships” for students attending a school rated “failing” for two years in any
four-year period. Parents may choose to enroll these children in other public or
private schools. Section 1008.32, F.S., gives the State Board of Education the
authority to monitor educational quality and take firm steps to intervene in any
school district, if needed. See also Rule 6A-1.09981, FAC, for a description of
actions that can be taken for schools that do not perform well within the A+ Plan.
The School Recognition Program recognizes the high quality of many of Florida's
public schools. As authorized, the program provides greater autonomy and
financial awards to schools that demonstrate sustained or significantly improved
student performance. Schools that receive an "A" or schools that improve at least
one performance grade category are eligible for school recognition.
The 2002 Legislature appropriated funds for the District Lottery and School
Recognition Program in Item 4 of the General Appropriations Act. Of the
$306,925,000 appropriated for this purpose, $122,770,000 or 40% can be used to
fund financial awards for the Florida School Recognition Program. Each eligible
school receives $100 per student.
Florida will implement the requirements found in Sections 200.32 – 200.34 of the
NCLB rules mandating school classifications of “school improvement, corrective
action, and restructuring.” Title I schools not meeting AYP will be subject to
interventions and sanctions defined by federal law. These will not be applied to
schools or districts not receiving Title I funds; however, schools not meeting
standards for individual student progress toward proficiency and schools falling
below the return on investment standard shall be designated as in need of
assistance in these areas.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See the following web site address:
<http://www.firn.edu/doe/bosi/home0006.htm>. Also, see Sections 1002.31,
1002.38, 1008.32, 1008.345 and 1008.36, F.S; and Rule 6A-1.09981, FAC,
available at < http://www.firn.edu/doe/rules/6a-1-11.htm - 6A-1.09981>.
12
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
PRINCIPLE 2. All students are included in the State Accountability System.
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
2.1 How does the State
Accountability System
include all students in the
State?
All students in the State are
included in the State
Accountability System.
The definitions of “public
school” and “LEA” account for
all students enrolled in the
public school district,
regardless of program or type
of public school.
Public school students exist in
the State for whom the State
Accountability System makes
no provision.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
13
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
All students are included in the NCLB accountability system. The vast majority of
students take the FCAT in grades 3-10. LEP students who have been enrolled in
an approved English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for 12
months or less for whom it is determined on an individual basis that the FCAT is
not an appropriate measure of academic proficiency are assessed using other
measures of academic performance. The Department has implemented a system
of locally-developed alternate assessments for those students with disabilities for
whom the Sunshine State Standards and participation in the FCAT are not
appropriate. Districts report the results of these assessments to the state in
terms of students who are at different levels of proficiency. This allows the state
to aggregate information about how many students are “Proficient or Above” in
terms of the assessments they took.
Florida statute requires that school districts operate educational programs for
students in juvenile justice centers and programs. Each such program has a
unique school number and will be treated as a school. If the school is too small
to produce valid student performance data, then students served in these
programs shall be included in the district performance rating. All students shall
be assessed and included in the state accountability system.
All students who are “mobile,” meaning they attend more than one school during
the year, shall be included in the statewide assessment system and included
within the district and/or state AYP calculation.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See the following web address for information
about alternate assessments: < http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/pub-
home.htm>.
14
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
2.2 How does the State
define “full academic
year” for identifying
students in AYP
decisions?
The State has a definition of
“full academic year” for
determining which students are
to be included in decisions
about AYP.
The definition of full academic
year is consistent and applied
statewide.
LEAs have varying definitions
of “full academic year.”
The State’s definition excludes
students who must transfer
from one district to another as
they advance to the next
grade.
The definition of full academic
year is not applied
consistently.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
For the purposes of calculating school accountability under NCLB, students who
are enrolled and in attendance by the fall term as documented in Survey 2
conducted the second week of October and Survey 3 conducted the second
week of February will be included in the analyses.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendix E attached hereto.
15
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
2.3 How does the State
Accountability System
determine which students
have attended the same
public school and/or LEA
for a full academic year?
State holds public schools
accountable for students who
were enrolled at the same
public school for a full
academic year.
State holds LEAs accountable
for students who transfer
during the full academic year
from one public school within
the district to another public
school within the district.
State definition requires
students to attend the same
public school for more than a
full academic year to be
included in public school
accountability.
State definition requires
students to attend school in
the same district for more than
a full academic year to be
included in district
accountability.
State holds public schools
accountable for students who
have not attended the same
public school for a full
academic year.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
16
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
For many years, Florida has had a student identification system that assigns a
unique number to each student upon initial enrollment. Because the number
follows the student throughout his/her academic career, an opportunity is
available to analyze achievement data in terms of community demographic
variables, school characteristics, staff characteristics, and the enacted
curriculum.
An individual student often enrolls in one school and then transfers to another
school during the school year. These students’ data will be used for district AYP
but will not be assigned to a given school for school-level AYP unless the student
transferred after the March testing window has concluded.
Students enrolled in the district during that period, but not at the same school, will
be assessed and included in the district calculation of AYP. Students enrolled in
the state during that period, but not in the same district will be assessed and
included in the state calculation of AYP.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See Section 1008.386, F.S., for information about
the student identification numbering system.
17
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
CRITICAL ELEMENT
EXAMPLES FOR
MEETING REQUIREMENTS
EXAMPLES OF
NOT
MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
3.2 How does the State
Accountability System
determine whether each
student subgroup, public
school and LEA makes
AYP?
For a public school and LEA to
make adequate yearly
progress, each student
subgroup must meet or exceed
the State annual measurable
objectives, each student
subgroup must have at least a
95% participation rate in the
statewide assessments, and
the school must meet the
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.
State uses different method for
calculating how public schools
and LEAs make AYP.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
19
Florida NCLB Accountability Workbook
The state plan includes the criteria that are part of the NCLB authorization. A
school will meet AYP if all of its subgroups meet the state targets. If one or more
subgroups do not meet the state measurable objectives in reading or
mathematics, the “safe harbor” criteria will be applied. This requires that the
school demonstrate that, for each of the subgroups that did not meet the state
objectives, the proficiency level of those subgroups must have improved by 10%.
In addition, the school must have made progress of at least one percent increase
on the state’s “other indicators” and must have attained at least 95% participation
in the assessment.
For example, if School A did not meet the state objectives in reading and if, for
example, its Hispanic minority students showed growth from 50% to 57%
“Proficient and Above” and if the Hispanic subgroup made improvement of at
least 1% in the “other” indicator, it would be classified as meeting AYP. Note:
the school would be expected to improve the reading scores of the Hispanic
subgroup by 5% (10% of the base of 50%), which results in 7% improvement
(57% minus 50%).
However, the Florida unified approach includes an additional criterion for a
school to meet AYP. Under the terms of the Florida A+ Plan for Education, each
school is given a grade ranging from “A” to “F.” No school rated within this
system as either “D” or “F” will be determined to be meeting AYP. This feature
enhances the accountability of the overall program since the Florida A+ Plan
includes a measurement of academic growth for students in the lowest 25%.
Even the most capable school must show growth of its lowest achieving students
within the A+ system. See Appendix F.
The State has adopted a system whereby the performance for any single year
will be the average of that year and the one immediately preceding it—e.g.,
2003-04 will be combined with 2002-03 and reported in the summer of 2004.
This will have the effect of stabilizing any wide differences in the student
population from year to year.
If a school does not meet the 10% growth “safe harbor” as described above, the
progress of its non-Proficient students will be examined. If the school
demonstrates that more than half of the non-Proficient students have grown more
than their individual growth expectation from last year to the current year, AYP
will have been met. The State will establish the growth expectations on the basis
that non-Proficient students will become Proficient or Above over time.
Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendices E and F attached hereto.
20
