U. S. Department of Education Washington, dc 20202



Download 119.18 Kb.
Date conversion06.02.2017
Size119.18 Kb.


rectangle 4
Missouri

ESEA Flexibility

Accountability Addendum

rectangle 3

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC 20202

In order to move forward with State and local reforms designed to improve academic achievement and increase the quality of instruction for all students in a manner that was not originally contemplated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), a State educational agency (SEA) may request flexibility, on its own behalf and on behalf of its local educational agencies (LEAs), through waivers of certain provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and their associated regulatory, administrative, and reporting requirements (ESEA flexibility). However, an SEA that receives ESEA flexibility must comply with all statutory and regulatory provisions that are not waived. For example, an SEA must calculate a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, as set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b), and disaggregate that rate for reporting. Similarly, an SEA must use an “n-size” that ensures, to the maximum extent practicable, that all student subgroups are included in accountability determinations, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 200.7(a)(2)(i)(B). Furthermore, an SEA may continue to use technical measures, such as confidence intervals, to the extent they are relevant to the SEA’s ESEA flexibility request. This accountability addendum replaces a State’s accountability workbook under NCLB and, together, an SEA’s approved ESEA flexibility request and this accountability addendum contain the elements of the State’s system of differentiated recognition, accountability and support.


Contents


Contents 2

State Accountability System Includes All Schools and Districts 3

State Accountability System Includes All Students 3

Participation Rate 6




Instructions to the SEA: Please provide the requested information in the “State Response” column in the table below. Please provide the information in sufficient detail to fully explain your response. Also, please indicate whether the information provided is the same as that in your State accountability workbook under NCLB or reflects a change. Note that these instructions, the “change” column, and the “ED Comments” column of the table will be removed in the version of this document that is posted on ED’s website.

Subject and Question

State Response

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

Please attach the State’s AMOs for reading/language arts and mathematics for the all students group and each individual subgroup. If the State has different AMOs for each school or LEA, attach the State-level AMOs and provide a link to a page on the SEA’s web site where the LEA and school level AMOs are available.


Missouri’s AMOs are found on page 70 of the approved ESEA Flexibility request.

Proficiency AMOs – All ESEA Subgroups

*AMOs are based on the goal of increasing proficiency rates by 25%.

*AMOs apply to the all students group and all ESEA Subgroups.





Mathematic

English language arts

Year

AMO

AMO

2012

56.40%

56.20%

2013

58.60%

57.90%

2014

60.80%

59.60%

2015

63.00%

61.30%

2016

65.20%

63.00%

2017

67.40%

64.70%

2018

69.60%

66.40%

2019

71.80%

68.10%

2020

74.00%

69.80%



















Proficiency AMOs – Super Subgroup

*AMOs are based on the goal of cutting the proficiency gap in half for the student gap group









Mathematics

English language arts

Year

AMO

AMO

2012

44.78%

44.21%

2013

47.67%

46.61%

2014

50.55%

49.02%

2015

53.43%

51.42%

2016

56.32%

53.83%

2017

59.20%

56.23%

2018

62.08%

58.64%

2019

64.97%

61.04%

2020

67.85%

63.45%




Please affirm that the State determines whether an LEA that receives funds under Title III of the ESEA meets AMAO 3 (ESEA section 3122(a)(3)(A)(iii)) based on either of the following:

  • Whether the subgroup of English Learners has made adequate yearly progress (AYP) under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B); or

  • If the State has received a waiver of making AYP determinations, whether the subgroup of English Learners has met or exceeded each of the following:

    • Its AMOs in reading/language arts and mathematics.

    • 95 percent participation on the State’s assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.

    • The State’s goal or annual targets for graduation rate if the LEA includes one or more high schools.




LEAs that receive Title III funds are evaluated on attainment of AMAO 3 based on whether the English Language Learners (ELL) subgroup has met or exceeded (1) the annual targets (i.e., AMOs) in reading/language arts and mathematics the 95 percent participation rate criteria in reading/language arts and mathematics; and the state’s goal or gargets for graduation.

Subgroup Accountability

What subgroups, including any combined subgroups, as applicable, does the State use for accountability purposes, including measuring performance against AMOs, identifying priority, focus, and reward schools, and differentiating among other Title I schools? If using one or more combined subgroups, the State should identify what students comprise each combined subgroup.


To better differentiate among needs of the LEAs or schools and to ensure broader inclusion of students whose subgroups have historically performed below the state total, Missouri continues to issue and report AMO determinations for students in the aggregate, low income students, students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and the state’s major racial and ethnic (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black (not Hispanic), Hispanic, Multiracial and White). subgroups. Additionally, Missouri uses a super subgroup for purposes of generating a school’s core score and making accountability determinations (e.g. reward, focus, or priority). A review of Missouri data identifies five significant gaps in subgroup performance (Black, Hispanic, low-income students, students with disabilities and English Language Learners). Missouri’s super subgroup, the Student Gap Group, combines the following subgroups to make the Student Gap Group: Black, Hispanic, low-income students, students with disabilities and English Language Learners. Many Missouri schools and subgroups do not meet the minimum “n” size of 30 students for issuing accountability determinations in these high needs populations. By measuring progress and performance for the Super Subgroup rather than considering each of the five groups individually, we are able to hold more schools accountable for necessary progress in these high needs populations. This approach allows ED and LEAs to retain a focus on all students, including racial and ethnic minorities, while placing a special emphasis on underlying issues frequently associated with low student performance.

State Accountability System Includes All Schools and Districts


What is the State’s definition of a local educational agency (LEA)?


Missouri utilizes the term “LEA” as defined in ESEA, a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.



What is the State’s definition of a public school? Please provide definitions for elementary school, middle school, and secondary school, as applicable.


The state’s definitions for public schools are included in state statute. 160.011 RSMo. (7) “Public school” includes all elementary and high schools operated at the public expense;

160.011 RSMo. (2) “Elementary school”, a public school giving instruction in a grade or grades not higher than the eighth grade; RSMo. 160.011 (5) “High school”, a public school giving instruction in a grade or grades not lower than the ninth nor higher than the twelfth grade; and 160.400 RSMo. 1. “Charter school” is an independent public school. The SEA defines a secondary school is a school giving instruction in a grade or grades not lower than 6 or above 12. This may include any building serving any of these grades (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12), including K-8 elementary schools, middle schools, junior high schools, or high schools.





How does the State define a small school?


The SEA defines a small school as any school in which the total number of students in the “all students” group in the grades assessed is less than 30.

How does the State include small schools in its accountability system?



For the all students group, including in schools in which no subgroup meets the minimum group size, every school is held accountable. 


How does the State define a new school?


Missouri defines new school as a charter or a school in a district that has never existed before. Occasionally, a previously existing school makes substantial changes to the school’s configuration (i.e. splits, merges grades, district boundary changes) and is granted new school status. A school is eligible to request new school status if it can demonstrate a change in excess of 50 percent of its student population and/or instructional staff.

How does the State include new schools, schools that split or merge grades (e.g., because of overpopulation or court rulings), and schools that otherwise change configuration in its accountability system?


Missouri calculates and makes available to the public an Annual Performance Report (APR) and Summary Data that include the current year assessment data for the new school.  Accountability determinations are based upon a three years of data, unless three years of data are not available. 

How does the State include schools that have no grades assessed (e.g., K-2 schools) in its accountability system?


Missouri calculates and makes available an APR for all schools, even those that have no grades assessed on the state assessments. Missouri will include schools that feed into a priority or focus school in the designation of support and incentives for “Other Title I Schools.” Schools with this designation will be required to develop an accountability plan that aligns to the priority or focus school plan.

How does the State include alternative schools in its accountability system? Consistent with State law, alternative schools include, but are not limited to:

  • State schools for deaf and blind,

  • Juvenile institutions,

  • Alternative high schools, and

  • Alternative schools for special education students.

If the State includes categories of alternative schools in its accountability system in different ways, please provide a separate explanation for each category of school.




All Missouri public schools are included in the state’s accountability system, including Missouri School for the Deaf, Missouri School for the Blind, Missouri Schools for the Severely Disabled and juvenile institutions. Alternative schools that are recognized by an individual building code are included in the state’s accountability system and receive an APR in the same manner as all LEAs and schools. In most alternate school settings, an individual building code is not issued, and student data are returned to the each student’s sending school. Missouri’s Student Information System (MOSIS) ensures that individual students are carefully tracked and that appropriate schools and LEAs are held accountable for ensuring all students are taking the required assessments.

How does the State include charter schools, including charter schools that are part of an LEA and charter schools that are their own LEA, in its accountability system?


All charter schools in Missouri are LEAs. For ESEA accountability purposes, the state utilizes the same measures used for school districts. A charter school has access to the same reports and data available through the Missouri Comprehensive Data System portal. School level accountability is applied to all LEAs including charter schools.


State Accountability System Includes All Students


What are the State’s policies and procedures to ensure that all students are included in its assessment and accountability systems?

All students and subgroups are required to be assessed. Irrespective of performance, zero APR points are awarded to a content area for the aggregate and subgroup(s) for which the rate falls below 95 percent.

How does the State define “full academic year”?


A full academic year is defined as any student who is enrolled from the last Wednesday in September through the MAP administration, without transferring out of the building or LEA for a significant period of time and re-enrolling. A significant period of time is considered “one day more than half of the eligible days between the last Wednesday in September and the test administration.”

How does the State determine which students have attended the same public school and/or LEA for a full academic year?


Missouri’s MOSIS assigns a number to each student in the State and tracks student enrollment and other data. When students transfer within an LEA or to another LEA, their MOSIS ID is used to determine whether or not a student has attended the same public school for a full academic year.

This information is obtained from the MOSIS data reported by LEAs. This applies to each summary level independently. For example, a student who is coded as “In building less than a year” but was in the LEA a full academic year is excluded from the school totals but is included in the LEA totals.



To which accountability indicators does the State apply the definition of full academic year?


The State applies the definition of full academic year to AMO accountability determinations for academic achievement content areas, including subgroup Achievement.


What are the procedures the State uses to ensure that mobile students, including students who transfer within an LEA or between LEAs, are included at the appropriate level (school, LEA, and State) of the accountability system?


Missouri utilizes a pre-code system that allows the LEA code each assessment to indicate a student’s status as in building or district less than a year.
This information is obtained from the MOSIS data reported by LEAs. This applies to each summary level independently. For example, a student who is coded as “In building less than a year” but was in the LEA a full academic year is excluded from the school totals but is included in the LEA totals.

Does the State include in accountability determinations the proficient and advanced scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities on assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards? If so, does the State limit the number of those scores at the LEA and State levels, separately, so that the number of proficient and advanced scores included in the determinations does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed?


If the student’s IEP team determines he/she is unable to participate in the standard assessment, the LEA is required to assess the student using a MAP –Alternate (MAP-A) assessment. There is no cap on the number of students who may participate in the MAP-A test. However, there is a one-percent cap on proficient or advanced scores earned from the MAP-A that may be used in the LEA’s accountability determinations. The one-percent cap is calculated at the LEA level and uses the tested population per subject area. LEAs that serve greater than 100 tested students are restricted to the cap of one percent of their total tested population per subject area. LEAs that serve 100 or fewer tested students are restricted to a cap not exceeding one student per subject area. LEAs with high percentages of students with cognitive disabilities may submit a Request for Exception to the Cap on Alternate Assessments.

If the State provides an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards, does the State include in accountability determinations the proficient and advanced scores of students with disabilities who take that assessment? If so, does the State limit the number of those scores at the LEA and State levels, separately, so that the number of proficient and advanced scores included in the determinations does not exceed two percent of all students in the grades assessed?


The SEA does not currently offer this assessment.

What is the State process if an LEA or the State exceeds either the one or two percent proficiency cap?


If the State exceeds the one-percent proficiency cap, then a random selection process is used to remove proficient and advanced scores from each LEA that exceeds the 1% until all LEAs that have exceeds one percent meet or fall below the cap. These removed scores are reinstated at the basic achievement level. LEAs with high percentages of students with cognitive disabilities may submit a Request for Exception to the Cap on Alternate Assessments.


What are the State’s policies and procedures to ensure that students with disabilities and English Learners are provided appropriate accommodations? In addition, please provide a link to a page on the SEA’s web site where the State’s accommodations manuals or test administration manuals may be found.


Students who have been identified as English language learners (ELL) or students with disabilities are entitled to the accommodations listed in the website below:

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/documents/asmt-gl-accommodations-1213.pdf

http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/grade_level_manuals.html - grade level manuals

http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/documents/asmt-eoc-tam-1213.pdf - EOC manuals

http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/documents/asmt-mapa-administration-manual-2012-2013.pdf - MAP-A manuals

http://www.assetsproject.org/assessmentSystem/index.aspx - ASSETS Testing Information

Accommodations Manual - http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/tech/accommodationsmanualpowerpoint.pdf



Valid as of November 21, 2013

Does the State include, for up to two accountability determination cycles, the scores of former students with disabilities in making accountability determinations for the subgroup of students with disabilities? If so, how?


Missouri does not include the scores of former students with disabilities in accountability determinations for the subgroup of students with disabilities.

Does the State count recently arrived English Learners as having participated in the State assessments for purposes of meeting the 95 percent participation requirement if they take (a) either an English language proficiency assessment or the State’s reading/language arts assessment; and (b) the State’s mathematics assessments?


ELLs in their first year of U.S. schooling are included in the participation determination, but are not required to participate in the English Language Arts Assessment but participate in the ELP assessment. ELLs in their first year of U.S. schooling must participate in the mathematics MAP assessment. ELLs in their second year of U.S. schooling and beyond must participate in both the English language arts and mathematics MAP and the state ELP assessment.

Does the State exempt a recently arrived English Learner from one administration of the State’s reading/language arts assessment?


Yes, ELL students in their first year of US schooling are exempt from the English/language arts MAP assessment.

Does the State exclude from accountability determinations the scores of recently arrived English Learners on the mathematics assessment, the reading/language arts assessment (if administered to these students), or both, even if these students have been enrolled in the same school or LEA for a full academic year?

English Language Learners in their first year of U.S. schooling must participate in the state English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessment in place of the English language arts assessments and must participate in the MAP for mathematics and the mathematics scores are included in accountability determinations. The SEA does exclude ELL in US less than 1 Year from accountability determinations for English Language Arts.  The exclusion is allowed for students that have not been in the United States (cumulatively) for one calendar year.


Does the State include, for up to two accountability determination cycles, the scores of former English Learners in making accountability determinations for the subgroup of English Learners? If so, how?


ELL students who have exited the status and are in year one of monitoring are coded as Year 1 Monitoring (M1). Students who are in the second year of monitoring ELL status are coded as Year 2 Monitoring (M2).

Students who are coded as M1 and M2 are included in making accountability determinations for the ELL subgroup.



What are the State’s criteria for exiting students from the English Learner subgroup?


Districts can exit students who have scored at least 5.0 and not less than a 4.0 on both the Reading and Writing domains of the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs English language proficiency.

Assessments

Which assessments, including alternate assessments, is the SEA using for reporting achievement under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) (i.e., reading/language arts, mathematics, and science assessments)?


Mathematics

Grade Level Assessment 3-8

MAP Alternate grades 3-8 and 10

End of Course Algebra I


English Language Arts

Grade Level Assessment 3-8

MAP Alternate grades 3-8 and 11

End of Course English II


Science

Grade Level Assessment 5 and 8

Biology

MAP Alternate grades 5, 8 and 11



What additional assessments, if any, does the State include in its accountability system and for what purpose is each assessment included?


Missouri does not use additional assessments for ESEA Flexibility. The SEA uses the Missouri School Improvement Program for additional assessments and indicators for a well- rounded and comprehensive accountability system that include additional End of Course Assessments and college and career readiness assessments. Assessments are found in the Comprehensive MSIP 5 Guide to the Missouri School Improvement Program. Missouri utilizes English language arts and mathematics assessments for ESEA Flexibility.

Statistical Reliability and Protection of Students’ Privacy

What is the State’s minimum “n-size” for determining each of the following?

  • Participation rate

  • Performance against AMOs

  • Graduation rate

  • Other (as applicable, please specify use)




The SEA uses the following minimum “n-size” for its accountability determinations:

Participation Rate- there is no minimum “n” count

Performance against AMOs- 30

Graduation Rates- 30




What is the State’s minimum “n-size” for protecting students’ privacy when reporting?

The SEA’s minimum n-size is 5 for reporting purposes. However, results of either less than five percent or greater than 95 percent are also suppressed.

What confidence intervals, if any, does the State use in its accountability system to ensure the statistical reliability of school classifications, and for which calculations are these confidence intervals applied?

The SEA does not use a confidence interval in the accountability system.

Does the State base accountability determinations on multiple years of data? If so, which years, and how, if at all, are the years weighted?

The SEA utilizes the most recent three years of data in their accountability determinations with all years having equal weight.
.

Other Academic Indicators

What are the other academic indicators for elementary and middle schools that the State uses for annual reporting? What are the State’s goal and/or annual targets for these indicators?



The SEA has a comprehensive accountability system that utilizes additional indicators to those required by ESEA. This accountability system includes an attendance rate for each school in a district. The other academic indicator is attendance. The attendance target for schools is 90 percent. Assessments and targets are found in the Comprehensive MSIP 5 Guide to the Missouri School Improvement Program.

http://www.dese.mo.gov/qs/documents/MSIP-5-comprehensive-guide-3-13.pdf


Graduation Rate

What are the State’s graduation rate goal and annual graduation rate targets?
Please provide a table with State-level goal and annual targets for all students and by subgroup beginning with the 2012–2013 school year.
If graduation rate annual targets vary by school, provide a link to the page on the SEA’s web site where the LEA and school targets are available.



The SEA calculates a four-year graduation rate and an extended- five-year graduation rate. The four-year and then five-year graduation rate is used to determine if schools and LEAs have met the graduation rate target or have shown sufficient improvement The SEA incorporates a four‐year and five‐year graduation calculation into the SEA’s Annual Performance Report, and gives districts and schools credit for whichever rate is highest. While the four‐year graduation rate from the most recent cohort provides the most current information about performance, the five‐year, rate is a better indicator for those LEAs and schools making a concerted effort to keep students in school (to prevent drop‐out, better prepare students for postsecondary and workforce readiness, etc.). This reinforces the principle of allowing time to become a variable given the SEAs expectation that all students will graduate prepared for college and career readiness.

Three years of graduation rate data are averaged to determine school performance with respect to status targets. Year-to-year comparisons of the change in graduation rate are used to determine performance relative to progress targets. Progress targets vary depending on a school’s status rating. Graduation targets and Progress Targets are listed below.


MO’s graduation rate goal is the 2020 Target of 92 percent. MO holds all schools to the graduation rate goal without intermediate targets, and reports on SEA, LEA and school progress against this goal.

As described on page 60 of the approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver (dated June 27, 2012), Missouri uses additional graduation rate calculations in its overall core score calculations for schools.”







Graduation Targets:

    • 2020 Target – 92.0%

    • On Track – 82.0%

    • Approaching – 72.0%

  • Progress Targets

    • Status = Floor (Exceeding = 9%, On Track = 6%, Approaching = 3%)

    • Status = Approaching (Exceeding = 6%, On Track = 4%, Approaching = 2%)

    • Status = On Track (Exceeding = 3%, On Track = 2%, Approaching = 1%)

    • Status= 2020 Target (Exceeding = 3%, On Track = 2%, Approaching = 1%)




If the State has received a timeline extension and is not using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for accountability determinations, please specify what rate the State is using and when the State will begin using a four-year adjusted cohort rate.


Not applicable.

What, if any, extended-year graduation rate(s) does the State use? How does the State use its extended-year graduation rate(s) in its accountability system?


High schools and LEAs with high schools are required to meet a four- OR five-year status target or a combination of status and progress targets for the four- OR five-year rate to receive full credit for graduation rate on the APR. The five-year rate tracks students for up to five years, but is otherwise calculated in the same manner as the four-year graduation rate. The fifth-year students remain in their original cohort and that cohort is recalculated based on the aggregate number of students graduating with a regular diploma within a five-year timeframe. Both four- and five-year graduation rates are calculated, and the better of the two is used to determine if schools and LEAs have met the graduation rate target or have shown sufficient improvement.

Participation Rate





How does the State calculate participation rates?


The participation rate calculates the percent of students who receive a valid MAP score in a subject or content area.  The percent for Level Not Determined (LND) may not exceed five percent, for all accountable LEAs, schools and subgroups.  To calculate the participation rate, the number of “Participants” is divided by the number of “Accountable” students.

Accountable = Count of all students.

Participants = Count of all whose achievement level is not null.

Accountable – Participants = Level Not Determined (LND), or students without an achievement level.



Participation Rate = (Participants/Accountable)*100

How does the State use participation rates within its differentiated accountability system (i.e., index)?


Any LEA or school with less than a 95 percent participation rate in English language arts or mathematics automatically fails to make its performance targets in the aggregate or the subgroup(s) for which the rate falls below 95 percent.




The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page