STATE: Idaho Accountability Addendum to ESEA Flexibility Request May 14, 2014
Idaho
ESEA Flexibility
Accountability Addendum
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, DC 20202
May 14, 2014
22
STATE: Idaho Accountability Addendum to ESEA Flexibility Request May 14, 2014
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, as amended (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
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) 2
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective 3 (AMAO 3) under Title III 6
Subgroup Accountability 7
State Accountability System Includes All Schools and Districts 9
State Accountability System Includes All Students 13
Assessments 18
Statistical Reliability and Protection of Students’ Privacy 20
Other Academic Indicators 22
Graduation Rate 22
Participation Rate 24
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. / The AMO targets for Idaho are outlined in Idaho’s approved ESEA flexibility request[1] (dated July 23, 2013), Table 24, pages 124-126. The targets are the same for all schools and groups.
The AMO targets are:
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective 3 (AMAO 3) under Title III
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:
o Its AMOs in reading/language arts and mathematics.
o 95 percent participation on the State’s assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.
o The State’s goal or annual targets for graduation rate if the LEA includes one or more high schools. / Idaho assures that it will make AMAO3 determinations for school year 2012−2013 and future years for all Idaho LEAs. AMAO3 determinations will include whether the subgroup of English Learners has met or exceeded each of the following:
o Idaho AMOs in reading/language arts and mathematics.
o 95 percent participation on the State’s assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.
o Idaho’s annual targets for graduation rate if the LEA includes one or more high schools.
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. / As noted in the Idaho’s approved ESEA flexibility request , Section 2A on pages 78-80, the following groups are combined to form an “At-Risk Subgroup”:
· Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible
· Minority Students
· Students with Disabilities
· Limited English Proficient Students (LEP)
Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) Eligible – FRL eligibility will still be used to represent the subgroup of students who live in families which are economically disadvantaged. The State is not making any change to the definition of this subgroup.
Racial and Ethnic Equity (Minority Students) – Idaho is not a very racially or ethnically diverse State; approximately 85 percent of the population is white. However, the Idaho State Department of Education (ISDE) is strongly committed to educational equity among racial and ethnic groups. In smaller school districts, the lack of racial and ethnic diversity virtually precludes reporting by race or ethnicity group.
This has been an obstacle to equity in the past. Therefore, the State has changed two aspects of its accountability plan to particularly address the issue of masked ethnicity groups. First, the minimum N count for all metrics has been reduced from N>=34 to N>=25. Second, minority students are classified into one ethnic equity group. While combining across defined student groups is not a guarantee of attaining large enough numbers for reporting (N>=25), it increases the probability of highlighting potential disparities. Minority students are defined as all students who are coded in one of the following race categories: American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, and two or more races. While these race and ethnicity categories will be combined for the accountability matrix, they will continue to be reported publicly by each individual classification.
Students with Disabilities – The State is not making any change to the definition of this subgroup. It is comprised of students with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) as defined by the eligibility requirements outlined in the Idaho Special Education Manual.
LEP students – Students who are defined as LEP are determined as such through Idaho’s ELL placement test and are served through LEP programs within Idaho districts. Idaho also defines students in the U.S. school system for the first year to be LEP1 students. Other Accountability Elements (At-Risk Subgroup):
Idaho uses a combined At-Risk Subgroup to make accountability determinations as part of its Star Rating system. However, Idaho did not set an AMO specifically for the At-Risk Subgroup. Due to the limited sizes of most subgroups in Idaho, Idaho will deploy the following business rules in the subgroup calculations. Idaho will calculate the Growth to Achievement Subgroups by each of the four listed subgroups (LEP, Students with Disabilities, Free and Reduced Lunch eligible students, Minority Students) into one “At-Risk Subgroup” for each school. The majority of Idaho schools do not have subgroups that meet the N>=25 threshold, so this is how Idaho is ensuring that all students who traditionally have been identified as having gaps in performance, will be accounted for by combining those four groups into one subgroup. Each student, regardless of multiple subgroup designations, shall only be counted once in the total subgroup for purposes of calculating the Growth to Achievement subcategory.
The growth will be calculated for that total combined subgroup for each subject area. If a school has less than 25 students in the combined subgroup, even after combining all four of the identified subgroups, the State will use a three year average (once sufficient years of growth data are available). If there is insufficient data for a three year average, no points will be awarded in this category for the school's Star Rating. Reporting AMOs:
In addition to the Star Rating system determinations, which uses the combined At-Risk Subgroup, the State will report absolute performance against AMOs for all required ESEA subgroups on the Idaho Report Card. To ensure focused efforts on the correct students, all ESEA subgroup performance, including all ethnicity and races, will continue to be publicly reported in relation to the State's AMOs for groups of N>=25. This report will be based on all students in the school. Additionally, the Idaho Report Card will publicly report proficiency levels for all ESEA subgroups and by grade level for groups of N>=10. The State will not report the performance of the At-Risk Subgroup as an AMO category.
State Accountability System Includes All Schools and Districts
What is the State’s definition of a local educational agency (LEA)? / Idaho utilizes the definition of local educational agency as defined in ESEA which states, 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.Idaho further defines LEAs in Idaho Code 33-301:
SCHOOL DISTRICTS BODIES CORPORATE.Each school district, now or hereafter established, when validly organized and existing, is declared to be a body corporate and politic, and in its corporate capacity may sue and be sued and may acquire, hold and convey real and personal property necessary to its establishment, extension and existence. It shall have authority to issue negotiable coupon bonds and incur such other debt, in the amounts and manner, as provided by law.
Idaho further defines and LEA in Idaho Code 33-353:
NATURE AND POWERS.Each school subdistrict created and established as provided in this act shall be a political subdivision of the state of Idaho. The board of trustees entering the order creating and establishing such school subdistrict shall be the governing body of all school subdistricts created by it, and shall possess the power to order, conduct and hold all elections in such school subdistricts for the purpose of incurring debt and issuing bonds and for the purpose of voting school plant facilities reserve fund levies.
What is the State’s definition of a public school? Please provide definitions for elementary school, middle school, and secondary school, as applicable. / The LEA is defined as the local school district or a public charter school. Idaho public schools are defined as those elementary and secondary schools established and maintained at public expense, defined in Idaho Code 33-1001, funded through the total basic foundation program/state aid formula described in Idaho Code 33-1002, and governed by the Idaho State Board of Education described in Idaho Code 33-116. Such public schools shall receive an accountability determination.
For the purposes of accountability determinations, an elementary school is one that has a grade configuration that may include grades K-4 but does not contain grade 8 or higher. A middle school is a school that does not meet the definition of an elementary school and contains grade 8 but does not contain grade 12. A high school is any school that contains grade 12.
How does the State define a small school? / Idaho defines a small school as a school that does not have a total of 25 students in the tested grade levels.
Within Idaho’s approved ESEA flexibility request, the minimum n-count was changed to 25 and therefore the definition criteria stayed the same for how the rules were applied, but the definition is changed to “schools that do not have a total of 25 students in the tested class levels.”
How does the State include small schools in its accountability system? / For those small schools, the Board and the ISDE will establish an annual accountability rating based on the same performance metrics as for all other schools under its Star Rating system. However, in order to ensure reliable data, schools with less than 25 students in the tested grades will be held accountable using a three-year average for each category of achievement, growth, and, where appropriate, post-secondary readiness outcomes. Idaho has a very small number of small, rural and remote schools that, even with a three-year average, may not have sufficient data for a Star Rating. Regardless, Idaho will provide a determination for all schools that do not have a sufficient population for attaining a Star Rating. This will be done by applying the following rules and in the following order.
1. Idaho will aggregate Reading, Math, and Language scores on the state test (i.e., ISAT) for the all student population. Instead of calculating the minimum n-size based on the number of students, the minimum n-size will be calculated relative to number of testing units, going back as far as needed up to four years, to find n≥25. For example, if there are ten students with assessment results in each of the three content areas, there are 30 testing units creating n≥25. Once the testing units are n≥25, then determination for the school is made based on percentage of passing scores relative to the total number of testing units. This percentage is converted directly into a 100-point index comparable to the Star Rating index (Table 15 of Principle 2 in Idaho’s approved ESEA Flexibility Plan). Schools with an index between 67-100 are not identified for improvement; schools with an index equal to or less than 66 points are identified for continuous improvement.
2. For schools with insufficient testing units to reach the n≥25 described above, Idaho will reduce the minimum n-size to n≥15 and then perform the same calculation of the percentage of passing scores relative to the number of testing units for a period up to four years in order to achieve n≥15. The same index will be applied to the percentage: 67-100 – no improvement requirements; 0-66 – continuous improvement requirements.