Part LXXXIII. Bulletin 111―The Louisiana School, District, and State Accountability System 1




Yüklə 390.98 Kb.
səhifə3/4
tarix15.04.2016
ölçüsü390.98 Kb.
1   2   3   4

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 17:10.1.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, LR 30:767 (April 2004), amended LR 36:2244 (October 2010).

§4005. English Language Proficiency Descriptors

A. English language proficiency labels are defined as:

1. Level IBeginning Proficiency indicates that the student who is limited English proficient is:

a. beginning to understand short utterances;

b. beginning to use gestures and simple words to communicate;

c. beginning to understand simple printed material;

d. beginning to develop communicative writing skills.

2. Level IILower Intermediate Proficiency indicates that the student who is limited English can:

a. understand simple statements, directions, and questions;

b. use appropriate strategies to initiate and respond to simple conversation;

c. understand the general message of basic reading passages;

d. compose short informative passages on familiar topics.

3. Level IIIUpper Intermediate Proficiency indicates that the student who is limited English proficient can:

a. understand standard speech delivered in most settings;

b. communicate orally with some hesitation;

c. understand descriptive material within familiar contexts and some complex narratives;

d. write simple texts and short reports.

4. Level IVAdvanced Proficiency indicates that the student who is limited English proficient can:

a. identify the main ideas and relevant details of discussions or presentations on a wide range of topics;

b. actively engage in most communicative situations familiar or unfamiliar;

c. understand the context of most text in academic areas with support;

d. write multi-paragraph essays, journal entries, personal/business, and creative texts in an organized fashion with some errors.

5. Level VFull English Proficiency indicates that the student who is limited English proficient can:

a. understand and identify the main ideas and relevant details of extended discussion or presentations on familiar and unfamiliar topics;

b. is fluent and accurate in language production;

c. use reading strategies the same as their native English-speaking peers to derive meaning from a wide range of both social and academic texts;

d. write fluently using language structures, technical vocabulary, and appropriate writing conventions with some circumlocutions.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 17:10.1.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, LR 30:767 (April 2004).

Chapter 41. Data Collection and


Data Verification

§4101. Valid Data Considerations

A.1. Unusual Data Result (UDR)any CRT, NRT, attendance, dropout/credit accumulation, and graduation data that exceeds a parameter or a range of parameters, which shall be determined by the LDE and approved by the SBESE.

2. Irregular Dataany data, which appears to contradict results, which are otherwise:

a. expected;

b. unrealistic information; or

c. data generated as a result of defective data collection or processing.

B. A test score shall be entered for all eligible students within a given school. For any eligible student who does not take the test, including those who are absent, a score of "0" on the CRT and NRT shall be calculated in the school's SPS. To assist a school in dealing with absent students, the Louisiana Department of Education shall provide an extended testing period for test administration. The only exceptions to this policy are students who were sick during the test and re-testing periods and who have formal documentation for that period.

C. The LDE shall evaluate the accountability results each year to identify irregular data and unusual data results.

1. The LDE will select a sample of schools to investigate.

2. Districts shall be notified of the schools with irregular or unusual data that they must investigate themselves.

a. The LDE will identify the specific areas of concern.

b. The district will provide a written report explaining the irregular or unusual data within 60 days of notification by the LDE.

D. If inaccurate, invalid, and/or undocumented data is discovered and was or will be used in the calculation of school performance scores or subgroup adequate yearly progress determinations, the LDE shall correct and/or void the data.

1. For example, if four students in fall 2011 are coded as "out-of-state" transfers, it is determined in August 2012 that no documentation exists to support this exit code, and the students are not found enrolled in another Louisiana school; these four students will be changed to dropouts and counted as such in the 2012 accountability results, and if applicable, in the appropriate cohort for any graduation index calculations beginning in 2013.

2. In any instance where the inaccurate, invalid, and/or undocumented data was used in a previous year's accountability results, the LDE will evaluate the impact of the data and recommend to BESE any repayment of rewards or school improvement funds indicated by the recalculation of accountability results.

E. The LDE will notify in writing the superintendent of the LEA associated with any school where data is corrected and/or voided or where rewards must be repaid.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 17:10.1.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, LR 29:2754 (December 2003), amended LR 30:2446 (November 2004), LR 32:1028 (June 2006), LR 38:3115 (December 2012), LR 40:1318 (July 2014).

§4103. NRT and CRT Data

A. For NRT and CRT data:

1. if there is evidence of irregular data or a UDR, the LDE shall require the LEA to investigate. The LEA shall report the results of its investigation to the State Superintendent of Education;

2. if the State Superintendent of Education determines that the results of the investigation do not sufficiently explain the data, s/he shall designate a team to visit the school and conduct its own investigation:

a. if the test data are determined to be inaccurate, invalid, and/or undocumented the LDE shall void or correct the data as described in §4101;

3. if the gains are validated by the visit, the school will be designated a "pacesetter" school. If the gains cannot be validated, the State Superintendent of Education may initiate further action.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 17:10.1.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, LR 29:2755 (December 2003), amended LR 32:1029 (June 2006), LR 38:3115 (December 2012).

§4104. Dropout/Exit Data

A. The LDE may review and validate attendance, dropout, and exit code data:

1. due to an unusual data result or irregular data;

2. while at a school or district site primarily to investigate other data or records;

3. during a random data audit.

B. If there is insufficient documentation to validate the use of any student exit codes, the LDE shall void or correct the data as described in §4101.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 17:10.1.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, LR 32:1029 (June 2006), amended LR 38:3116 (December 2012).

§4105. Reported Irregularities

A. The LDE will determine and the SBESE shall approve a process for the public to report possible irregularities.

B. Anonymous complaints may be investigated.

C. All signed complaints shall be investigated.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 17:10.1.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, LR 29:2755 (December 2003).

Chapter 43. District Accountability

§4301. Inclusion of All Districts

A. Every school district shall participate in a district accountability system based on the performance of schools as approved by the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (SBESE).

B. Indicators for District Accountability. There shall be two statistics reported for each school district for district accountability:

1. a district performance score (DPS); and

2. a subgroup component.

C. District Performance Score (DPS). A district performance score (DPS) shall be calculated in the same manner as a combination school performance score, aggregating all of the students in the district.

1. Assessment data from students enrolled in a district for a full academic year shall be used to calculate the DPS, as well as performance on graduation index, cohort graduation rate, dropout/credit accumulation index and any progress points for which the district is eligible.

2. The DPS shall be reported as a numeric value and a letter grade shall be assigned based on the numeric value, except as otherwise outlined in §303 of this bulletin.

D. Subgroup Component. District AYP shall be determined by evaluating the aggregate performance of subgroups.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 17:10.1.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, LR 29:2755 (December 2003), amended LR 30:1446 (July 2004), LR 32:543 (April 2006), LR 37:2119 (July 2011), LR 38:3116 (December 2012), LR 40:760 (April 2014), LR 40:1318 (July 2014).

§4310. Subgroup Component AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress)

A. District Subgroup Component Indicators

1. Each district shall be evaluated on the subgroup component at three different levels (grade-clusters); elementary (K-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12). A district shall pass the subgroup component provided that each subgroup of students within each grade-cluster meets the passes the subgroup component, and each grade-cluster the district, as a whole, meets the criteria for status or improvement on the additional academic indicator.

a. Passing the Subgroup Component

i. Participation rate test: 95 percent of the students within the each subgroup within each grade-cluster participated in the standards-based assessments; and

ii. Annual measurable objective status test (AMO status test): the subgroup percent proficient score within each grade-cluster is at/or above the annual measurable objective in ELA and mathematics; or

iii. Safe harbor test:

(a). the percentage of non-proficient students within the each subgroup within each grade-cluster reduced declined by at least 10 percent of the previous year's value; and

(b). the subgroup improved or met the criterion on the additional academic indicator (attendance rate for the elementary and middle schools grade-clusters and non-dropout rate for the high schools grade-cluster).

b. 2002-03 will be year one of judging districts based on the subgroup component.

c. 2003-04 will be year two of judging districts based on the subgroup component.

d. For the non-proficient reduction portion of the safe harbor test, a comparison of current year assessment data to the previous year assessment data shall be used. For the additional academic indicator check for the safe harbor test and for the whole grade-cluster check, attendance and dropout data from the prior year will be compared to data from two years prior.

i. For 2005-06 only, the safe harbor comparison of assessment results shall include only English language arts and mathematics results from grades 4, 8, and 10.

ii. Beginning in 2006-07, safe harbor shall be determined using English language arts and mathematics assessment data from grades 3-8 and 10.

e. To ensure high levels of reliability, Louisiana will apply a 99 percent confidence interval to the calculations of subgroup component determinations for:

i. AMO status test;

ii. reduction of non-proficient students (safe harbor test); and

iii. status attendance/non-dropout rate analyses.

f. Louisiana will not apply a confidence interval to improvement analyses for attendance/non-dropout rate.

B. Inclusion of Students in the Subgroup Component

1. Students that meet the following criteria shall be included in all subgroup component analyses for the AMO status test and reduction of non-proficient students (safe harbor test).

a. Enrolled for the Full Academic Year (FAY):

i. at school level enrolled at the school on Oct. 1 and the date of testing;

ii. at district level enrolled in the district on Oct. 1 and the date of testing;

iii. at state level enrolled in a public LEA in the state on Oct. 1 and the date of testing.

b. First administration of the test:

i. only the first test administration will be used for the subgroup status and growth tests;

ii. excludes summer school results and repeaters.

c. Not exempted from testing due to medical illness, death of the student's family member(s), or the student being identified as LEP and in an English-speaking school for less than one full academic year.

2. For analyses involving the additional academic indicator, all students in each subgroup within each grade-cluster in the district shall be included.

3. Each subgroup (African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, white, economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, students with disabilities, and all students) within each district shall be evaluated separately on ELA and mathematics. In calculating the subgroup component for a district:

a. the alternate academic achievement standards for students participating in LAA 1 will be used, provided that the percentage of proficient LAA 1 students does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed. If the district exceeds the 1.0 percent proficient cap, the district shall request a waiver. The students exceeding the cap shall be assigned a zero on the assessment and be considered non-proficient if:

i. the district fails to request the waiver; or

ii. the district requests the waiver but it is determined by LDE that ineligible students were administered LAA 1;

b. students participating in LAA 1 shall be included in the special education subgroup;

c. LEP students shall participate in the statewide assessments;

i. scores shall not be included in AMO or improvement in percent proficient calculations for LEP students who have not been enrolled in an English-speaking school for one full school year;

d. when calculating the 1 percent cap for alternate assessment purposes, all decimals in results shall be rounded to the next highest whole number;

i. 1.0 percent of 1341 students is 13.41 students. The 1.0 percent cap, in this instance, is 14 students.

4. Subgroups shall consist of:

a. at least 10 students in order to be evaluated for the subgroup component;

b. at least 40 students in order to be evaluated for the 95 percent participation rate.

5. Subgroups shall pass the participation rate test and either the AMO status test; or the safe harbor test in order to be considered as having passed the subgroup/component.

C. AMO

1. The Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is the percent of students required to reach the proficient level in a given year on the standards-based assessments, which through 2005 will include English language arts and mathematics tests for 4th, 8th, and 10th grades. Beginning with Spring 2006 test results, proficiency levels shall be determined using English language arts and mathematics assessment data from grades 3-8 and 10.



a. Proficient = a score of basic, mastery or advanced.

2. As required in NCLB, the AMOs have been established based on the baseline percent proficient score (proficient = CRT level of basic, mastery, or advanced) in English-language arts and mathematics in the 20th percentile school, using the 2002 CRT test scores in ELA and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and 10.

3. The AMOs for ELA and math are as follows.


School Year

ELA


Mathematics

2001-2002





2002-2003

36.9%

30.1%

2003-2004

36.9%

30.1%

2004-2005

47.4%

41.8%

2005-2006

47.4%

41.8%

2006-2007

47.4%

41.8%

2007-2008

57.9%

53.5%

2008-2009

57.9%

53.5%

2009-2010

57.9%

53.5%

2010-2011

68.4%

65.2%

2011-2012

78.9%

76.9%

2012-2013

89.4%

88.6%

2013-2014

100.0%

100.0%

1   2   3   4


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə