Consolidated State Application

Accountability Workbook
for State Grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110)

Submitted: JANUARY 31, 2003

Revised for Peer Review
(March 31, 2003)

Additional Components and

Clarification per suggestions of
Peer Review Team (April 2003)

Amended 2004, 2005, 2006 and

2007

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 1

 U. S. Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Washington, D.C. 20202

2004 Amendments
• Principle 3.2 – p. 24 – 25
ƒ Change to same subject for 2 consecutive years to enter improvement
ƒ Addition of same subject for 2 consecutive years for district to enter
improvement
• Principle 4.1 – p. 32 – Addition of District AYP decisions based on 3 separate
grade clusters
• Principle 5.4 – p. 37 – Inclusion of LEP students
• Principle 10.1 – p. 59 – Exclusion of students in participation rate due to
personal illness or death of student’s family member

2005 Amendments
• Principle 5.3 – p. 37 – Calculation of a proxy value for SWD subgroup AYP
evaluations

2006 Amendments
* Note:
1. Versions prior to 2006 refer to Bulletin 741. All of Louisiana’s accountability
policy has been collected in Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State
Accountability System and the evidence throughout the workbook reflects this
change. (link to Bulletin 111
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/bese/1041.html ) July 20, 2006 version is the most
recent that aligns with this workbook. The newest version of Bulletin 741
(occasional used as evidence) is also at this location.
2. During the creation of Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State
Accountability System, terminology was used to be more consistent throughout
the policy. Several of the listed revisions, “reflects current State policy
language,” are not substantive revisions, but revisions to make the workbook
wording consistent with state policy.
• Principle 1.1 – p. 11-13
ƒ Due to expanding the assessment program to encompass all grades 3-8.
Pairing school data is no longer required to obtain sufficient data to
evaluate student performance and sharing data has been greatly reduced.
ƒ State added policy to restrict schools/LEAs from avoiding accountability
sanctions by reconfiguring schools.
ƒ Removes reference to Charter Schools and expands the section to denote
how all new schools enter accountability.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 2

 ƒ Establishes the Recovery Schools and their entry in accountability as new
schools.
ƒ Defines the flexibility granted to those schools/LEAs most severely
impacted by the 2005 hurricanes.
ƒ List of “Evidence” revised to reflect new legislation and the creation of an
accountability policy bulletin.
• Principle 1.4 – p. 18
• Delay in score release for 2006.
• Principle 1.5 – p. 20
• Reflects current reporting mechanisms
• Principle 1.6 – p. 22
• Sanctions will continue at least until the fall accountability results release.
• Reflects current State policy language
• Principle 2.2 – p. 24
• Reflects current State policy language
• Principle 3.1 – p. 26
• Specifies that AYP failure can be a result of the School Performance
Score Component
• Principle 3.2 – p. 29-32
• Replaced graphic with new flow chart (no change in content and order of
presentations changed)
• Details of the creation of a Displaced Students Subgroup due to the 2005
hurricanes
• Deleted reference to a non-existent addendum
• Principle 4.1 – p. 40
• Reflects current State policy language
• Establishes late release in 2006
• Principle 5.1 – p. 42
• Reflects current State policy language
• Removes dated language
• Principle 5.2 – p. 43
• Reflects current State policy language
• Specifies that AYP failure can be a result of the School Performance
Score Component
• Principle 5.3 – p. 44
• Defines use of alternate assessments in accountability
• Removes request for 2% proxy
• Principle 5.4 – p. 45
• Changes reflect use of new assessments and creation of an English
proficiency exam for LEP students
• Principle 5.5 – p. 46
• Defines use of alternate assessments in accountability
• Removes request for 2% proxy
• Principle 6.1 – p. 49
• Revised due to new assessments (including alternate assessments)
• Eliminates outdated table

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 3

 • Reflects current State policy language
• Principle 7.1 – p. 52
• Corrects timeline and adds detail to implementation of the graduation rate
in 2007.
• Reflects current State policy language
• Principle 7.3 – p. 54
• Removes reference to discontinued tests
• Principle 8.1 – p. 55
• Reflects current State policy language
• Principle 9.2 – p. 61
• Reflects current State policy language
• Principle 9.3 – p. 63
• Establishes use of the new assessments
• Verifies alignment of new tests to old
• Removes outdated and incorrect timeline
• Principle 10.1 – p. 65
• Clarification of calculation for Participation Rates
• Principle 10.2 – p. 66
• Clarification of calculation for Participation Rates

2007 Amendments
• Principal 1.1 – Page 11; New Schools and LEAs
• Restates that attendance data lags by one year
• Principal 1.4 – Page 18; Release of Accountability Results
• Establishes the first business day in August as the date of the
preliminary accountability release
• Principal 1.6 – Page 22;
• Grammar revisions
• Principal 2.3 – Page 25;
• Defines limits of the Student Information System
• Principal 4.1 – Page 42
• Same as 1.4 (above)
• Principal 5.3 – Page 47;
• Indicates a revision of the 1% alternate assessment and LA’s
continued use of its 2% test until guidance is provided.
• Principal 6.1 – Page 53; LA makes AYP decisions based on 2
evaluations
• Indicates LA’s School Performance Score component will move from
a non-dropout to a graduation index
• Principal 6.1 – Page 53; Alternate Assessments for SWD
• The 1% test is being revised and the 2% test will be fully
implemented in all grades and all subjects in 2009 (pending
guidance)
• Principal 7.1 – Page 56;
• Defines a graduation cohort and its use in accountability decisions

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 4

 Instructions for Completing Consolidated State
Application Accountability Workbook

By January 31, 2003, States must complete and submit to the Department this
Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook. We understand that
some of the critical elements for the key principles may still be under
consideration and may not yet be final State policy by the January 31 due date.
States that do not have final approval for some of these elements or that have
not finalized a decision on these elements by January 31 should, when
completing the Workbook, indicate the status of each element which 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.

Transmittal Instructions
To expedite the receipt of this Consolidated State Application Accountability
Workbook, please send your submission via the Internet as a .doc file, pdf file, rtf
or .txt file or provide the URL for the site where your submission is posted on the
Internet. Send electronic submissions to conapp@ed.gov.

A State that submits only a paper submission should mail the submission by
express courier to:

Celia Sims
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave., SW
Room 3W300
Washington, D.C. 20202-6400
(202) 401-0113

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 5

PART I: Summary of Required Elements for State Accountability
Systems

Instructions

The following chart is an overview of States' implementation of the critical

elements required for approval of their State accountability systems. States must
provide detailed implementation information for each of these elements in Part II
of this Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook.

For each of the elements listed in the following chart, States should indicate the
current implementation status in their State using the following legend:

F: State has a final policy, approved by all the required entities in the State
(e.g., State Board of Education, State Legislature), for implementing this
element in its accountability system.

P: State has a proposed policy for implementing this element in its

accountability system, but must still receive approval by required entities
in the State (e.g., State Board of Education, State Legislature).

W: State is still working on formulating a policy to implement this element in

its accountability system.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 6

 Summary of Implementation Status for Required Elements of
State Accountability Systems

Status State Accountability System Element

Principle 1: All Schools

F 1.1 Accountability system includes all schools and districts in the state.

1.2 Accountability system holds all schools to the same criteria.

F
1.3 Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement standards.
F
1.4 Accountability system provides information in a timely manner.
F
1.5 Accountability system includes report cards.
F
1.6 Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions.
F

Principle 2: All Students

F 2.1 The accountability system includes all students

2.2 The accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic year.
F
2.3 The accountability system properly includes mobile students.
F

Principle 3: Method of AYP Determinations

F 3.1 Accountability system expects all student subgroups, public schools, and LEAs to reach
proficiency by 2013-14.

3.2 Accountability system has a method for determining whether student subgroups, public
F schools, and LEAs made adequate yearly progress.

3.2a Accountability system establishes a starting point.

F
3.2b Accountability system establishes statewide annual measurable objectives.
F
3.2c Accountability system establishes intermediate goals.
F
Principle 4: Annual Decisions

F 4.1 The accountability system determines annually the progress of schools and districts.

STATUS Legend:
F – Final state policy
P – Proposed policy, awaiting State approval
W – Working to formulate policy

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 7

Principle 5: Subgroup Accountability

F 5.1 The accountability system includes all the required student subgroups.

5.2 The accountability system holds schools and LEAs accountable for the progress of student
F subgroups.

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
F reliable information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used.

5.6 The State has strategies to protect the privacy of individual students in reporting
F 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 schools.

7.2 Accountability system includes an additional academic indicator for elementary and middle
F schools.

7.3 Additional indicators are valid and reliable.

F
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.

9.2 Accountability system produces valid decisions.

F
9.3 State has a plan for addressing changes in assessment and student population.
F
Principle 10: Participation Rate

F 10.1 Accountability system has a means for calculating the rate of participation in the statewide
assessment.

10.2 Accountability system has a means for applying the 95% assessment criteria to student
F subgroups and small schools.
STATUS Legend:
F – Final policy
P – Proposed Policy, awaiting State approval
W– Working to formulate policy

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 8

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.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 9

PRINCIPLE 1. A single statewide Accountability System applied to all
public schools and LEAs.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.1 How does the State Every public school and LEA is A public school or LEA is not
Accountability System required to make adequate required to make adequate
include every public yearly progress and is yearly progress and is not
school and LEA in the included in the State included in the State
State? Accountability System. Accountability System.

State has a definition of “public State policy systematically

school” and “LEA” for AYP excludes certain public
accountability purposes. schools and/or LEAs.
• 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).

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 10

1.1
Public and Charter Schools
All public schools are included in the Louisiana Accountability System. For any school
to make AYP, each subgroup within the school, meeting the minimum “n” requirement,
must have 95 % participation and meet the annual measurable objective, or “safe harbor.”
Revised Statute 17:10:1 stipulates that schools and school districts are required to
participate in a “statewide system of accountability …based on student achievement and
minimum standards for the approval of the schools pursuant to R.S. 17:10. All charter
schools are required to participate in “any school and district accountability system
required by law of a public school of similar grade or type.” (R.S. 17:3996)

Sharing of Data
All Louisiana public schools are included in the accountability system. Those schools
without at least one grade level participating in testing (K-2) share one grade level of test
data from another school, usually the school into which they feed their student
populations. A school with a population insufficient to produce statistically reliable test
data shares another school’s data, usually a school it receives students from or sends
students to.

Reconfigured Schools
Any school with a substantial change in student population can request through its district
superintendent that the state calculate the percent of students that would have been
proficient the preceding year, based on the reconfiguration. This recalculation will allow
the state to determine if a school has met the safe harbor provisions (reduced the non-
proficient by 10%). The state will determine the School Improvement/Corrective Action
status of any schools that are reconfigured. The state will, at least, require assurances that
any students transferred from a failing school receive services to address their academic
deficiencies, and if sufficient numbers of students from a failing school are relocated to a
school site (or sites), the receiving schools shall be assigned the same label and
implement the same sanctions and remedies as the sending school.

New Schools and LEAs

A new Charter School or LEA with no affiliation with an existing LEA is held fully
accountable when sufficient data is available to perform the required evaluations. In
most instances, the school/LEA is fully accountable at the end of its third year of testing.
It can enter School Improvement and be required to offer School Choice at the end of the
second year of testing, but due to a 1 year lag in the use of attendance and
graduation/dropout data, establishing improvement in the K-8 Additional Academic
Indicator (AAI) cannot be accomplished until after the third year of testing.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 11

1.1 (cont)

Recovery Schools
Louisiana Revised Statute provides for schools meeting certain criteria or those in an
LEA meeting certain criteria to be removed from the LEA’s control and reopened as a
Type V Charter Schools or as “state-run” schools. These schools enter the accountability
system as new schools (defined in New Schools and LEAs, above).

Adjudicated/Special Schools Students

Louisiana has established policy that all students in correctional facilities and “Special
State Schools” be included in the State Assessment. Louisiana will include these students
at the lowest level of aggregation possible for accountability with sanctions appropriate to
these special conditions. In many instances, the students are placed at privately run
facilities by the juvenile court system. These facilities have school site codes in order to
receive certain types of state funding. The student scores are routed back to the students’
home schools.

Disaster Impacted Schools and LEAs

Schools located in an area declared by the President of the United States to be a disaster
area and that were closed for 18 or more consecutive school days (greater than 10% of an
academic year) shall be excluded from subgroup evaluations based on the accountability
data collected during the year of the disaster. Using the 2005 hurricanes as an example,
schools maintain their accountability status (School Improvement/Corrective Action)
based on 2005 test data through academic year 2006-07. The same schools and any
schools with a 25% change in student enrollment as the result of a disaster may, at the
LEA’s request, also receive a 1 year waiver from the School Performance Score (SPS)
Component of the Louisiana Accountability System, or they may start-over as new
schools in the SPS Component.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 12

1.1 (cont)

Note: New schools require 4 years to establish a 4-year cohort for graduation rate
calculations. Section 7.1 contains the details of Louisiana’s solution to this problem.

Evidence:

Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:10; 17:10.1; 17:10.5; 17:10.7; 17:3996

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System. §101, §521,
Chapter 24, §3301, §3303, §3501, Chapter 45

Memorandum: Inclusion of Special School District/Department of Corrections Students

in the Louisiana School and District Accountability System

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 13

 EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.2 How are all public schools All public schools and LEAs Some public schools and
and LEAs held to the are systematically judged on LEAs are systematically
same criteria when the basis of the same criteria judged on the basis of
making an AYP when making an AYP alternate criteria when making
determination? determination. an AYP determination.

If applicable, the AYP

definition is integrated into the
State Accountability System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

1.2
All public schools and LEAs are held to the same criteria when making AYP
determinations.

All public schools are included in the Louisiana Accountability System. For any school
to make AYP, each subgroup within the school, meeting the minimum “n” requirement,
must have the 95 % participation rate and meet the annual measurable objective, or “safe
harbor.” Additionally, all schools are evaluated using the School Performance Score
Component to establish Academically Unacceptable Schools and schools failing to show
sufficient growth.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System. §101

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 14

 EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.3 Does the State have, State has defined three levels of Standards do not meet
at a minimum, a student achievement: basic, proficient the legislated
definition of basic, and advanced. 1 requirements.
proficient and
advanced student Student achievement levels of
achievement levels in proficient and advanced determine how
reading/language arts well students are mastering the
and mathematics? 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.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

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.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 15

1.3
The State has definitions that are consistent with basic, proficient, and advanced in
English/language arts and mathematics. The Louisiana labels differ slightly from those
detailed in NCLB, although the definitions are similar. Current achievement levels are:
Advanced, Mastery (Exceeding the Standard), Basic (Meeting the Standard),
Approaching Basic (Approaching the Standard), and Unsatisfactory.

These standards have been shown to be high; for example, equipercentile equating of the
standards has shown that Louisiana’s “Basic” is somewhat more rigorous than NAEP’s
“Basic.” In addition, representatives from Louisiana’s business community and higher
education have validated the use of “Basic” as the state’s proficiency goal.

Evidence:

Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Accountability and

Assessment Committee Minutes (Tuesday, July 23, 2002)

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 16

 EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.4 How does the State State provides decisions about Timeline does not
provide accountability adequate yearly progress in time for provide sufficient time for
and adequate yearly LEAs to implement the required LEAs to fulfill their
progress decisions provisions before the beginning of the responsibilities before the
and information in a next academic year. beginning of the next
timely manner? 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.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 17

1.4
Release of Accountability Results
Beginning in 2004, for schools that may be subject to choice and/or Supplemental
Education services provisions, the LDE shall annually release preliminary Subgroup
Component results, School Performance Scores, and School Improvement/Corrective
Action status by the first business day in August following the school year in which the
assessment data was collected. Final Subgroup Component results and School
Performance Scores will be issued during the fall semester each year. Schools “wrongly”
identified in the preliminary release will continue to offer choice throughout the school
year. Schools “newly” identified with final scores will provide choice and/or
supplemental services beginning in January (second semester).

The State has included, as an addendum to the LEA Consolidated Application, a template
for Districts to use to describe their choice plans. LDE Staff conducts Technical
Assistance Workshops throughout the State to provide the Districts with guidance for
writing their consolidated applications and, if necessary, choice plans. These applications
are due to the State by June 9th and are not approved without appropriate documentation
of choice plans, ensuring that all Districts will have plans that can be implemented for
their schools, if necessary. The State also has an approved list of Supplemental Services
Providers that is easily accessible from the website.

Beginning in 2007, preliminary accountability results each summer shall include any
schools determined to be entering into or remaining in School Improvement or
Corrective Action, exiting School Improvement or Corrective Action, and those who
failed the Subgroup Component the prior year. These preliminary results shall be issued
by the first business day in August. Districts in the northern portion of the state
traditionally start school during the 3rd week in August. Schools in the southern section
of the state traditionally start a bit later in the year. Because the Louisiana Department of
Education and the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education have no control
over when LEAs open schools, Louisiana has established a fixed date, and districts
should open schools accordingly. Final accountability results shall be issued during the
fall semester of each year.

Implementation of New Assessments at Required Grade Levels

Due to the addition of new assessments in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 and the associated time
required to establish cut-scores and verify the validity and reliability of the new tests,
academic year 2005-06 test data is not available until September of 2006. All schools
shall maintain their 2005-06 accountability labels and any associated sanctions (Choice,
SES) until aggregated results are available in October. Schools identified as entering
School Improvement or Corrective Actions at the October release and that are not
granted an appeal at the December 7, 2006 meeting of the State Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education shall implement any required sanction upon notification. Schools
offering Choice at the beginning of the year shall continue to do so through the entire
academic year regardless of their status after the final release

Evidence:
Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System. §301,
Chapter 27
LEA Consolidated Applications for SY 2003-2004
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 18
PowerPoint: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Local Education Agency Consolidated
Application for Federal Programs (Title I)
 EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.5 Does the State The State Report Card The State Report Card does
Accountability System includes all the required data not include all the required
produce an annual State elements [see Appendix A for data elements.
Report Card? the list of required data
elements]. The State Report Card is not
available to the public.
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

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 19

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

1.5
Louisiana has produced an annual State Report Card since 1990. As Federal and State
requirements have increased due to the increasing standards of school accountability, the
State Report Card has evolved into a set of reports. These are available at
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/accountability/home.html
District Accountability information is also available at the same link.

The State Report Card includes all the required data elements: a) aggregates at each of
the proficiency levels; b) comparison between subgroup performance and State’s annual
measurable objective; c) percentage of students not tested; d) at least 3 years of trend
data (as required by R.S. 17:3912); e) aggregate information on attendance and
graduation rate (other academic indicators); f) professional qualifications of teachers.
Teacher qualifications can also be accessed, by the public, on our Teach Louisiana
website.

Preliminary accountability results are available on the web and are released to the press
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/comm/1450.asp. Final results are sent to parents in paper
copy following appeals, and web-based reports are updated at this time.

Evidence:

Louisiana Revised Statute 17:3912

Examples of School Report Cards:

Press Reports

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System Chapter 29

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 20

 EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1.6 How does the State State uses one or more types State does not implement
Accountability System of rewards and sanctions, rewards or sanctions for public
include rewards and where the criteria are: schools and LEAs based on
sanctions for public adequate yearly progress.
schools and LEAs? 2 • Set by the State;

• Based on adequate
yearly progress
decisions; and,

• Applied uniformly
across public schools
and LEAs.

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)].

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 21

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

1.6
Louisiana’s Accountability System includes both rewards and sanctions for public
schools and LEAs. The Rewards process includes both the Subgroup and the School
Performance Score Components. The following growth labels account not only for
growth of the school as a whole, but also consider the growth of subgroups within the
school and the school’s School Improvement Status. Rewards provided through an
annual allocation from the State General Fund are awarded to schools based upon their
growth labels.

Growth Labels:
¾ Exemplary Academic Growth – A school that makes it GT and the subgroups
meet their expected Growth and school is not in School Improvement
¾ Recognized Academic Growth – A school that makes its GT and the subgroups
do not make expected growth and/or the school is in School Improvement
¾ Minimal Academic Growth – A school improving (at least 0.1 points) but not
meeting its Growth Target
¾ No Growth – A school with a change in SPS (0 to –2.5 pts)
¾ School in Decline – A school with a declining SPS (more than – 2.5 pts)

Sanctions are based on the Subgroup and the School Performance Score Components of
the Louisiana Accountability System. They include assignment of District Assistance
Teams, school choice, supplemental services, reconstitution, and the assignment of
Distinguished Educators. The State Accountability System aligns with the NCLB
sanctions. Due to funding constraints, Supplemental Educational Services will only be
required for Title I Schools.

Sanctions required of schools during the 2005-06 academic year based on spring 2005
test data will continue to be offered in academic year 2006-07 until the release of
accountability results indicates a school/LEA no longer faces sanctions. Schools offering
School Choice at the beginning of the academic year must continue throughout the year.
This policy is necessary because of the delayed accountability release in 2006 due to the
implementation of a new testing program.

Evidence:
Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System Chapters 9-
27

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 22

PRINCIPLE 2. All students are included in the State Accountability System.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

2.1 How does the State All students in the State are Public school students exist in
Accountability System included in the State the State for whom the State
include all students in the Accountability System. Accountability System makes
State? no provision.
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.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

2.1
Louisiana’s Accountability System includes all students enrolled in public schools within
the state. Policy requires every public school to participate in a school accountability
system based on student achievement. Policy further requires that all students in
membership in the appropriate grades (3-11) on the day of testing shall be tested.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System Chapter 39

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 23

 EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

2.2 How does the State The State has a definition of LEAs have varying definitions
define “full academic “full academic year” for of “full academic year.”
year” for identifying determining which students are
students in AYP to be included in decisions The State’s definition excludes
decisions? about AYP. students who must transfer
from one district to another as
The definition of full academic they advance to the next
year is consistent and applied grade.
statewide.
The definition of full academic
year is not applied
consistently.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

2.2
Louisiana uses the definition of “full academic year” for the Subgroup/NCLB Analysis,
and the School Performance Score (SPS) Component. Students are included in the SPS if
they have been enrolled in the LEA for a “full academic year.”

FAY - Students enrolled in a school on October 1 and the test date are considered
enrolled for the Full Academic Year. These students are those included in the Subgroup
Component. This applies at the school, district, and state level.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System §703

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 24

 EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

2.3 How does the State State holds public schools State definition requires
Accountability System accountable for students who students to attend the same
determine which students were enrolled at the same public school for more than a
have attended the same public school for a full full academic year to be
public school and/or LEA academic year. included in public school
for a full academic year? accountability.
State holds LEAs accountable
for students who transfer State definition requires
during the full academic year students to attend school in
from one public school within the same district for more than
the district to another public a full academic year to be
school within the district. 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

2.3
Louisiana maintains a Student Information System (SIS) that is capable of “tracking” any
student that remains within the public school system in any district or charter school in
the state. The system can determine the enrollment on any given day and will be used to
determine October 1st and test date enrollment for both components of the accountability
system.

Evidence:

SIS User’s Guide

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 25

PRINCIPLE 3. State definition of AYP is based on expectations for growth
in student achievement that is continuous and substantial, such that all
students are proficient in reading/language arts and mathematics no later
than 2013-2014.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.1 How does the State’s The State has a timeline for State definition does not
definition of adequate ensuring that all students will require all students to achieve
yearly progress require all meet or exceed the State’s proficiency by 2013-2014.
students to be proficient proficient level of academic
in reading/language arts achievement in State extends the timeline past
and mathematics by the reading/language arts 3 and the 2013-2014 academic year.
2013-2014 academic mathematics, not later than
year? 2013-2014.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

3.1
Percent Proficient Scores are calculated for each subgroup within each school in ELA
and mathematics, separately. For any school to make AYP, each subgroup within the
school, meeting the minimum “n” requirement, must have 95 % participation and meet
the annual measurable objective, or “safe harbor.” The annual measurable objectives are
applied equally to all grades, subgroups, and schools and were chosen to ensure that all
students are proficient in English-language arts and mathematics by the 2013-2014
school year. Schools are also considered as not making AYP if their School Performance
Scores are less than 60.

Evidence:
Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System Chapter 7,
Chapter 11, §1503

3
If the state has separate assessments to cover its language arts standards (e.g., reading and
writing), the State must create a method to include scores from all the relevant assessments.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 26

 EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.2 How does the State For a public school and LEA to State uses different method for
Accountability System make adequate yearly calculating how public schools
determine whether each progress, each student and LEAs make AYP.
student subgroup, public subgroup must meet or exceed
school and LEA makes the State annual measurable See page 24.
AYP? 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.

See page 24.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 27

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 28

3.2
Louisiana’s Accountability System incorporated the recommendations from U.S. Ed in
2002/03.
Louisiana’s revised plan for determining AYP is a three-tiered Accountability System.
Schools are judged on subgroup performance.
• The baseline is the percent proficient in English-language arts and mathematics at the
20th percentile school, using the 2002 CRT test scores in ELA and mathematics for
grades 4, 8, and 10.
• For each school, Louisiana measures the percent proficient in each subject for each
subgroup – whole school, major racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged,
students with disabilities, and limited English proficient students.
• 2002-03 was year one of judging AYP by subgroup
• Each subgroup must meet the Annual Measurable Objectives and Incremental Goals
to ensure that all students are proficient by 2013-2014.
• Any subgroup failing AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years will result in
a school having to offer choice. (e.g. Hispanic in mathematics in year one and
Poverty in mathematics in year two – school has a flag for failing AYP for two
consecutive years and, therefore, must offer choice)
• A district (LEA) is identified for improvement only when all three grade clusters fail
AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years.

Identifying LEAs for improvement

Elementary
Reading
Middle
Reading
High School Reading
Elementary Math
Middle Math
High School Math

Year 1
X
X
X

Year 2
X
X
X

District is identified for improvement

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 29

Elementary
Reading
3.2 (cont.)

Louisiana applies a 99% confidence interval to the calculations for AYP determinations
of percent proficient, reduction of non-proficient students, and status attendance
(graduation) rate to ensure high levels of reliability. Louisiana does not apply a
confidence interval to improvement of attendance or graduation rate.

Schools are also judged on the School Performance Score Component using LA’s school
accountability model.
• Judgments are made annually.
• Schools fail to make AYP if they are identified, by the State, as Academically
Unacceptable Schools.

Schools enter School Improvement if they fail in the same subject for 2 consecutive years
to make AYP in the Subgroup Component analysis (any subgroup) or immediately upon
being determined to fail the School Performance Score Component.

Due to the hurricanes of 2005 and only in 2006 (unless similar disasters occur in
subsequent years), and for the Subgroup Component, students that were displaced by the
hurricanes, that were enrolled for a Full Academic Year in one school, and that were
entered into the Student Information System as Displaced Students will be placed in a
single Displaced Students Subgroup. These Displaced Students will not hold
membership in any other subgroup. Louisiana will submit the Displaced Student
Subgroup results to the U.S. Department of Education at least 10 days prior to the
planned release of scores on Oct. 20, 2006. Because the Displaced Student Subgroup did
not exist in 2005, and because our AAI data lags by 1 year, there will not be sufficient
data to determine that this subgroup failed AYP. We will know if they failed to meet the
AMO, but we won’t be able to determine they failed Safe Harbor. Any school or LEA
that tests fewer than 95% of these students will fail Subgroup AYP.

Louisiana will report school, LEA, and state participation rates and proficiency rates for
these displaced students on our web-based reports. No AAI data will be available in
2006 due to a 1 year lag, but the AAI data collected on this subgroup during 2005-06 will
be included in the AAI calculations in 2007 in all applicable subgroups and according to
policy governing cohort membership.

For the SPS Component, the State will perform dual calculations in 2006 – 1 applying
normal policy and 1 with displaced students excluded. The lower of the two scores will
be used to evaluate performance unless the higher prevents a school from being classified
as Academically Unacceptable. Attendance and graduation data from the displaced
students will be included in the SPS Component in 2007.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 30

 LOUISIANA’S 3-TIERED ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Each Subgroup in each subject is subjected to Tiers 1 and 2

Tier 1 – AMO
1. Does the subgroup have 10 members?
Yes – Proceed to step 2 No – Subgroup passes AYP

2. Does the subgroup have 40 members?

Yes – Proceed to step 3 No – Advance to step 4

3. Did 95% of the subgroup participate in testing?

Yes – Proceed to step 4 No – Subgroup fails AYP

4. Did the subgroup meet the AMO?

Yes – Subgroup passes AYP No – Proceed to Tier 2

Tier 2 – Safe Harbor

5. Did the subgroup reduce the non-proficient students by 10% since the previous year?
Yes – Proceed to step 6 No – Subgroup fails AYP

6. Did the subgroup meet the AAI standard (attendance or graduation rate)?
Yes – Subgroup passes AYP No – Proceed to step 7

7. Did the subgroup improve by at least 0.1% on the AAI from the previous year?
Yes – Subgroup passes AYP No – Subgroup fails AYP

8. Has any subgroup failed AYP?

Yes – SCHOOL FAILS AYP No – Proceed to step 9

Whole School AAI

9. Did the school meet the AAI standard?
Yes – SCHOOL PASSES SUBGROUP AYP No – Proceed to step 10

10. Did the school improve by at least 0.1% on the AAI from the previous year?
Yes – SCHOOL PASSES SUBGROUP AYP (Proceed to Tier 3)
No – SCHOOL FAILS AYP

Tier 3 – School Performance Score Component

11. Is the school’s School Performance Score below 60.0?
Yes – SCHOOL FAILS AYP No – Proceed to step 12

12. Did the school make its required growth?

Yes – SCHOOL PASSES SPS AYP (evaluate for reward eligibility)
No – SCHOOL ENTERS ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 31

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

3.2 (cont.)

School Name: ________________________________________

School Group Evaluated

Flagged
(Current Year)

Flagged
(Previous Year)

Whole School – ELA

Whole School – Math

American/Alaskan Native – ELA

Asian – ELA

African American – ELA

Hispanic –ELA

White – ELA

Economically Disadvantaged – ELA

Students With Disabilities – ELA

Limited English Proficient – ELA

American/Alaskan Native – Math

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.2a What is the State’s starting Using data from the 2001-2002 The State Accountability System
point for calculating school year, the State uses a different method for
Adequate Yearly established separate starting calculating the starting point (or
Progress? points in reading/language arts baseline data).
and mathematics for measuring
the percentage of students
meeting or exceeding the State’s
proficient level of academic
achievement.

Each starting point is based, at a

minimum, on the higher of the
following percentages of students
at the proficient level: (1) the
percentage in the State of
proficient students in the lowest-
achieving student subgroup; or,
(2) the percentage of proficient
students in a public school at the
20th percentile of the State’s total
enrollment among all schools
ranked by the percentage of
students at the proficient level.

A State may use these

procedures to establish separate
starting points by grade span;
however, the starting point must
be the same for all like schools
(e.g., one same starting point for
all elementary schools, one same
starting point for all middle
schools…).

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 33

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 34

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

3.2a Subgroup Starting Points and Intermediate Goals:

Louisiana has identified two starting points for calculating subgroup AYP. There is one starting
point for each of the assessments, ELA and mathematics, and they are applied equally to all
public schools within the state. Each baseline is the Percent Proficiency Score of the school
building that enrolls the student at the 20th percentile of Louisiana’s total enrollment, which was
higher than the lowest performing subgroup. The Percent Proficiency Score was calculated
based on the assessment data for Spring 2002.
Subgroup Timeline: 1 Grade Span (Including all grade-levels tested)
generating two starting points, with 6 Incremental Goals

• One starting point and one goal for each subject applied to every public school

School Year

ELA

Mathematics

Objectives/Goals

2001-2002

2002-2003
36.9 %
30.1 %
Annual Measurable Objective

2003-2004
36.9 %
30.1 %
Annual Measurable Objective

2004-2005
47.4 %
41.8 %
st
1 Incremental Goal

2005-2006
47.4 %
41.8 %
Annual Measurable Objective

2006-2007
47.4 %
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 35
41.8 %
Annual Measurable Objective
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 36

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.2b What are the State’s annual State has annual measurable The State Accountability System
measurable objectives for objectives that are consistent uses another method for
determining adequate yearly with a state’s intermediate goals calculating annual measurable
progress? and that identify for each year a objectives.
minimum percentage of students
who must meet or exceed the The State Accountability System
proficient level of academic does not include annual
achievement on the State’s measurable objectives.
academic assessments.

The State’s annual measurable

objectives ensure that all
students meet or exceed the
State’s proficient level of
academic achievement within the
timeline.

The State’s annual measurable

objectives are the same
throughout the State for each
public school, each LEA, and
each subgroup of students.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 37

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 38

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
3.2 b Subgroup Starting Points and Intermediate Goals:

School Year

ELA

Mathematics

Objectives/Goals

2001-2002

2002-2003
36.9 %
30.1 %
Annual Measurable Objective

2003-2004
36.9 %
30.1 %
Annual Measurable Objective

2004-2005
47.4 %
41.8 %
1st Incremental Goal

2005-2006
47.4 %
41.8 %
Annual Measurable Objective

2006-2007
47.4 %
41.8 %
Annual Measurable Objective

2007-2008
57.9 %
53.5 %
nd
2 Incremental Goal
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 39
2008-2009
57.9 %
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

3.2c What are the State’s State has established The State uses another method
intermediate goals for intermediate goals that increase for calculating intermediate goals.
determining adequate in equal increments over the
yearly progress? period covered by the State The State does not include
timeline. intermediate goals in its definition
of adequate yearly progress.
• The first incremental
increase takes effect not
later than the 2004-2005
academic year.

• Each following incremental

increase occurs within
three years.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 40

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

3.2 c See 3.2 a and 3.2 b

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability System §705

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 41

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

PRINCIPLE 4. State makes annual decisions about the achievement of all public
schools and LEAs.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

4.1 How does the State AYP decisions for each public AYP decisions for public schools
Accountability System school and LEA are made and LEAs are not made annually.
make an annual annually. 4
determination of whether
each public school and LEA
in the State made AYP?

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

4.1
Annual determinations for each public school and LEA are made for Subgroup AYP and the
School Performance Score Component based on the Spring assessment data, and Districts are
notified of preliminary classifications on the first business day in August, with final “verified”
classifications being released in early Fall.

For 2006 only, the preliminary release is delayed until Oct. 20 due to the implementation of new
tests at grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 – tests administered to comply with NCLB. The standard setting
process and the associated statistical tests for validity and reliability create the delay.

For evaluating LEAs on Subgroup AYP, Louisiana will consider three separate grade-clusters;
elementary (K-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12). An LEA fails Subgroup AYP for a
given year if any subgroup within any grade-cluster fails Subgroup AYP.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability §301, §4310

4
Decisions may be based upon several years of data and data may be averaged across grades within a
public school [§1111(b)(2)(J)].
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 42
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

PRINCIPLE 5. All public schools and LEAs are held accountable for the
achievement of individual subgroups.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.1 How does the definition of Identifies subgroups for defining State does not disaggregate data
adequate yearly progress adequate yearly progress: by each required student
include all the required economically disadvantaged, subgroup.
student subgroups? major racial and ethnic groups,
students with disabilities, and
students with limited English
proficiency.

Provides definition and data

source of subgroups for adequate
yearly progress.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 43

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.1
Louisiana’s Student Information System aligns assessment data with demographic data to make
subgroup membership determinations that can be aggregated to any level required.

Percent Proficient Rates are calculated for each subgroup within each school in ELA and
mathematics, separately. For any school to make AYP, each subgroup within the school,
meeting the minimum “n” requirement, must have 95 % participation and meet the annual
measurable objective, or “safe harbor.” The annual measurable objectives are applied equally to
all grades, subgroups, and schools and were chosen to ensure that all students are proficient in
English-language arts and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year. For any given school,
decisions could be based on as many as 9 different subgroups (Whole School, American/Alaskan
Native, Asian, African American, Hispanic, White, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with
Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient Students) in each subject (ELA and mathematics),
resulting in 18 possible analyses for the school at the subgroup level. Louisiana also applies two
additional measurements of the School Performance Score Component; Academically
Unacceptable and progress toward a Growth Target.

Evidence:
Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability Chapter 7, §4310

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 44

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.2 How are public schools Public schools and LEAs are held State does not include student
and LEAs held accountable for student subgroup subgroups in its State
accountable for the achievement: economically Accountability System.
progress of student disadvantaged, major ethnic and
subgroups in the racial groups, students with
determination of adequate disabilities, and limited English
yearly progress? proficient students.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.2
Percent Proficient Rates are calculated for each subgroup within each school in ELA and
mathematics, separately. For any school to make AYP, each subgroup within the school,
meeting the minimum “n” requirement, must have 95 % participation and meet the annual
measurable objective, or “safe harbor.” The annual measurable objectives are applied equally to
all grades, subgroups, and schools and were chosen to ensure that all students are proficient in
English-language arts and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year. For any given school,
decisions could be based on as many as 9 different subgroups (Whole School, American/Alaskan
Native, Asian, African American, Hispanic, White, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with
Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient Students) in each subject (ELA and mathematics),
resulting in 18 possible analyses for the school at the subgroup level. Louisiana also applies two
additional measurements of the School Performance Score Component; Academically
Unacceptable and progress toward a Growth Target.

Schools that fail to meet any Subgroup AYP calculation in the same subject for two consecutive
years will be required to offer choice as will any school labeled Academically Unacceptable in
the SPS Component.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability Chapter 7, Chapter 15,
§4310

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 45

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.3 How are students with All students with disabilities The State Accountability System
disabilities included in the participate in statewide or State policy excludes students
State’s definition of assessments: general with disabilities from participating
adequate yearly progress? assessments with or without in the statewide assessments.
accommodations or an alternate
assessment based on grade level State cannot demonstrate that
standards for the grade in which alternate assessments measure
students are enrolled. grade-level standards for the
grade in which students are
State demonstrates that students enrolled.
with disabilities are fully included
in the State Accountability
System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 46

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.3
Students with disabilities participating in regular assessments are included in the State’s
definition of AYP in the same manner as students without disabilities.

Students participating in Louisiana Alternate Assessment 1 (LAA 1) [based on alternate

academic achievement standards ] receive scores that reflect the students’ performance of skills.
The scores are converted to the achievement levels currently used to determine AYP and
incorporated into the AYP calculation. Louisiana ensures that the use of LAA 1 complies with
the 1% percent proficient limit allowable and the eligibility criteria deemed permissible, as a
result of the NPRM. The structure of this test is undergoing extensive revision in 2007-08 as a
result of the Peer Review process.

Beginning in 2006, Louisiana administers a Louisiana Alternate Assessment 2 (LAA 2) [based

on modified academic achievement standards]. The test is administered to grades 4, 8, 10, and
11 (Louisiana’s high-stakes grades) in 2006. It will be expanded to all grades and subjects
required by the Louisiana accountability system with full implementation expected in 2009. As
the test is expanded to additional grades and subjects, students who would otherwise be eligible
for this test will participate in regular assessment. The results of this test are reported in
performance levels and will apply to the 2006 Subgroup Component as do results from the
regular test. They will be included similarly in the School Performance Score Component. All
LEAs and the state as a whole are monitored to assure they do not exceed the 2% limit imposed
by NCLB. Louisiana awaits further guidance from the USDE to determine if this alternate
assessment is acceptable as a permanent element of the testing program or if a yearly application
should be submitted to request the flexibility to use the results in the Subgroup Component.

Evidence: Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability §703, §4310,
Chapter 39

Access to the General Education Curriculum

Louisiana Alternate Assessment State Sub-Group Reports

Summary of Test Results—Out –of – Level Testing Program (LAA-B)

Programming Codes 2005.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 47

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.4 How are students with All LEP student participate in LEP students are not fully
limited English proficiency statewide assessments: general included in the State
included in the State’s assessments with or without Accountability System.
definition of adequate accommodations or a native
yearly progress? language version of the general
assessment based on grade level
standards.

State demonstrates that LEP

students are fully included in the
State Accountability System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.4
Louisiana will not include the assessment results of first-year limited English proficient students
who participate in the reading/language arts assessment and mathematics assessments in AYP
determinations, even if the students have been enrolled in the school or district for a full
academic year according to the Louisiana definition of FAY.

Louisiana will include the assessment results of all other limited English proficient students in
AYP determinations.

To be considered English proficient and to exit the limited English proficient subgroup, the
student must score for:
1. Two years at the proficient level in the state’s testing program.
2. One year at the Full English Proficiency Level V on the English Language Development
Assessment (ELDA) in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension. The ELDA
assesses the English language proficiency of students by the following grade clusters: K-2, 3-5,
6-8, and 9-12.

Beginning with the fall 2005 accountability results, the LEP subgroup will include former LEP
students for 2 years after they are no longer considered LEP according to the state rules. These
students will not count toward the minimum “n” for the LEP subgroup, but will be included in
the AMO status test and the reduction in non-proficient students test (Safe Harbor) for this
subgroup.

Evidence:

LEAP for the 21st Century High Stakes Testing Policy, August 2002 (Grade 4, Section 6.C;
Grade 8, Section 8.C

Memorandum: Revision of High Stakes Testing Policy and Limited English Proficient Students
Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability Chapter 40

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 48

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.5 What is the State’s State defines the number of State does not define the required
definition of the minimum students required in a subgroup number of students in a subgroup
number of students in a for reporting and accountability for reporting and accountability
subgroup required for purposes, and applies this purposes.
reporting purposes? For definition consistently across the
accountability purposes? State. 5 Definition is not applied
consistently across the State.
Definition of subgroup will result in
data that are statistically reliable. Definition does not result in data
that are statistically reliable.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5
The minimum number is not required to be the same for reporting and accountability.
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 49
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

5.5
Minimum – N
Number Set by State

For reporting (to ensure privacy)

10

For AYP determination (for reliability)

10 with CI of 99 %

For participation
40

The State of Louisiana has established a definition for the minimum number of students in a
subgroup for both reporting and accountability purposes. The definition is consistent with the
minimum number identified within Critical Element 9.1. The State has established a test of
statistical significance for the method of determining a minimum number within a given
population and referenced to the established measurable objective. Refer to Critical Element 9.1,
for a detailed overview of this method of statistical significance.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability Chapter 7, §4310,

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5.6 How does the State Definition does not reveal Definition reveals personally
Accountability System personally identifiable identifiable information.
protect the privacy of information. 6
students when reporting
results and when
determining AYP?

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

6
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits an LEA that receives Federal funds
from releasing, without the prior written consent of a student’s parents, any personally identifiable
information contained in a student’s education record.
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 50
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

5.6
Louisiana will not report subgroups with a cell size of less than 10 in order to protect the privacy
of students. State Board policy requires LEAs to adopt a policy on student records that in part
says that “…schools shall not reveal a student’s confidential records, except by his or her
parent’s consent.”

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability Chapter 7, §4310

Louisiana Handbook for School Administrators, Bulletin 741, System Policies and Procedure
Chapter 7

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 51

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

PRINCIPLE 6. State definition of AYP is based primarily on the State’s academic

assessments.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

6.1 How is the State’s Formula for AYP shows that Formula for AYP shows that
definition of adequate decisions are based primarily on decisions are based primarily on
yearly progress based assessments. 7 non-academic indicators or
primarily on academic indicators other than the State
assessments? Plan clearly identifies which assessments.
assessments are included in
accountability.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

7
State Assessment System will be reviewed by the Standards and Assessments Peer Review Team.
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 52
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
6.1
LA makes AYP decisions based on 2 evaluations:

• The Subgroup Component, which measures the percent proficient of each subgroup and the
entire school population, separately, on LA’s ELA and Math tests in grades 3-8 and 10.
(Safe Harbor will be evaluated in 2006 using tests from grades 4, 8 and 10 since those were
the assessments used in 2005).
• Schools continue to be judged with LA’s long existing school accountability model, which
measures total school status and growth. (Baseline and Growth School Performance
Scores). The School Performance Score Component, beginning in 2007 includes CRT tests
given in grades 4, 8, 10, and 11, augmented NRT tests in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9,
attendance rates, and a graduation index. This component calculates a school performance
score (using a weighted index system) and a growth target for each school. To better align
the pre-existing School Performance Score Component with the Subgroup Component, the
School Performance Score Component moved from a two-year cycle to an annual
calculation.

Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities

LAA 1: Grades 3 thru 11. The assessment is based on alternate academic achievement
standards in four subject areas: English language arts, mathematics, social studies and science.
(Usage not to exceed allowable percentage and eligibility criteria confirmed in guidance). The
structure of this test is undergoing extensive revision in 2007-08 as a result of the Peer Review
process.

LAA-2: 2006-Grades 4, 8, and 10 (ELA and math) and grade 11 (science and social studies)
Expands in 2007 through 2009 to include grades 4-11 with all 4 subjects. LAA-2 is not
developed for grade 3 because it requires at least 1 regular test result to meet 1 of the criteria for
this alternate assessment. For the Subgroup Component and the SPS Component, the students
will take the regular test during the implementation years when no test is yet available. (Subject
to the 2% cap as described in guidance).

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability Chapters 3, 5, 7, §3901

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 53

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

PRINCIPLE 7. State definition of AYP includes graduation rates for public High
schools and an additional indicator selected by the State for public Middle and
public Elementary schools (such as attendance rates).

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

7.1 What is the State definition State definition of graduation rate: State definition of public high
for the public high school school graduation rate does not
graduation rate? • Calculates the percentage meet these criteria.
of students, measured
from the beginning of the
school year, who graduate
from public high school
with a regular diploma (not
including a GED or any
other diploma not fully
aligned with the state’s
academic standards) in
the standard number of
years; or,

• Uses another more

accurate definition that
has been approved by the
Secretary; and

• Must avoid counting a

dropout as a transfer.

Graduation rate is included (in the

aggregate) for AYP, and
disaggregated (as necessary) for
use when applying the exception
clause 8 to make AYP.

8
See USC 6311(b)(2)(I)(i), and 34 C.F.R. 200.20(b)
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 54
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 55

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

7.1
Louisiana’s School Performance Score Component accounts for high school graduation rate in
two ways; 30% of the 9-12 scores are comprised of four-year, cohort graduation indices (using
the same cohort definition as described below and the national (NCES-CCD) “event” definition
of dropout is used annually to adjust assessment indices downward if a 9-12 school exceeds a 4%
dropout rate in any of its testing grades.

In 2007, Louisiana will evaluate the 2002-2003 ninth grade cohort, making the first graduation
rate goal 65.0 %. Louisiana received tentative approval to use a 60.0 % grad rate as its target,
but its state board raised the goal to 65 %. Because the graduation rate will have a one-year lag,
the baseline data will be released in 2007 and the first year of AYP decisions based on this
cohort data will be in the Summer of 2007. Improvement in the AAI will be measured using the
dropout rate in 2007, since the comparison can only be made with “like” data.

A graduation cohort is based on a group of first-time 9th graders at a given high school in a given
year. Students transferring into the high school until Oct. 1 of the cohort’s 11th grade year shall
be added to the cohort, with any transfers from within the LEA prior to Oct. 1 of grade 12 added
to the cohort. Legitimate transfers from a school are removed from the cohort. These transfers
are audited through the Student Information System if the student remains in public schools in
Louisiana. Adequate documentation must be maintained for any student leaving the public
school system, and these exits are monitored and audited randomly and when numbers appear
excessive. At the end of four years, the percentage of members of the cohort graduating with at
least a regular diploma is reported as the cohort graduation rate. Early graduates are “banked”
and included with their original cohort. Students with Disabilities whose IEPs indicate they will
graduate in more than 4 years are included with the graduating cohort when they do graduate.
These students must graduate by the academic year that they turn 22, and their first IEPs that
include transition services must indicate they will graduate with a regular diploma. Students
attending 4 years of high school without earning diplomas, earning GEDs, or dropping out are
non-graduates.

Schools and LEAs in Louisiana have opportunities to review and revise exit data from 2005-06
until spring 2007.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability Chapters 3, 5, 7

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 56

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

7.2 What is the State’s State defines the additional State has not defined an
additional academic academic indicators, e.g., additional academic indicator for
indicator for public additional State or locally elementary and middle schools.
elementary schools for the administered assessments not
definition of AYP? For included in the State assessment
public middle schools for system, grade-to-grade retention
the definition of AYP? rates or attendance rates. 9

An additional academic indicator

is included (in the aggregate) for
AYP, and disaggregated (as
necessary) for use when applying
the exception clause to make
AYP.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

9
NCLB only lists these indicators as examples.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 57

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

7.2
Louisiana has chosen to use attendance rate as the additional academic indicator for both
elementary and middle schools.

When developing the Louisiana Accountability System, various models were evaluated and more
than 20 indicators were explored in detail. Attendance, one of the indicators reviewed, was
found to be among the most reliable and valid.

In Louisiana, attendance data is collected at the student level, must pass multiple edit rules, and
is substantiated through verification reports. All attendance data is audited and validated through
a two-stage process. First, a “paper” review is conducted. This is followed by an on-site audit of
a random sampling of schools as well as those schools showing any data irregularity.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability §701, §4101

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS

7.3 Are the State’s academic State has defined academic State has an academic indicator
indicators valid and indicators that are valid and that is not valid and reliable.
reliable? reliable.
State has an academic indicator
State has defined academic that is not consistent with
indicators that are consistent with nationally recognized standards.
nationally recognized standards, if
any. State has an academic indicator
that is not consistent within grade
levels.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 58

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

7.3
All item development, test design, form construction, and data analysis activities for Louisiana
standards-based assessments follow the guideline of the Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing. In addition, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to
address and resolve measurement and technical issues to ensure that assessments are valid and
reliable.

Attendance and graduation (dropout until 2006) data is collected at the student level, must pass
multiple edit rules, and are substantiated through verification reports. All attendance and
graduation/dropout data is audited and validated through a two-stage process. First, a “paper”
review is conducted. This is followed by on on-site audit of a randomly selected sample of
schools as well as those schools showing any data irregularity.

Evidence:

Louisiana Handbook for School Administrators, Bulletin 741, Louisiana School and District
Accountability System Chapter 7

Evidence (not attached, but available):

1997 Item Development Technical Report

1998 Item Development Technical Report
1999 Operational Technical Report
2000 Operational Technical Report
2001 Operational Technical Report

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 59

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

PRINCIPLE 8. AYP is based on reading/language arts and mathematics

achievement objectives.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

8.1 Does the state measure State AYP determination for State AYP determination for
achievement in student subgroups, public student subgroups, public
reading/language arts and schools and LEAs separately schools and LEAs averages or
mathematics separately for measures reading/language arts combines achievement across
determining AYP? and mathematics. 10 reading/language arts and
mathematics.
AYP is a separate calculation for
reading/language arts and
mathematics for each group,
public school, and LEA.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

8.1
Louisiana assesses subgroup performance for each subgroup within each school separately for
English-language arts and mathematics when determining AYP.

Percent Proficient Rates are calculated for each subgroup within each school in ELA and
mathematics, separately. For any school to make AYP, each subgroup within the school,
meeting the minimum “n” requirement, must have 95 % participation and meet the annual
measurable objective, or “safe harbor.” The annual measurable objectives are applied equally to
all grades, subgroups, and schools and were chosen to ensure that all students are proficient in
English-language arts and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year. For any given school,
decisions could be based on as many as 9 different subgroups (Whole School, American/Alaskan
Native, Asian, African American, Hispanic, White, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with
Disabilities, and Limited English Proficient Students) in each subject (ELA and mathematics),
resulting in 18 possible analyses for the school at the subgroup level. Louisiana also applies two
additional measurements of the School Performance Score Component; Academically
Unacceptable and progress toward a Growth Target.

Schools that fail to meet the AYP calculation for the same subject by any subgroup for two or
more consecutive years will be identified for improvement, corrective action, or alternate
governance as required in NCLB. Schools identified as Academically Unacceptable in the SPS
Component and that fail to show sufficient growth similarly face increasingly more severe
sanctions.

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability Chapter 7, Chapter 15,
§4310

10
If the state has more than one assessment to cover its language arts standards, the State must create
a method for including scores from all the relevant assessments.
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 60
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

PRINCIPLE 9. State Accountability System is statistically valid and reliable.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

9.1 How do AYP State has defined a method for State does not have an
determinations meet the determining an acceptable level of acceptable method for
State’s standard for reliability (decision consistency) determining reliability (decision
acceptable reliability? for AYP decisions. consistency) of accountability
decisions, e.g., it reports only
State provides evidence that reliability coefficients for its
decision consistency is (1) within assessments.
the range deemed acceptable to
the State, and (2) meets State has parameters for
professional standards and acceptable reliability; however,
practice. the actual reliability (decision
consistency) falls outside those
State publicly reports the estimate parameters.
of decision consistency, and
incorporates it appropriately into State’s evidence regarding
accountability decisions. accountability reliability (decision
consistency) is not updated.
State updates analysis and
reporting of decision consistency
at appropriate intervals.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 61

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

9.1
LOUISIANA’S APPROACH TO “MINIMUM N”
By Richard Hill at The Center for Assessment
Background

Each state must create an accountability system in response to the requirements of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB). Among the requirements is the determination of whether schools and
subgroups within the school either have achieved a particular percentage of students at the
proficient level or higher (met the “status” requirement) or have improved their percentage of
students achieving at the proficient level or higher over the prior year’s level (met the
“improvement” requirement). If a school or a subgroup fails both those tests, it fails to make
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and certain actions are taken against the school. Results for
subgroups are not required to be included “in a case in which the number of students in a
category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information.” States are left to determine
what that number might be.

One issue to be addressed is how low reliability can go before it is “insufficient.” If the stakes
are low, a fairly low level of reliability might be acceptable. If the stakes are high, however, one
would want to be fairly certain that a school had been correctly classified before applying the
prescribed consequences to the school. In NCLB, annual judgments are made about whether a
school has made AYP. If a school fails to make AYP two years in a row, a series of rather
drastic consequences begin. So, unquestionably, one would want the decision about whether a
school had failed to make AYP two years in a row to be highly reliable. But being identified as a
“failing” school even for one year could have serious negative consequences for a school, so a
reasonable argument can be constructed for wanting a reliable decision to be made every year for
every school.

Selecting a Fixed N

Many states are taking the approach of requiring that a subgroup have a particular number of
students (for example, 30) in order to be included, regardless of the performance of the subgroup.
This appears to be an approach that will not work well for either measuring status or
improvement. If a certain fixed number is chosen, schools will not be directly accountable for
subgroups with fewer than that number (those subgroups will be included in the school’s total
score, but the performance of that subgroup by itself will not be looked at). No matter how small
a number is chosen, this will exclude many subgroups, leading to an incomplete look at the
performance of the school. Thus, one could argue that a number like 30 is far too large a
number—a requirement that subgroups meet this minimum N will eliminate the vast majority of
subgroups in most states.

On the other hand, the results for subgroups are supposed to be “statistically reliable.” That
would mean, at a minimum, that if a subgroup causes a school to fail AYP, another sample of
students in that subgroup drawn for that school would be likely to have the same result. While
reasonably modest numbers of students often (but not always) can be used to reliably determine

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 62

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

whether a subgroup has met the status requirement, it takes large numbers (hundreds of students)
to reliably detect whether a school has made sufficient improvement.

So, on the one hand, a state should pick a fairly small N for purposes of validity (say, certainly
something no larger than 10), but it would need a very high N (say, 300 or more) for purposes of
reliability. Obviously, a value that provides reasonable validity is wholly inadequate for
reliability purposes; a value that provides reasonable reliability is wholly inadequate for validity
purposes. A figure between those two is largely inadequate for both purposes. This is the reason
states are having such a hard time choosing a fixed value for minimum N. Until one looks
carefully at the issue, one presumes that a modest fixed N will be a reasonable compromise
between reliability and validity; a careful look tells us that choosing any value is wholly
inadequate for at least one of the two concerns, if not both. In short, there isn’t a reasonable
answer to this dilemma. One is not faced with a reasonable balancing of concerns over
reliability and validity; any answer will be clearly wrong for at least one of the two.

Given that one cannot have validity without reliability, it would be justifiable for a state to select
a minimum N of 300. Granted, an N of this size will eliminate virtually every subgroup in a
state, essentially eliminating this aspect of NCLB. But such an N would at least ensure that
decisions would be sufficiently reliable.

An Alternative (and Louisiana’s Choice)

An alternative to selecting a fixed N is to run a test of statistical significance. That way,

subgroups that are far from the standard do not need to have a large N for a reliable decision to
be made. For example, suppose the standard for a state is 50 percent proficient. If no students in
a subgroup are proficient, a reliable decision (one that has less than a 1 percent probability of
misclassifying the subgroup) that the subgroup fails the status test can be made if there are just
seven students in the subgroup. That is, if 50 percent of the students in a subgroup are proficient,
there is less than 1 chance out of 100 that no students a sample of seven would be proficient.
Thus, in cases where results are extremely low, the inadequate performance of the subgroup can
be reliably detected even with small Ns. On the other hand, if 499 out of 1000 students were
proficient, one would not be certain that another sample of students from that same subgroup
wouldn’t have at least 50 percent proficient. So, this system will select a group that is far away
from the standard even if the group is small, but will not select a group that is very, very close to
the standard even if the group is quite large. Not only is this a better application of statistics than
the fixed N approach, it also is more fair and valid. Certainly, one would want to identify and
target resources to very low-achieving subgroups before doing the same to subgroups that are
very close to the state’s standard.

In a similar vein, a test of statistical significance will be run to determine whether we can state
with reasonable confidence whether a school has failed to make sufficient improvement.
Suppose a subgroup has 50 percent of its students passing one year. To make AYP, the
subgroup must improve to 55 percent passing the following year. The null hypothesis would be
that the subgroup has made a 10 percent reduction in the percentage of students not proficient.
To be identified, the subgroup would have to have results that would have been unlikely (less
than 1 chance out of 100) if the school truly had improved the required amount.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 63

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Louisiana will judge total schools on whether they have met the requirements of the
accountability system Louisiana had in place well before the passage of NCLB. Louisiana’s
original accountability system had no formal approach to evaluating subgroups, however, so
Louisiana’s accountability system will be augmented to hold schools accountability for the
performance of their subgroups. More specifically, subgroups will cause their school to be
identified if their status score is insufficiently high, and failing that, if their improvement is
insufficient.

Choosing an Alpha Level

Louisiana has decided to use an alpha level of .01 to run these tests of statistical significance.
This level of confidence will be applied to each subgroup tested within a school. Given that
there will be multiple subgroups within each school (and tests of reading and math to be done on
each subgroup), the school-level alpha will be something higher than .01. If there are nine
subgroups in a school, there would be 18 tests a school would need to pass to avoid being labeled
as failing to make AYP. If all these tests were independent, the joint probability of error would
be .165 (that is, the probability of an error across the 18 tests is .165 if each test has a probability
of error equal to .01). However, the tests are not independent. Reading and math are well
correlated, and some of the subgroups are so highly inter-correlated as to be assessing virtually
the same students (for example, when there is just one minority group in a school, that group
often comprises the vast majority of the “economically disadvantaged” students). Thus, for most
schools, the probability of an error across all the tests done is likely to be something close to .05,
which is the standard often used in educational research.

Of course, the most severe consequences apply to schools that fail AYP two consecutive years.
If the U.S. Department of Education permitted those consequences to apply only to schools that
had the same subgroup fail AYP two consecutive years, it might be reasonable to select a higher
alpha level. However, given that USED’s position has been that the two-year consequences will
apply to a school that has any subgroup fail in Year 1 and any subgroup fail in Year 2, a more
conservative alpha level is required to avoid unreliable over-identification of schools.

Running Tests over Multiple Years

The standard error of difference scores, relative to the amount of improvement required under
NCLB, will be large for most schools. As a result, not as many schools would be identified as
might be under another system. In particular, running tests of improvement over several years,
such as requiring a 19 percent improvement over two years, would identify more schools and
increase the reliability of the system.

That would be done, however, at a cost to the validity of the system. A school that has made
significant changes to its administration, faculty and/or curriculum in the most recent year should
not be judged (or identified) on the basis of failings of previous years. If the school has
performed adequately this most recent year, it should not be identified.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 64

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Thus, Louisiana has chosen to make judgments about schools each year. Data will not be
aggregated across multiple years. Each year, a school (and all its subgroups) will need to
demonstrate that it is unlikely that its status is below the required amount, and failing that, that it
is unlikely that the school reduced its percentage of non-proficient students by at least 10
percent.

Total School Growth Component

For Total School Growth measures, Louisiana plans to continue to make evaluations using the
Accountability System that has been in place since 1999. That system includes an index, the
School Performance Score (SPS). To ensure that the SPSs were as reliable as possible,
Louisiana made the following choices when developing the system that would make total school
growth judgments:

„ Use an index, since school averages based on an index are more reliable than those based
on pass/fail judgments.

„ Use tests at every grade, so that as many students as possible are included in each
school’s score. Students at every grade between 3 and 11 are included in the SPS.

„ Require schools to meet one goal combined over all tests, rather than requiring them to
meet a goal for each of the tests. The fewer the decisions made, the greater the
consistency of the decisions.

„ Require schools to meet one goal for all the students in the school, rather than requiring
them to meet goals for several subgroups. One decision made on a large group of
students is more reliable than several decisions made on smaller groups.

„ Average data over two years, since results aggregated over twice as many students are
more reliable than those of just one year.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 65

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

9.2 What is the State's process State has established a process State does not have a system for
for making valid AYP for public schools and LEAs to handling appeals of accountability
determinations? appeal an accountability decision. decisions.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

9.2 Louisiana’s Accountability System

This three-tiered Accountability System identifies those schools in greatest need of
improvement, either because the school is failing to address the needs of a subgroup, the entire
school is low performing, or the school is failing to show growth.

Subgroup Component:
Schools identified as failing because of subgroup performance will be schools that either:

1) have overall adequate performance, but at least one subgroup needs focused attention. These
schools will be those in which there are large achievement gaps between subgroup performances.
OR
2) schools that are low performing and have multiple subgroups failing.

School Performance Score Component:

A key goal of LA’s School Performance Score Component is that all schools improve.

The School Performance Score Component flags schools for being identified as “Academically
Unacceptable” or lack of improvement, even if their sub-groups have met the proficiency goal.

In Louisiana’s Accountability System, steps are taken to ensure that the results are valid. Some
of these procedures include: (1) changing the test forms at each administration to decrease the
chance of test familiarity, (2) development of detailed test security procedures through the Test
Security Policy, and (3) auditing of School Accountability data through a formal process. The
system was built on the assumption that manipulation of the data should be discouraged. For
example, arbitrary movement of students does not allow “opting out” of the system, and “0”
scores are assigned if students miss the test.

Louisiana has an appeal/waiver procedure that has been authorized by the State Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education and is used to address unforeseen and aberrant factors
impacting schools in Louisiana.

Evidence:

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Test Security Policy

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 66

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

9.3 How has the State planned State has a plan to maintain State’s transition plan interrupts
for incorporating into its continuity in AYP decisions annual determination of AYP.
definition of AYP necessary for validity through
anticipated changes in planned assessment changes, State does not have a plan for
assessments? and other changes necessary to handling changes: e.g., to its
comply fully with NCLB. 11 assessment system, or the
addition of new public schools.
State has a plan for including new
public schools in the State
Accountability System.

State has a plan for periodically

reviewing its State Accountability
System, so that unforeseen
changes can be quickly
addressed.

11
Several events may occur which necessitate such a plan. For example, (1) the State may need to
include additional assessments in grades 3-8 by 2005-2006; (2) the State may revise content and/or
academic achievement standards; (3) the State may need to recalculate the starting point with the
addition of new assessments; or (4) the State may need to incorporate the graduation rate or other
indicators into its State Accountability System. These events may require new calculations of validity and
reliability.
Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 67
 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

9.3
Louisiana replaced its grade 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 NRT assessments with standards-based “augmented
NRT” assessments in Spring 2006. It added these to pre-existing CRT tests at grades 4, 8, 10,
and 11 to comply with the NCLB requirement for standards-based exams at grades 3-8 and at
least once in high school. The 2006 Safe Harbor evaluations will include only test data from
grades 4, 8, and 10 due to the necessity of comparing “like” data.

Louisiana used the “book-marking method” developed by Dr. Howard Mitzel of Pacific Metrics
Corp. to assure vertical alignment between the new and old tests.

Due to the standard setting process, the implementation of these new tests delays the release of
2006 accountability results until October. Schools must continue to implement any sanctions
resulting from the 2005 testing results that applied to academic year 2005-06.

All 2006 test results will be used in the AMO evaluation of the Subgroup Component and in the
Assessment Indices used in the School Performance Score Component.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 68

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

PRINCIPLE 10. In order for a public school or LEA to make AYP, the State
ensures that it assessed at least 95% of the students enrolled in each subgroup.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

10.1 What is the State's method State has a procedure to The state does not have a
for calculating participation determine the number of absent procedure for determining the
rates in the State or untested students (by rate of students participating in
assessments for use in subgroup and aggregate). statewide assessments.
AYP determinations?
State has a procedure to Public schools and LEAs are not
determine the denominator (total held accountable for testing at
enrollment) for the 95% least 95% of their students.
calculation (by subgroup and
aggregate).

Public schools and LEAs are held

accountable for reaching the 95%
assessed goal.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 69

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

10.1
Louisiana’s School and District Accountability System accurately calculates participation rates
in the statewide assessment program. The Student Information System and testing files provide
the data set of all students enrolled during the testing window. Two categories of students (those
absent due to medical emergencies with doctors’ written excuses and those absent due to the
death of family members) are removed before the calculation of participation rates. Remaining
are the “eligible to test” students. For the Subgroup Component, the testing file provides all
valid student test scores. This data is aggregated to the appropriate level (subgroup, school,
district) and used in the calculation – the number of students with valid test scores divided by the
total number of eligible students.

For Louisiana’s SPS Component, eligible students who do not take the required tests (grades 3-
11) are assigned zeroes in the assessment indices calculations.

To determine if a subgroup meets the 95% participation rate test, Louisiana calculates the
participation rate of students within the subgroup during the current year, during the current and
previous year (a two-year aggregate), and during the current year and two previous years (a
three-year aggregate). The highest of the 3 rates is used to determine if the subgroup has met the
participation criteria.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 70

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

10.2 What is the State's policy State has a policy that State does not have a procedure
for determining when the implements the regulation for making this determination.
95% assessed regarding the use of 95%
requirement should be allowance when the group is
applied? statistically significant according
to State rules.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

10.2
For Subgroup AYP measures, Louisiana has set the minimum “n” for participation at 40
(allowing two non-testers before the subgroup negatively impacts a school). For any subgroup
meeting the minimum “n” in which less than 95 % of the students test, that subgroup will be
flagged for failing to make AYP for that school year.

Evidence:

Bulletin 111: Louisiana’s School, District, and State Accountability

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 71

 CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION ACCOUNTABILITY WORKBOOK

Appendix A
Required Data Elements for State Report Card

1111(h)(1)(C)

1. Information, in the aggregate, on student achievement at each proficiency level on the State academic
assessments (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English
proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged, except that such disaggregation shall not be
required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable
information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.

2. Information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement levels of each student
subgroup and the State’s annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of the
academic assessments.

3. The percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by the student subgroups), except that such
disaggregation shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient
to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information
about an individual student.

4. The most recent 2-year trend in student achievement in each subject area, and for each grade level,
for the required assessments.

5. Aggregate information on any other indicators used by the State to determine the adequate yearly
progress of students in achieving State academic achievement standards disaggregated by student
subgroups.

6. Graduation rates for secondary school students disaggregated by student subgroups.

7. Information on the performance of local educational agencies in the State regarding making adequate
yearly progress, including the number and names of each school identified for school improvement under
section 1116.

8. The professional qualifications of teachers in the State, the percentage of such teachers teaching with
emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the State not taught by highly
qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools
which (for this purpose) means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in
the State.

Louisiana’s Accountability Workbook 72