Frequently Asked Questions

The U.S. Department of Education has posted a set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning the transition and full implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) here. More resources can be found here.

Achieve has updated the “Grad, Dropout, and Persistence Rate Technical Manual” (July 2015) with the most current business rules and posted it on the technical assistance/resources page of the Accountability website.

Yes.

The embargo in the past has applied to AIMS Mathematics and Reading results used in A-F Accountability determinations, but schools have always been able to use their assessment data in order to make educational decisions on behalf of students and/or programs. Assuming there is no student data privacy concern, there is no embargo on 2016 AIMS Science data.

Arizona’s Growth Model does not account for any demographic or context variables in the calculation phase itself. The calculations do not take into account what school or LEA each student is in. The algorithms used only know students’ grades in a set of calendar years and what scores they earned on the state assessments in those years. When growth data are reported for groups of students, the individual growth scores are grouped after the growth calculations have been performed. No adjustments are made to the calculations on the basis of any demographic or other group, so that all students are treated equally by the model.

No, growth can be calculated on two different tests across different years. The first year of producing SGP scores with AzMERIT will be during the FY2016-2017, but technically, Student Growth Percentiles can be calculated even if test history is based on different types of test, e.g., current year test is AzMERIT and prior year tests are AIMS/AIMSA. This is because the measure compares how students do on the test this year compared to their peers who scored similarly on state assessments in prior years. After the growth model is validated, ADE will calculate and report SGP. A new growth model may be considered for the revised accountability system to be developed. ADE will study & discuss viability of SGP for use beyond Grade 8 and across administration modalities.

The Department has no recommendation for how to include Science results in school and district accountability at this time. In the absence of an A-F letter grade, the Department will report Science performance alongside other academic indicators required for Accountability purposes.

For school years prior and up to 2013-2014, yes. All Arizona public schools, both charter and district, received letter grades.

No. As of this date, the 2014 A-F Letter Grade was the last letter grade issued by the Department. Many states have used the last letter grade issued under their former test to transition to the academic performance on a new statewide assessment; however, the Department has not made any recommendation for the State Board to adopt this approach.

SB1289 prohibits the Department from assigning A-F letter grades during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years.

For school years prior and up to 2013-2014, yes. More information on specific schools can be found here.

Arizona Report Cards

The letter grading process for multi-site LEAs is described here.

A-F Letter Grading Process

SB1289 prohibits the Department from assigning A-F letter grades during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years.

In Grades 3-8, the percentage of students tested will be based on the AzMERIT grade level ELA and Mathematics tests only. For high school, the percentage of students tested will be based on whether or not all students enrolled in Grade 11 currently have a CY or PY ELA or Mathematics assessment (this would include AIMS from when these students were in Grade 10 as an eligible assessment).

New AMOs based on 2015 AzMERIT results will be reported for the 2015 as well as the 2016 school year by January 2016. Please see page 138 of our ESEA waiver request for more information.

SBE members requested an amendment requiring ADE to further analyze how the proposed criteria would impact alternative schools and how Reward, Focus, and Priority labels might be applied to non-Title I schools during the transition of the state accountability system.

Any materials (white paper, presentations, etc.) ADE provides to the A-F Subcommittee will also be made available on the ADE Accountability website. Please refer to the State Board of Education website for a schedule of committee meetings, agenda items, etc.

Schools may exit Focus or Priority status based on eligibility and their performance on the 2015 AzMERIT; however, schools may also be re-identified for Focus or Priority status based on their performance on the 2016 AzMERIT. Therefore, ADE will notify schools of their official status when 2016 AzMERIT data are available. Criteria for identifying new Focus and Priority schools are available here.

ADE will not identify a Bottom 25% subgroup for high stakes accountability purposes until AMO targets are identified and new Reward, Focus, Priority schools are designated based on 2016 AzMERIT data. Schools may use prior year assessment data to estimate their own Bottom Quartile using guidance available here.

Each school in the state will be compared to all other schools regardless of their Title I   status. This is in order to identify the schools with below average levels of performance as required by SB1289. For Reward identification, the criteria will be applied to Title I schools only.

The schedule is announced here: http://www.azed.gov/assessment/files/2015/06/detail-calendar-2015-2016.pdf

ADE will not be using the students in TIDE for accountability and will continue to rely solely on enrollment reported to ADE for school finance purposes.

If a school receives a label (or does not receive a label for recognition) under the transitional accountability system, the appeals process mandated by ARS 15-241 will still be in place.

The need to ensure all students are receiving an adequate education is not dissolved by any new statute, new standards, or new tests. In a state with such a robust school choice system, a number of organizations, other statutes, as well as parents rely on this data to inform  various decisions — some of which are high stakes. Also, the suspension of the state system for labeling schools does not change the federal requirement for accountability for LEAs which use Title I funds in their schools and programs.

The Department has no recommendation for how to include Science results in school and district accountability at this time. In the absence of an A-F letter grade, the Department will report Science performance alongside other academic indicators required for Accountability purposes.

Like any valid measurement system, we will ensure comparability among schools which choose either modality.

Results are reported by test content, regardless of student grade. For example: If a student in 8th Grade takes the EOC test on Algebra II, that student’s results will be included in Algebra II reporting.

No. As of this date, the 2014 A-F Letter Grade was the last letter grade issued by the Department. Many states have used the last letter grade issued under their former test to transition to the academic performance on a new statewide assessment; however, the Department has not made any recommendation for the State Board to adopt this approach.

The U.S. Department of Education has posted a set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning the transition and full implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) here. More resources can be found here.

YES. Schools should administer the appropriate EOC test when students are exposed to corresponding content regardless of their grade level. Most Grade 9 and 10 students take high school level English/Language Arts and Mathematics content. The school’s percent proficient rate will be based on all students (in all grades) who complete AzMERIT. Some Grade 11 students will not take an EOC test, but their participation from Grade 9 or 10 would be captured for school accountability.

The impact of the new statewide test, on accountability is described here.

Results are reported by test content, regardless of student grade. For example: If a student in 8th Grade takes the EOC test on Algebra II, that student’s results will be included in Algebra II reporting.

here

The reported Bottom 25% subgroup is not actually the lowest 25% of academic achievers in the graduating cohort. Students in this subgroup previously scored in the Bottom 25% at their school when they took the high school AIMS in FY2012. This subgroup consists of students from higher achieving schools and excludes all students who did not test on AIMS at the end of their sophomore year (all students who dropped out in grade 9 or before they were scheduled to test on AIMS in grade 10).

How EOC retests are used in school accountability has not yet been finalized/decided. We will keep you informed as we develop the new accountability system.

In Grades 3-8, the percentage of students tested will be based on the AzMERIT grade level ELA and Mathematics tests only. For high school, the percentage of students tested will be based on whether or not all students enrolled in Grade 11 currently have a CY or PY ELA or Mathematics assessment (this would include AIMS from when these students were in Grade 10 as an eligible assessment).

Percent tested and percent passing are two different calculations. Percent tested answers the question “What percentage of the Grade 11 students have completed an ELA and/or Math test while in high school?” whereas percent passing answers the question “What percentage of the students who completed AzMERIT this year passed the test they took?”. See the May 2015 Grader for how testing less than 95% of students may impact the school’s final proficiency rate used for accountability purposes.

The State Bottom 25% refers to all students whose scale score is at the lowest quartile in the state for each subject and grade level in that single year. For example, the scale score at the 25^th percentile for the 2014 AIMS administration are posted on page 93 of our ESEA waiver request. School B25% refers to the lowest achieving students within a school across all subjects and grade levels. Schools, where a large percentage of their Bottom Quartile Student Subgroup is in the state bottom 25%, are what we are identifying in this criterion. We rank order this percentage for all the schools in the state and identify the schools that have the highest percentage of students who score in the Bottom 25% of the state. You can also find the information at the most recent ESEA resubmission: http://www.azed.gov/eseawaiver/

In the past, we only reported students in their second year of high school (based on cohort). Given that NCSC only occurs in Grade 11 and EOC participation becomes a local decision, schools are now accountable for the students’ assessment in Math and ELA by the time they complete Grade 11. To calculate test participation in 2015 high school ELA (or Math); divide (numerator) the total number of students who have taken Grade 10 AIMS in 2014, or have finished any ELA EOC in FY2015, or have taken NCSC in FY2015, by (denominator) the total number of Grade 11 students enrolled.

          High School Test Participation = (Students who took Grade 10 AIMS in FY2014, or finished any ELA EOC in FY2015, or took NCSC in FY2015) ÷ (Total number of Grade 11 students enrolled).

No. Student growth percentiles are calculated on the basis of overall growth using exact test scores, not with reference to movement between achievement levels. For example, a student can have a higher growth percentile and stay within the Approaches level of achievement than a student moving from Approaches to Meets. Growth percentiles describe growth anywhere along the score scale, not just as achievement levels are crossed.

The embargo in the past has applied to AIMS Mathematics and Reading results used in A-F Accountability determinations, but schools have always been able to use their assessment data in order to make educational decisions on behalf of students and/or programs. Assuming there is no student data privacy concern, there is no embargo on 2016 AIMS Science data.

Data used for any state or federal accountability measures will apply business rules such as FAY, concurrent enrolment, etc.

The ESEA Waiver (aka Flexibility Request, flexibility/waiver from NCLB, etc.) mainly allows schools and the state to decide where and how to use Title I resources to increase student achievement. The waiver also releases schools from a punitive label of “persistently low achieving” if 100% of their students do not pass the statewide assessment or the school does not meet the annual measurable objectives (AMO) target for multiple years.

Academic peers are defined as students in a particular grade with a similar state assessment score history. The type of test records to be included is discussed in the Arizona Department of Education A-F Technical Manual available on ADE’s website. The state assessment score history examined includes all past scores available for a given student. So, for a student who has had low state assessment scores for the last few years, his or her growth is compared to students who have scored similarly.

For an individual student, growth is a measure of progress in academic achievement. For some states, this measure might simply be a change (a gain or a loss) in test scores from one year to the next. For Arizona, growth is not expressed in test score point gains or losses, but in student growth percentiles. An individual’s test scores are used as the basis for a growth calculation, using a statistical model called quantile regression. The calculations use all available test scores to estimate an individual growth score, or student growth percentile. The student growth percentile tells us how a student’s current test score compares with that of other students across the state whose previous test scores are similar. This process can be understood as a comparison to members of a student’s academic peer group. So, Arizona’s measure of growth is a normative rather than an absolute one.

For example: what does it really mean when Susie’s Reading score was 379 last year and is now 402? Is 23 points a big or a small increase? How much did she really learn? Obviously, just seeing how much a student’s test score went up or down in two consecutive years is not really a meaningful exercise. Test score points are not in units that have a real world meaning, so we are not sure whether students gaining a certain number of points are showing typical or extraordinary academic growth.

Now, using the Growth Model, students with the same achievement history are compared to each other, helping us understand whether their growth is high, typical, or low. We are not stuck trying to understand what a 23-point increase really means, because we can understand how surprising or unsurprising the new score is on the basis of other students’ scores, students that were similar in the first place. We use other students’ scores to put the norm in normative, and to understand every student’s academic progress.

The median growth percentile summarizes student growth rates by LEA, school, and grade level, or other group of interest. The median is calculated by taking the individual student growth percentiles of all the students in the group being analyzed, ordering them from lowest to highest, and identifying the middle score – the median. The median may not be as familiar to people as the average, but it is similar in interpretation – it summarizes the group in a single number that is fairly calculated to reflect the group as a whole. Medians are more appropriate to use than averages when summarizing a collection of percentile scores.

A student growth percentile defines how much relative growth a student made. Arizona’s Growth Model serves as a way for educators to understand how much growth a student makes relative to a student’s academic peers. More specifically, Arizona’s Growth Model essentially compares each student’s current achievement to students in the same grade throughout the state who had similar state assessment scores in past years. The model then produces a student growth percentile. This score has some things in common with the children’s height and weight percentiles that pediatricians share with parents. Percentile scores have a relatively straightforward interpretation: A child that is in the 76th percentile in weight is heavy as or heavier than 76% of other children of the same age. But this is not a measure of growth, just a spot measurement of how much above or below the average a particular child is. In terms of Arizona’s Growth Model, a student growth percentile of 60 indicates the student grew as well or better than 60% of her academic peers. It is not about how that recent test score compares to all the other test scores. Even students with test scores that are very low can receive high growth scores.

The test score data underlying these student growth percentiles are not perfectly precise, because they contain measurement error, so the growth percentiles themselves are in turn also not perfectly precise. A student with a growth percentile of 63 may not actually be growing significantly faster than another student with a 60. In a similar way, even though you might not be able to reliably discern a 63-decibel sound from a 60-decibel one, you can still easily categorize different sounds as soft, normal, or loud – finer-grained comparisons are hard to make. For this reason, student growth percentiles are categorized by “low,” “typical,” or “high” growth – we can be pretty sure about these large differences, even if small differences may not be reliable or meaningful.

The Arizona’s Growth Model tells us how individual students (and groups of students) progress from year to year toward state standards. Each student’s progress is compared to the progress of other students in the state with a similar score history on state assessments in that subject area. Schools and LEAs that produce the highest rates of growth in academic achievement may not be the ones with the highest test scores every year – growth level is completely independent of achievement level for individual students.

Please verify the Integrity results for students who you believe should not be showing up on your SDELL73 report. Students who have no integrity result may not be captured correctly in available reports.

Amendment requests were implemented in order to correct student information or status where no other method exists for the school or LEA. These instances are not common since most issues may be resolved with proper data management or student assessment. ADE does not amend student status if the amendment would adversely impact the student (i.e., removing the student from the requirement to test when the student has a documented ELL need and program in the current year and should continue services in the next year) or cause the student to be misclassified. These are some examples of amendment requests which are not granted:

 Didn’t know the student “was ELL” (Check SDELL70 upon enrollment or SDELL73 regularly)

 Student “was SPED” (Submit IEP team decision to SPED withdraw each year; also, documented SPED need in SAIS is required)

 Please add FEP student who completed reassessment (Monitor FEP students using methods other than AZELLA reassessment since these students are not required to reassess)

 Student had a valid SPED withdrawal and SPED need in current year (These students are classified as Group 3 and would not have reassessed; however, if a Group 3 student completes reassessment, the reassessment is added to their test history report. Since the school reassessed the student to produce a valid scale score, the score will be used for both the student’s test history and the school’s ELL accountability.)

 Student took Placement test on or after Jan. 1, 2015 (If the placement test was their first assessment in FY15, these students will not be counted in the ELL “95% tested” calculation denominator so their subsequent SDELL73 status will be based on their placement test score.)

There is a lag time between when rates are calculated and graduation date depending on 4, 5, 6, or 7-year cohort. A time table and a brief description are shown below. The corresponding files for the fiscal accountability year can be found here.

Because four-year graduates may graduate after the fiscal year their cohort year ends, all graduation data are lagged by one year every year. For each fiscal year’s accountability determination, the four year rate would measure the prior fiscal year’s cohort graduation; however, the prior fiscal year’s cohort can represent both the four and five year rate based on the date of graduation. For instance, Cohort 2012 four-year graduates graduated as of August 31, 2012; any students who remain in school after August 31, 2012 and graduate before June 30, 2013 would be considered a five-year graduate. Accountability for each fiscal year and the subsequent cohort rates are de- scribed below unless indicated otherwise:

ADE has delayed indefinitely the issuing of any student growth percentile (SGP) scores based on the Spring 2015 AzMERIT assessment. ADE engages and will continue to engage with national and local experts on both the policy and technical requirements related to accountability for student growth. ADE wants to ensure students, parents, teachers, principals, and all other stakeholders receive statistically defensible estimates of student growth based on Arizona’s new statewide assessment. ADE will release more information regarding the availability of a student growth measure based on AzMERIT results as it becomes available.

Detailed instructions on how to access and download data can be found in the new ADEConnect Guide. However, ADE did not upload all testing data for fiscal year 2015. SB1289 suspended A-F Letter Grades for fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Entities can find student level testing data in their respective Vendor files (AIMS/Pearson and AzMERIT/American Institutes for Research).

Schools and LEAs can download student-level information from ADEConnect —> Accountability —> AIMS Data Download. Statewide performance results are located here.

There is no new definition or guidance on “Full Academic Year” based on the new assessment at this time. We will disseminate this information as soon as it has been established/finalized; the ADE and our technical advisory group will review potential implications of the new assessment on the previous definition in the next few weeks.

Data used for any state or federal accountability measures will apply business rules such as FAY, concurrent enrolment, etc.

The codes can still be used. They will be repurposed to fit the changes that have been made with the assessment but you should not have any issues still using those codes.

If the LEA receives state tuition or generates ADM for this student, the student will be counted in the cohort until the student withdraws or exits using a graduation or exit code which qualifies him for removal from the cohort. This manual provides the business rules associated with the calculation of the graduation rate.

Yes.

This is a local decision once the LEA determines a student has met all graduation requirements. Typically if a student graduates midyear, he or she is withdrawn with a W7 (graduation midyear) code.

Achieve has updated the “Grad, Dropout, and Persistence Rate Technical Manual” (July 2015) with the most current business rules and posted it on the technical assistance/resources page of the Accountability website.

There is a lag time between when rates are calculated and graduation date depending on 4, 5, 6, or 7-year cohort. A time table and a brief description are shown below. The corresponding files for the fiscal accountability year can be found here.

Because four-year graduates may graduate after the fiscal year their cohort year ends, all graduation data are lagged by one year every year. For each fiscal year’s accountability determination, the four year rate would measure the prior fiscal year’s cohort graduation; however, the prior fiscal year’s cohort can represent both the four and five year rate based on the date of graduation. For instance, Cohort 2012 four-year graduates graduated as of August 31, 2012; any students who remain in school after August 31, 2012 and graduate before June 30, 2013 would be considered a five-year graduate. Accountability for each fiscal year and the subsequent cohort rates are de- scribed below unless indicated otherwise:

The U.S. Department of Education has posted a set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning the transition and full implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) here. More resources can be found here.

This resource describes the measures, labels, and requirements other states use in their accountability systems. Some of them are similar to Arizona’s; others are not.

The Department’s efforts to protect the integrity of the accountability system are described here and here.

Since AzMERIT is only in its second year, students can take remaining EOC tests in high school. One or two EOC tests taken while in middle school would not adversely impact the high school. The EOC tests taken in middle school count toward that middle school’s annual proficiency rate. Student achievement results remain with the school which administered the assessment in the year it was given.

For school years prior and up to 2013-2014, yes. All Arizona public schools, both charter and district, received letter grades.

Schools which received an A for the 2013-2014 school year must display the year when displaying outdated achievement information as required by state statute. This applies to schools which choose to display any letter grade from the 2013-2014 school year or any previous year.

Schools which did not receive any letter grade for the 2013-2014 school year can access the form here: http://www.azed.gov/accountability/files/2015/06/measure-of-academic-progress.pdf . Charter schools which did not receive any 2013-2014 A-F letter grades do not have to submit or complete any additional information or reports for accountability at this time.

For school years prior and up to 2013-2014, yes. More information on specific schools can be found here.

Arizona Report Cards

Full Academic Year (FAY)

Some measures require all students to be included in the calculation whereas others hold schools accountable only for those in attendance for a full academic year.

For any student whose prior year end of year code indicates they are eligible to persist (e.g. Graduates and Completers are not eligible), the student counts as a persistent student if he/she enrolls in ANY Arizona public school prior to or on October 1st. Students who enroll are divided by the number of students who were eligible to enroll according to their last school.

No. A student can graduate as soon as the school/LEA verifies their credits/eligibility. A midyear graduate is coded as a W7. The school should not attempt to change End of year status for prior fiscal years based on this year’s graduation code.

Either school can assess the student, however for accountability purposes ADE will look at which school the student is enrolled in.

This is a local decision which should be made based on the best interest of the student.

YES. Schools should administer the appropriate EOC test when students are exposed to corresponding content regardless of their grade level. Most Grade 9 and 10 students take high school level English/Language Arts and Mathematics content. The school’s percent proficient rate will be based on all students (in all grades) who complete AzMERIT. Some Grade 11 students will not take an EOC test, but their participation from Grade 9 or 10 would be captured for school accountability.

The accountability application in ADEConnect and/or Common Logon will not contain any AzMERIT data on October 6. Schools can access test history results on their currently enrolled students via AZDash.

Schools and LEAs can download student-level information from ADEConnect —> Accountability —> AIMS Data Download. Statewide performance results are located here.

Amendment requests were implemented in order to correct student information or status where no other method exists for the school or LEA. These instances are not common since most issues may be resolved with proper data management or student assessment. ADE does not amend student status if the amendment would adversely impact the student (i.e., removing the student from the requirement to test when the student has a documented ELL need and program in the current year and should continue services in the next year) or cause the student to be misclassified. These are some examples of amendment requests which are not granted:

 Didn’t know the student “was ELL” (Check SDELL70 upon enrollment or SDELL73 regularly)

 Student “was SPED” (Submit IEP team decision to SPED withdraw each year; also, documented SPED need in SAIS is required)

 Please add FEP student who completed reassessment (Monitor FEP students using methods other than AZELLA reassessment since these students are not required to reassess)

 Student had a valid SPED withdrawal and SPED need in current year (These students are classified as Group 3 and would not have reassessed; however, if a Group 3 student completes reassessment, the reassessment is added to their test history report. Since the school reassessed the student to produce a valid scale score, the score will be used for both the student’s test history and the school’s ELL accountability.)

 Student took Placement test on or after Jan. 1, 2015 (If the placement test was their first assessment in FY15, these students will not be counted in the ELL “95% tested” calculation denominator so their subsequent SDELL73 status will be based on their placement test score.)

Please verify the Integrity results for students who you believe should not be showing up on your SDELL73 report. Students who have no integrity result may not be captured correctly in available reports.

See this resource on graduation codes. If a Cohort 2014 student (or any student) is graduating in FY2015 or later, the SA code would not apply. The SC or SE code could apply based on whatever an IEP team determines to be the requirements for a particular student to graduate. Beginning last year, the SA code would not apply for high schools until Civics becomes a requirement for graduation in 2017.

If you have issues opening Reports or data on Common Logon, please clear your cache, close your browser, and re-open. Be sure to always logout when leaving Common Logon (rather than simply closing your browser or tab). Additionally, Common Logon performs best in Internet Explorer. If the problem still persists, please contact Achieve or ADE Support.