APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Alignment of Title I and General State Accountability Systems, 1999-2000

Top of this section

The following chart identifies states that had unitary vs. dual accountability systems as of 1999-2000, and their status toward meeting requirements under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization.

1 Scheduled to be implemented 2000-01
2 Scheduled to be implemented 2000-01, pending federal approval
3 Scheduled to be implemented 2000-01, pending state board approval
*Profiles on these states have not been fully verified yet by the state departments of education.

(Source: Margaret E. Goertz, Mark C. Duffy, with Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report Series RR-046, Consortium for Policy Research in Education [CPRE], University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, March 2001, www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/rr46.pdf)

APPENDIX B

Examples of State Approaches to Comprehensive Data Systems

Top of this section

• Florida - Statute (Sec. 229.555) specifies educational planning and information systems, part of which are comprehensive management information systems. The system must be designed to collect, via electronic transfer, all student and school performance data necessary to ascertain the degree to which schools and school districts are meeting state performance standards, and must be capable of producing data for a comprehensive annual report on school and district performance. www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String
  =&URL=Ch0229/SEC555.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0229->Section%20555

• Georgia's Student Information System allows districts to submit data to the state over the Internet, with certain elements in specified fields. http://admin.doe.k12.ga.us

• Massachusetts - The Massachusetts Department of Education has developed a comprehensive Web-based system, the Information Management System (IMS), to replace the paper-based data collection and information exchange system between the department and the school districts. The IMS is broken up into three functions: "smart forms," Student Information Management System (SIMS) and Directory Administration. "Smart forms" are designed to report aggregated district data using a Web browser. Districts can directly enter, edit, retrieve and transfer data to the state department. The forms have built-in validations that automatically summarize all data within the form, retain contact information and permit superintendent sign-off. SIMS is the cornerstone of the project that will support the education reform requirements for student assessment and evaluation of school programs. Massachusetts requires each school district to adopt and maintain a reliable data collection system, with a "unique, permanent and unduplicated ID" for each student, www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/administrative/ims/
  
  Pertinent Massachusetts regulations may be found at: www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr10.html#10.03.

• North Carolina has developed the Student Information Management System and the NC WISE Project, a sophisticated database system that allows data to be collected, stored and analyzed. This system was selected following requests for proposals and has two phases. The NC WISE data center stores all information and provides real-time access for every user with security rights. www.ncpublicschools.org/conf/accountability/handouts/y2k&wiseaccnt299/sld001.htm

• Ohio's Education Management Information System (EMIS) provides the infrastructure necessary to determine how well schools and districts are doing. Use the following link to access the system. Click on the "Data" tab, then select EMIS. www.ode.state.oh.us

• Oregon - H.B. 3535 directed the state department of education to develop a uniform budget and accounting system for districts. Phase One of the Database Initiative Project consisted of 16 pilot districts and ended in 1999. Phase Two is statewide implementation, consisting of four tracks: (1) database development and Web reporting, (2) technical architecture and data loading, (3) business process redesign and change movement, and (4) implementation, http://www.ode.state.or.us/projects/dbi/index.htm

• Oregon - The Secure Student ID Project establishes a process for the state education department to assign a unique student identifier to each student in the state. Particular emphasis will be placed on ensuring that only those with a right to access data are able to do so. Each student will be assigned an ID before the next time they take a state assessment. Students who are new to the state will be assigned a student ID when they enroll in an Oregon school, and at least by the time they take their first Oregon assessment. Since the Technology Enhanced Student Assessment system will allow schools to test students whenever needed, most students will take their first assessment very soon after enrolling in an Oregon school. Thereafter, the student ID number will be attached to all assessment scores and program participation information. Every time the department collects information about students, the student ID will be attached to the information, allowing information about multiple assessments and program information to be connected with a particular student. When a student moves from one district to another or changes his or her name, the student information will follow, facilitated by the student ID. (Oregon Department of Education Executive Memorandum 305-2000-01)

• South Carolina's Osiris has been the student information system in use for over a decade. In May 1999, the state department awarded a contract to National Computer Systems to provide a set of four Windows-based software systems customized to meet South Carolina's needs for statewide implementation. All the systems have graphical user interfaces for user-friendly operation and are designed for seamless data-sharing (where appropriate) to eliminate duplicate data entry. The new student information system and its sister systems are being provided at no cost to all districts. Installation, data conversion (from Osiris), training and user and technical support are also provided under this contract, using a combined delivery approach involving both the vendor and the state department of education.

• Tennessee's Education Information System (EIS) is to provide the department of education with:

  • A manageable, centralized repository of information to provide accurate student and staff data necessary for determining school quality and allocating state funds
  • The capability to accept and process extract files received from local student-management software packages
  • The capability to produce detailed error reports generated from the processing of extract files
  • Specified standardized reporting, as well as access to information through query and ad hoc reporting
  • The capability for school districts to have online access and inquiry to their respective information
  • The capability to produce export files for the purpose of importing into various applications and software
  • A flexible system that can respond to constantly changing legislative mandates
  • A year 2000-compliant system.

  www.state.tn.us/education/sm_menu.htm

• Texas - In compliance with the Texas Education Code, the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) contains data necessary for the legislature and the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to perform their legally authorized functions in overseeing public education. PEIMS encompasses all data requested and received by TEA about public education, including student demographic and academic performance, personnel, financial and organizational information. PEIMS is classified into two broad categories:

  A. Data collected through the PEIMS electronic collection method, using:

  1. A standard set of definitions, codes, formats, procedures and dates for the collection of data (Data Standards)
  2. Standard edit procedures
  3. An established database design
  4. A production system for formatting and loading data into TEA's enterprise database
  5. Written documentation describing the numeric and alphanumeric values stored in the database (Data Documentation).

B. Any other collections, calculations and analyses of data used for evaluating, monitoring or auditing public education (such as state assessment, federal funding and Foundation School Program data). www.tea.state.tx.us/peims/

Top of this section

APPENDIX C

Resources for Adequate Yearly Progress

Top of this section

CRESST Line Special Issue: "Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress" - This newsletter from the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST) focuses on federal requirements for demonstrating adequate yearly progress (AYP). It shows that defining AYP differently can produce different results - even when the definitions are similar. Using actual NAEP data, the article illustrates whether different states could be considered to have made AYP under two different AYP targets. One AYP target goal is 25% more students at proficient levels in three years, and the other is 25% fewer students below proficient levels in three years. Although they seem like mirror images of each other, these formulas make big differences in whether progress is considered adequate. The authors note that there is limited experience with setting AYP targets, but suggest many current progress goals are set according to wishful thinking rather than a realistically obtainable standard. They suggest that norms of earlier performance be compared with achievement levels in any given year to help clarify empirically what types of expectations for progress are reasonable (CRESST, Spring 1999),
www.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Newsletters/CLsp99.pdf

California Rewarding Schools Based on Gains: It's All in How You Calculate the Index and Set the Target - An accountability system includes three core parts: the index, target and series of consequences. Based on school-level information from all public elementary, middle and high schools in California, this report asserts that test-based accountability results can be interpreted differently depending on how the index and targets are used. The index is the scale used to rate the school's performance and is derived from the performance of students on tests, as well as other factors. The target is the index value(s) used to determine a school's status in the accountability system and is derived from the absolute value of the index, growth in the index or a combination of the two. The school's standing with respect to the target leads to positive or negative consequences. The report concludes that school systems should consider alternatives to test-based accountability systems (Brian Stecher and Jeremy Arkes, RAND, April 2001). For a free copy of this report, call RAND's toll free number: 1.877.584.8642 or fax: 1.310.451.6915 or mail your order to: P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138,
www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstracts/ordi/getabbydoc.pl?doc=DRU-2532

Top of this section

APPENDIX D

Top of this section

Description of Corrective Actions for Low-Performing Schools

For states and school districts receiving Title I funds, ESEA 2001 outlines requirements in terms of setting a timeline and establishing consequences for school and district performance relative to adequate yearly progress (AYP). It is unclear whether these requirements apply to all schools in the state. On the one hand, the requirements are limited to districts and schools receiving Title I funds, but on the other hand, a unitary Title I state accountability system is required in the law. School districts and state departments of education have parallel responsibilities in the intervention process for schools and districts, respectively.

Based primarily on performance on state reading and mathematics measures, which the state is obligated to provide to districts prior to the next school year, districts are to take action in five steps, each of which is to be published and disseminated to the public and to parents:

Step I. School districts identify any funded schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years, taking into account school-provided alternative evidence.

Step II. Districts (a) provide student choice alternatives, (b) initiate and monitor the school-improvement planning process, and (c) provide targeted technical assistance.

• Immediately after identification, districts must provide all of the students in any of these schools the option to transfer to another higher-performing school in the district, and to fund the transportation costs for these students, using up to 15% of its allocation under Title II, Subpart 2, and giving priority to the lowest-achieving children from low-income families. If all schools in the district are low performing, the district must enter into cooperative agreements with other districts.
• Identified schools must develop two-year improvement plans that are targeted to problem areas, incorporate strategies from scientifically based research, and adopt policies and practices designed to meet the AYP goals of having all students at proficient or advanced levels in 12 years. At least 10% of school-level Title I funds are to be allocated to professional development for teachers and principals, and the district must establish a peer-review process for schools identified as needing improvement.
• Districts or the state will provide identified schools with technical assistance, including assistance with analyzing assessment data to target interventions; assistance in identifying professional development and other improvement strategies based on scientifically based research; and assistance in aligning funding streams to support improvement efforts at the school level.

Step III. This step takes place when schools fail to make AYP by the end of the first year in which they are identified. School districts continue to offer the services in Step II, but also must provide supplemental education services to students, using providers screened by the state and selected in collaboration with parents.

Step IV. Districts must take "corrective action" by the end of the second full year after identification if schools are not making AYP. In addition to the services in Steps II and III, "corrective action" includes at least one of the following actions:

• Replacing school staff considered relevant to the failure to make AYP
• Implementing a new curriculum with professional development, based on scientifically based research
• Significantly decreasing management authority at the school level
• Appointing an outside expert to advise the school on progress
• Extending the school day or year
• Restructuring the school's internal organization.

Step V. "Restructuring" follows if, after one full school year of corrective action, the school fails to make AYP. School districts, by the beginning of the school year after identification, in addition to following steps II and III, must institute alternative governance arrangements (consistent with state law). These arrangements include:

• Reopening the school as a public charter
• Replacing all or most of the staff considered relevant to failure to make AYP
• Contracting with a private management company (with a demonstrated track record of effectiveness) to manage the school
• Turning school operations over to the state department of education
• Any other major restructuring required.

If schools make AYP for two consecutive years, they are taken off the list. Students who have opted to transfer from those schools may remain, but districts only are obligated to fund their transportation while their home schools are low performing.

Top of this section

APPENDIX E

Teacher Preparation and Certification

Top of this section

How state policies match ESEA 2001 requirements for elementary school teachers:

• All states require a bachelor's degree.

• Thirty states and the District of Columbia require teachers to have passed a test demonstrating basic skills in reading, writing and math prior to receiving a teaching certificate:

Indiana tests reading and writing only.

• Seven states test reading, writing and math prior to admission to state teacher preparation programs:

Alabama
Kentucky
Missouri
North Carolina
North Dakota
Texas
Washington

This requirement affects in-state institution graduates, but not candidates coming from other states.

• Twenty-one states require teachers to have passed a "knowledge of teaching" exam:

In addition, Alabama uses the college of education's exit exam for this purpose.

• For all grade levels, 12 states require a subject-area major rather than a major in education:

How state policies match ESEA 2001 requirements for middle and secondary school teachers:

• All states require a bachelor's degree.
• Middle or high school level teachers in 31 states and the District of Columbia also must pass a subject-area test:

• Seven states and the District of Columbia require a major for middle school or junior high level: Colorado

  Connecticut
  District of Columbia
  Massachusetts
  Minnesota
  New Hampshire

  In New York and Oregon, teachers of math, science or social science must major in that subject area.

• Five states require either a major or a minor:

  Minnesota
  North Dakota
  Rhode Island
  Utah
  Vermont

• For high school or general secondary level certificates, 20 states and the District of Columbia require a major in the subject area taught:

(Source: Manual on the Preparation and Certification of Educational Personnel, National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, 2001)

Top of this section

APPENDIX F

Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Appropriations to States and Territories

Top of this section

For more information on state allocations for ESEA and other federal education funding, please visit the U.S. Department of Education "Budget News" Web site, www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/budnews.html.

(Source: U.S. Department of Education)

Top of this section

APPENDIX G

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Appropriations to States and Territories - Title I Funding

For more information on state allocations for ESEA and other federal education funding, please visit the U.S. Department of Education "Budget News" Web site, http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/budnews.html

Top of this section

Note: Total Title 1 funding includes the following items: Grants to School Districts, Even Start, Reading First, Migrant, Neglected and Delinquent and Comprehensive School Reform.

(Source: U.S. Department of Education)

Top of this section

APPENDIX H

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Appropriations to States and Territories - Other Programs

For more information on state allocations for ESEA and other federal education funding, please visit the U.S. Department of Education "Budget News" Web site, http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/budnews.html.

Top of this section

For more information on state allocations for ESEA and other federal education funding, please visit the U.S. Department "Budget News" Web site, http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/budnews.html.

(Source: U.S. Department of Education)

Top of this section

APPENDIX I

Related ECS Publications

Top of this section

No State Left Behind: The Challenges and Opportunities of ESEA 2001 (GP-02-01), 70 pages, $12.50 plus postage and handling -- Summarizes the ESEA 2001 law, looks at where the states stand in regard to requirements of the new law and suggests policy questions to consider when deciding how to respond to ESEA.

Also available from ECS are publications that summarize and explain the ESEA as proposed by President Bush:

Building on Progress: How Ready Are States To Implement President Bush's Education Plan? (GP-01-01), 20 pages, $6.50 plus postage and handling - Examines how prepared states are to implement the new ESEA. Looks at state efforts to date in testing, standards, choice, school safety, rewards and sanctions, and other issues.

A Closer Look: State Policy Trends in Three Key Areas of the Bush Education Plan - Testing, Accountability and School Choice (GP-01-02), 36 pages, $6.50 plus postage and handling - Provides a detailed look at where states stand in assessing student performance, motivating and assisting low-performing schools, and providing school choice options.

ORDER FORM
MS Word * PDF

Top of this section