Today’s weekly opener is going to be considerably longer
than what I usually do (so bear with me), but its topic is important. As you
know, there was a press release of June 29 on changes in the Illinois Accountability Workbook (see
www.isbe.net/news/2005/june29_05.htm).
My column today will go into more detail about the changes as well as update you
on related issues.
Most of you know that I take some measure of pride in
getting something written each week. However, I must share pride of
authorship—or rather, give credit for authorship—to many individuals at ISBE who
both worked on this project and helped put this briefing
together.
I hope you find this helpful in answering some of the
questions we’ve been hearing regarding our
Status of
Changes
The Illinois State Board of Education has received
verbal approval from United States Department of Education staff for changes to
the implementation of the federal No Child
Left Behind Act in
As you all know,
While the changes do make the system fairer, they do not
necessarily make it any easier to understand. The basic components of
Unless otherwise noted (essentially, in Change #4),
these changes are effective for the Spring 2005 test
results. We’ve tried to group the information below by the category of change
sought, to aid clarity:
Change #1
|
Change
subgroup size for all eligible subgroups in a school and in a
district. ·
from
40 to 45 for each subgroup;
and ·
from a 3
percent standard error of measurement to a 95 percent Confidence
Interval. |
|
Example:
If a school building had a
subgroup size of 42 students in 2004, that subgroup met the minimum size
requirement and therefore the subgroup was included in AYP calculations in
2004. This same number of students, 42, would not meet the minimum
size requirement of 45 for 2005 and therefore would not be included in AYP
calculations as a subgroup. |
|
Example:
The 3 percent error of
measurement applied only to the subgroup performance target, allowing all
subgroups to make AYP at 37 percent (when the target was 40 percent as in
2004). The 95 percent Confidence Interval is affected by the number
of students in a subgroup over the base number of 45 (see chart
below). |
As outlined on the agency web site at www.isbe.net/pdf/2005_ayp_95_CI.pdf,
the following shows examples of how the 95 percent Confidence Interval as
approved by USDE is applied to subgroup size. It is used instead of the prior 3
percent standard error of measurement, not in addition to it. Here are some of the figures from that
chart:
|
Subgroup
Size |
95 percent
Confidence Interval (Replaces the 3 percent Measurement
Error) |
Subgroup
Minimum Performance Target (= 47.5 percent minus the 95 percent Confidence
Interval) |
|
45 |
12.2 |
35.3 |
|
50 |
11.6 |
35.9 |
|
55 |
11.1 |
36.4 |
|
60 |
10.6 |
36.9 |
|
65 |
10.2 |
37.3 |
|
70 |
9.8 |
37.7 |
|
75 |
9.5 |
38.0 |
|
80 |
9.2 |
38.3 |
|
85 |
8.9 |
38.6 |
|
90 |
8.7 |
38.8 |
|
95 |
8.4 |
39.1 |
|
100 |
8.2 |
39.3 |
|
110 |
7.8 |
39.7 |
|
120 |
7.5 |
40.0 |
|
130 |
7.2 |
40.3 |
|
140 |
6.9 |
40.6 |
|
150 |
6.7 |
40.8 |
|
175 |
6.2 |
41.3 |
|
200 |
5.8 |
41.7 |
|
225 |
5.5 |
42.0 |
|
250 |
5.2 |
42.3 |
|
275 |
5.0 |
42.5 |
|
300 |
4.7 |
42.8 |
|
350 |
4.4 |
43.1 |
|
400 |
4.1 |
43.4 |
|
450 |
3.9 |
43.6 |
|
500 |
3.7 |
43.8 |
Change
#2
|
Although
the same AYP calculations occur as has been the case in past years,
eligibility for district improvement status has changed. A district
is eligible for district improvement status when all of its
underlying grade spans (i.e., grades 3 through 5, 6 through 8 and 9
through 12) have not met AYP in the same subject area for two consecutive
years. Again, the three
criteria for achieving AYP are 95 percent participation rate, meeting the
target on performance, and
meeting the target on graduation rate (high school) or attendance rate
(elementary and middle schools). For unit districts, both attendance
and graduation rate targets must be
met. |
|
Determining Eligibility for
District Improvement Status Eligibility for
district improvement status is based on two methods -- one for districts
with more than one school, and one for districts with a single
school. ·
For districts with more than one school,
beginning with the 2004-05 test data, district student data will be
aggregated up to three
grade spans -- elementary (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high
school (grades 9-12). When a district does not make AYP in all of
the grade spans that the district has, in the same content area, for two
consecutive years, it will be identified for district improvement
status. If the district makes AYP in at least one of the grade spans, it
will be ineligible for district
improvement status or for
advancement in improvement status. ·
For districts with only one school,
determination for district improvement status will be based on the same
criteria for school improvement status. |
|
Example:
An elementary school district with more than one school has two grade
spans in their K-5 and 6-8 buildings -- 3-5 and 6-8. The elementary
school district would have to have both grade spans (3-5 and 6-8) not make
AYP in order for the district to be eligible for district improvement
status or for advancement
in improvement status. If one or both of the grade spans
(3-5, 6-8) made AYP, the district would still be ineligible for district improvement
status or for advancement
in improvement status. Only if both grade spans did not
make AYP (again, same content area and two consecutive years) would the
district be eligible for improvement
status or for advancement
in improvement status. |
|
Example:
A high school district with multiple schools would only have one grade
span, 9-12, as there is only one tested grade. If grade 11 does not
make AYP in the same content area for two consecutive years, the district
is eligible for district improvement
status or for advancement
in improvement status. |
|
Example:
A unit district would have to have all three grade spans (3-5, 6-8 and
9-12) not make AYP before the district would be eligible for district improvement
status or for advancement
in improvement status. If the district makes AYP in any
of the three grade spans, the district would be shown as ineligible for district improvement
status or for advancement
in improvement status. |
|
Note:
A single school district is treated as if it was a single school.
The grade span change does not apply
here. |
In the interest of fair disclosure, it should be said
that we anticipate this change will likely help more unit districts than
elementary or high school districts.
Change
#3
|
Schools and
districts that do not make AYP only because of the IEP subgroup
will have 14 percent added to the percent meeting and exceeding
standards. This is the new “2%”
flexibility that was announced by Secretary Spellings in May as part of a
short-term solution to fair assessment of students with
disabilities. More information will be forthcoming about how we will
have to address this on a longer- term basis.
|
|
Example: If the reading percent
meeting and exceeding standards for the subgroup of students with
disabilities was 35%, the school/district did not make AYP. If that
was the only reason for not
making AYP, then 14 percent could be added on to the 35 percent meeting
and exceeding standards for a total of 49 percent which exceeds the 47.5
percent target in 2005. Separate from performance, this subgroup
would need to continue to meet or exceed the participation requirement and
the attendance or graduation indicator depending on grade
level. |
|
Example: If the math percent
meeting and exceeding standards for the subgroup of students with
disabilities was 30%, the school/district did not make AYP. If that
was the only reason for not
making AYP, then 14 percent could be added on to the 30%. However,
the result of 44 percent does not meet the 47.5 percent
target. |
|
Note: Safe harbor cannot be
used in addition to the
14%. |
|
Note: The 95 percent
Confidence Interval cannot be used in
addition to the
14%. |
It is anticipated that this new flexibility will help a
small number of schools and districts in
There is one additional change which was approved,
effective beginning with the 2006
tests. Note that
Change
#4
|
Move the
beginning date for determination of a full academic year from September 30
to May 1. Assessment results for all
students enrolled in a school by this date will be included in AYP
calculations. |
|
Note:
Students not enrolled in the district as of May 1 will be assessed but not
included in the AYP calculations of the district.
|
|
Note:
Students enrolled in the district by May 1 and matriculating from one
school to another (e.g., K-2 building into a 3-5 building) over the summer
will be seen as continuously enrolled in the district and part of the
grades 3-5 building and included in AYP calculations. Students,
enrolled in the district by May 1, and who move from one school in the
district to another in the same district for any other reason will be
considered as not enrolled for a full academic year and thus not included
in the AYP calculation for the school. |
|
Note:
Should the district need to move a grade or grades to another building at
the beginning of the school year (e.g., due to overcrowding), those
students who were enrolled in the district by May 1 and moving to the new
building because of district needs would be seen as students continuously
enrolled in the district and part of the new building AYP
calculations. |
I do want all of you to know that we had asked for
another change as well based upon what we had heard from the field, but were
denied this fifth request. The request was to determine eligibility for
school and district improvement based not only on the same content area for two
consecutive years but also to have it be the same
subgroup. USDE denied that request.
As a result of appeals heard in April 2005 to ISBE’s
Appeals Advisory Committee, from districts regarding district status and lack of
timely notice, I indicated to the State Board of Education in May that I would
seek of USDE a one-year hiatus in district AYP status. The Board, and I,
believed their arguments had merit. Approval, if granted, would apply to
all districts, not just those that appealed in April and subsequent
hearings. I have had a couple of discussions with Ray Simon of USDE at
this point. However, I wouldn’t want to hold out false hope on this one;
I’ll simply say that we are discussing the issue as many had requested, though
this will be a tough nut to crack, I’m sensing.
Status
Notification
Of course, I am very pleased to announce that the late
notification experience appears to be behind us. With staff working very
diligently with ongoing items, and building the new Student Identification
System for the future, we have been able to post final school AYP Status Reports on the IWAS
system for individual elementary schools (and those schools that have grade 2 as
the highest grade in the school) as long as those schools have submitted their
E-Report Card data and approved their data on Schoolhouse. The first data
was posted on
Not to hound you (well, yes it is…), but as I’ve said
previously, we encourage schools to submit their E-Report Card data and approve their data on Schoolhouse so
that we can calculate AYP and school improvement status as soon as
possible. The IWAS AYP Status Report
serves as the school’s official notification. No formal letter
will be sent. Letters are being sent, however, to those Title I-funded
schools in school improvement status now needing to provide public school choice
or public school choice/supplemental educational services, in order to share
correct information and have the appropriate parent notification letters
used. Draft parent notification letters are to be sent to Donna
Luallen, Accountability Division, for approval before being sent to
parents.
District AYP status will be calculated only after all of
the schools within a district have submitted their E-Report Card data and
approved their data on Schoolhouse. As for high school AYP status,
the window of time on SchoolHouse will be opening as of
And of course,
Rules
At its June meeting, the State Board of Education
authorized the solicitation of public comment on proposed rules for the
statewide accountability system. These proposed amendments to Part 1 of
ISBE’s rules (Public Schools Evaluation, Recognition and Supervision) were
published in the Illinois Register on
If you have read those proposed rules, you might note a
couple of discrepancies between the proposed rules for Part 1 and the changes
outlined above or noted in earlier bulletins. Indeed there are two main
differences.
The decisions by USDE will be incorporated into the
version of the rules that is eventually adopted. Nevertheless, please feel free
to submit any comments you may have to rules@isbe.net on
these or any other aspects of the proposed
amendments.
I had the opportunity this past week, at the Education
Commission of the States meeting, to talk to representatives from many states
which are demonstrating the same desire for improvement and striving for the
same efforts as those of us in
Don’t let the doldrums of summer get you...and as
always, have a great week.
Randy Dunn
Also in today’s
message:
·
Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) posts
AYP Determinations
·
2004-05 mandated categorical statutory deadlines
approaching
·
District transportation claims
·
Special education private facility and personnel
claims
·
Department of Education grants available for
student drug testing programs
·
School health index is now interactive and
online
·
Notice of completed rulemaking
Illinois State Board of Education
(ISBE) posts AYP Determinations
For schools that have submitted their E-Report Card Data
(86-43) and have approved their data on Schoolhouse, ISBE has calculated
2004-2005 AYP and School Improvement Status and posted the information on
IWAS.
We can now calculate AYP for elementary schools, k-2
schools and high schools because all scores from state assessments are available
on Schoolhouse as of
We encourage schools to clean up and approve their data
on Schoolhouse as soon as possible so we can calculate AYP and School
Improvement status. District status will be calculated and provided
at a later date.
Schoolhouse will
close and all data clean up will end on August 22,
2005.
The AYP Status Report
posted on IWAS serves as a school’s official notification. No formal letter will
be sent.
There are several changes in the way in which AYP is
being calculated this year:
Please direct all questions regarding
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to ISBE’s Data Analysis and Progress Reporting
Division (217) 782-3950.
Legislative
Update
Below you will find the list of bills that have been
signed by the Governor since the last update. Please refer to www.isbe.net/legislative.htm
for a more complete description of each piece of legislation. Additionally, if
you would like to access the full text for any piece of legislation, go to www.ilga.gov On the left hand side of the page, you can search for
legislation by bill number. For a House Bill, type in HB and the bill number
(ex: HB 1) or for a Senate Bill, type in SB and the bill number (ex: SB 1). The
bill status page for that particular legislation will come up. Click on "full
text" to see the entire bill.
HB 23 - PA
94-0158
Redefines conditions and situations where sex offenders
who are parents of a student can be present on school
property.
HB 384 - PA
94-0208
Allows that a pre-service education teacher may student
teach prior to passing the content area test, but also allows the institution to
require passage of the test anytime during the
program.
HB 908 - PA
94-0210
This law provides that, if a collective bargaining
agreement that includes a fair share clause expires or continues in effect
beyond its scheduled expiration date pending the negotiation of a successor
agreement, then the employer shall continue to honor and abide by the fair share
clause until a new agreement that includes a fair share clause is
reached.
HB 1324 - PA
94-0213
Allows for the deactivation of and elementary in the
same manner as the deactivation of a high school.
HB 2077 - PA
94-0164
This law prohibits a child sex offender from loitering
within 500 feet of a school building or real property comprising any school
(rather than loitering on a public way within 500 feet of a school building or
real property comprising any school).
HB 3451 - PA
94-0219
Requires a check of the Sex Offender Registry in
addition to a fingerprint based criminal history
check.
HB 3646 - PA
94-0220
This law allows a school district to form a vocational
school which is eligible for grants from ISBE.
HB 4030 - PA
94-0166
This law increases restrictions on sex
offenders.
SB 383 - PA
94-0225
Requires the School Board to convene a task force
working on school inspection and adopt new rules for inspection and reviews of
school facilities.
SB 479 - PA
94-0227
Amends the School Employee Benefit Act and broadens the
definition of “school district”.
SB 768 - PA
94-230
This law provides that in the 2007 report, the
Interagency Coordinating Council shall include recommendations for expanding the
recruitment of students and school personnel into programs that provide the
coursework for Learning Behavioral Specialist II-Transition Specialist
certification.
SB 1234 - PA
94-0168
This law amends the Sex Offender Registration Act by
changing the definitions of “sex offenders” and “sexual predator” as well as
procedures and registration periods. Also requires that juvenile sexual
offender’s registration with schools be kept separate from other
files.
SB 100 - PA
94-0170
Makes it unlawful for a child sex offender to knowingly
be present on school property or in school vehicles where children under 18 are
present and adds provisions under which a parent/guardian who is a sex offender
may be on school grounds.
HB 676 - PA
94-0176
This law extends the time period that schools other than
HB 728 PA
94-0177
Provides that the reimbursement of a school district for
the amount of paid tuition of a child attending a non-public school or special
education facility, public out-of-State school, or county special education
facility is not authorized unless the State Superintendent of Education finds
that the school district is in substantial compliance with a Section of the Code
concerning special educational facilities for children with
disabilities.
HB 1336 PA
94-0187
This law changes the specifics of character
education.
HB 1540 PA
94-0189
This law excuses children in grades 9-12 from Physical
Education if they need that time for special education classes or
assistance.
HB 1541 PA
94-0190
This law requires the State Board of Education to set up
a school health recognition program.
SB 3 PA
94-0196
This law directs the State Board of Education to
implement the
SB 58 PA
94-0197
This law allows a teacher’s institute to include first
aid training.
SB 88 PA
94-0198
Changes the date waiver reports should be filed with the
State Board and says that if a school uses block scheduling then the mandatory
every day physical education requirement is waived.
SB 162 PA
94-0199
The State Board must form a School Wellness Policy Task
Force and establish a state goal that all schools have a wellness
policy.
SB 211 PA
94-0200
Changes requirements for the physical education
curriculum as well as allows students in grades 9-12 to use the time allotted
for physical education to take advantage of special education resources as
needed.
SB 427 PA
94-201
This law amends the reclassification of principals in
school districts outside of
SB 1638 PA
94-231
This law allows School Boards to add a student member to
the board.
SB 1853 PA
94-0234
This law deals with schools in financial difficulty and
Downstate School Finance Authority powers.
SB1931 PA
94-0235
This law alters the process for determining homelessness
and residency.
2004-05 mandated categorical
statutory deadlines approaching
Please be advised that the following mandated
categorical claims and deadlines are approaching. All claims must be transmitted
to the Illinois State Board of Education via IWAS by the statutory dates
indicated below. All local education agencies will have an opportunity to
correct any data transmitted after the initial claim transmission. Late
claims will not be accepted.
District transportation
claims
Per Section 29-5 all Regular, Vocational and Special
Education Transportation claims must be transmitted to the Illinois State Board
of Education on or before
Special education private facility
and personnel claims
Per Sections 14-12.01 and 14-13.01 all Special Education
Private Facility and Personnel claims must be transmitted to the Illinois State
Board of Education on or before
If you have any questions regarding claims, please call
Funding and Disbursement Services at 217/782-5256. If you need assistance with
your IWAS account, please call our
Department of Education grants
available for student drug testing
programs
Approximately $10 million in federal grants to implement
or expand student drug testing programs for grades 6 through 12 is available
through the US Department of Education. The application period will be open from
July 7 through
Grant information and the online grant application can
be found at http://www.ed.gov/programs/drugtesting/index.html
or by contacting Robyn Disselkoen or Sigrid Melus, 202-260-3954, OSDFSDrugTesting@ed.gov.
If unable to access the grant application online, please
contact the
Website: http://www.edpubs.org/webstore/Content/search.asp
School health index is now
interactive and online
The Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH) at
the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is pleased to announce the release
of the new interactive online version of the School Health Index: A
Self-Assessment and Planning Guide on the DASH Web site at www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/SHI.
The online version of the School Health Index enables schools to self-assess and
address their policies and programs related to:
Designed for use at the elementary, middle, and high
school levels, the School Health Index helps schools to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of their programs and policies, prioritize actions for
improvement, and develop a team approach to implementing school guidelines
recommendations. It’s a user-friendly means to improve the health and well-being
of your students and staff—often at little or no financial
cost!
Notice of completed
rulemaking
Please be advised that eight rulemaking items recently
adopted by the State Board of Education are now in effect. These sets of rules
have been posted on the agency’s web site at www.isbe.net/rules; choose “Rules
Currently in Effect” and scroll to the relevant Part
number. (If you print only the affected Sections, remember to include the table
of contents for the Part, which changes every time the Part is
amended.)
Section 25.11(f) has been revised with respect to the
definition of “four years of teaching experience” so that an individual who is
approaching the end of the fourth year and who is expected to complete that year
in his or her current position will be able to apply for the standard
certificate.
The slight revision in each of Sections 25.22, 25.32,
25.42, and 25.82 is technical in nature. Section 25.725 was recently repealed
and its currently needed content was subsumed in Section 25.720, so these
references needed to be updated.
The addition of a new subsection (m) to Section 25.100
creates another exception to the general model for adding endorsements in the
case of “technology specialist”. There will now be only one option
available for adding this endorsement (passage of the test in conjunction with
completion of 24 semester hours of coursework).
Section 25.115 has been revised to clarify that the
“programs” under discussion in these rules are only those that prepare
individuals for certification.
Section 25.125(d) discusses the review team that is
involved in the on-site accreditation review. The requirement for ISBE team
members and an ISBE co-chair on visits involving NCATE accreditation has been
deleted. At the same time, the role of the ISBE consultant was clarified, i.e.,
this individual does participate in the visit.
An unnecessary step has been eliminated from the
procedure outlined in Section 25.160. When the State Teacher
The requirement that each candidate for a school
psychologist’s credential have completed a program accredited by the National
Association of School Psychologists (Section 25.235(a)) has been
eliminated.
The long-standing rule on lapsed certificates (Section
25.450) has been changed to allow semester hours earned either during the
certification year of reinstatement or during the five immediately preceding
years to be counted toward regaining a renewable
certificate.
Affected Sections: 25.11, 25.22, 25.32, 25.42, 25.82,
25.100, 25.115, 25.125, 25.160, 25.235, and 25.450
Effective Date:
Part 51 (Dismissal of Tenured
Teachers)
Part 52 (Dismissal of Tenured Teachers and Civil Service
Employees Under Article
34)
The procedures for the dismissal of tenured teachers in
school districts outside of the City of
Under the new version of the rules, hearing officers for
hearings involving the City of
The amendments to Part 51 are accompanied by the repeal
of Part 52 in its entirety. The title of Part 51 has been expanded to
“Dismissal of Tenured Teachers Under Article 24 and
Dismissal of Tenured Teachers and Principals Under Article 34 of the School
Code”.
Affected Sections: 51.10, 51.20, 51.30, 51.40, 51.50,
51.55, 51.60, 51.70, and 51.80 (and all Sections of Part 52
repealed)
Effective Date:
Part 145
(Temporary Relocation Expenses)
As a result of the general review of these rules, it was
determined that the process for repaying loan funds to the State Board could be
simplified. Instead of requiring that districts submit to ISBE the proceeds of
tax levies related to these expenses within 30 days after the proceeds are
received, the rules will now require each affected district to make one payment
annually, consisting of all proceeds received to that point. Amounts not
received by the annual payment date can be held by the affected districts until
the next annual payment is due. There is no penalty for a district whose
levy proceeds arrive too late to be included in the relevant annual
payment.
Affected Section: 145.20
Effective Date:
Part 155
(Electronic Transfer of Funds)
These changes result from the general review of this set
of rules. In addition to general technical updating, the revisions include
elimination of the option for certain participants to designate multiple bank
accounts for the receipt of electronically transmitted funds. We have not
found that many entities have used this option, perhaps because it entails
time-consuming maintenance not only on ISBE’s part but also on the part of
payees.
Affected Sections: 155.20, 155.30, 155.40, 155.50,
155.60, and 155.70
Effective Date:
Part 350 (Secular
Textbook Loan)
These amendments respond to two separate issues. First,
the rules no longer will specify the content of the request form to be used but
instead will require school districts to establish procedures by which these
requests can be made and provide written information about those procedures to
parents. Second, a slightly earlier deadline for requests has been established
to facilitate timely ordering and receipt of textbooks, as well as payment to
vendors.
Affected Section: 350.15
Effective Date:
Part 475
(Contested Cases and Other Formal Hearings)
Part 480
(Hearings Before the State Teacher
Part 475 has been generally updated and also revised to
incorporate a number of provisions that are currently found Part 480 (Hearings
Before the State Teacher
Part 475 will now require evidentiary hearings that are
under the jurisdiction of the
Others of the amendments change timeframes for notices
and responses in order to give the parties more time to prepare their material.
Finally, the language of the rules is generally being brought into conformance
with the requirements of the IAPA and current rulemaking style. The proposed
amendments to Part 475 are accompanied by the proposed repeal of Part
480.
Affected Sections: All
Effective Date:
To review this week’s news clips, please visit: http://www.isbe.net/news/2005/newsclips/050715.htm