Bureau of Indian Affairs
Office of Indian Education Programs
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)
U. S. Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Washington, D.C. 20202
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 .
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
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.
Summary of Implementation Status for Required Elements of
State Accountability Systems
Status / State Accountability System ElementPrinciple 1: All Schools
F / 1.1 / Accountability system includes all schools and districts in the state.
F / 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.
Principle 2: All Students
F / 2.1 / The accountability system includes all studentsF / 2.2 / The accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic year.
F / 2.3 / The accountability system properly includes mobile students.
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.F / 3.2 / Accountability system has a method for determining whether student subgroups, public schools, and LEAs made adequate yearly progress.
F / 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.
Principle 4: Annual Decisions
F / 4.1 / The accountability system determines annually the progress of schools and districts.Principle 5: Subgroup Accountability
F / 5.1 / The accountability system includes all the required student subgroups.F / 5.2 / The accountability system holds schools and LEAs accountable for the progress ofstudent subgroups.
F / 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 reliable information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used.
F / 5.6 / The State has strategies to protect the privacy of individual students in reporting 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.F / 7.2 / Accountability system includes an additional academic indicator for elementary and middle schools.
F / 7.3 / Additional indicators are valid and reliable.
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.F / 9.2 / Accountability system produces valid decisions.
F / 9.3 / State has a plan for addressing changes in assessment and student population.
Principle 10: Participation Rate
F / 10.1 / Accountability system has a means for calculating the rate of participation in the statewide assessment.F / 10.2 / Accountability system has a means for applying the 95% assessment criteria to student subgroupsand small schools.
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.
Unique Conditions Affecting the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs School System
Below you will find the rationale for the BIA funded schools using the Consolidated Application Accountability Workbooks of the states in which they are located.
Under the authority in Section 1116(g)(1)(A)(i) and Section 1138(b) of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Secretary of the Interior convened a Negotiated Rulemaking committee to define Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The committee developed definition of AYP will result in BIA-funded schools following the Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook of the state in which the school is located. The Consolidated Application Accountability Workbook developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP), Center for School Improvement (CSI) references each school/LEA using the accountability plan of the state in which they are located and provides information in areas where there would be a process or oversight responsibility for OIEP/CSI, which is specific to the BIA.
While BIA funded schools will be following the accountability plans of twenty-three different states the responsibility of making determinations about AYP and other aspects of accountability for BIA-funded schools will be that of OIEP. By virtue of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in effect between the BIA and the Department of Education, CSI (as an organizational unit of OIEP) will serve as the State Education Agency (SEA) in making the determinations which will be based on the criteria of the pertinent state.
The BIA OIEP is comprised of 184 schools/dormitories located in twenty-three (23) states. Within this group are academic programs in a variety of configurations (K, K-2, K-3, K-6, K-8, K-12, 3-9 6-8, 7-8, and 9-12), and dormitories with no academic programs which only provide residential services. All schools within the BIA educational system have school-wide Title I programs. Annual Yearly Progress will be determined based on all students and the disaggregated subgroups of Limited English Proficiency and special education students. By definition under the MOA all students in all schools fall within the poverty classification. There are no students identified as “migrant” enrolled in BIA schools. The Indian Student Equalization Program (ISEP) requires a student to be enrolled in a Tribe to be eligible for basic funding. There are a few students enrolled in BIA-funded schools who do not meet the criteria for a given Tribe’s enrollment but who would be counted as a Native American child in the public school system. For the above reasons BIA-funded schools will not disaggregate by SES or ethnicity.
Direct supervision of BIA funded schools flows from the OIEP Director through the Education Line Officers (ELOs), who in turn, have direct authority over BIA operated schools and who serve as the contract officers for BIA grant schools. The immediate responsibility for ensuring that schools comply with all requirements under NCLB is that of the ELO. Members of the ELO staff include Field Education Specialists whose focus is assisting schools in developing and implementing Consolidated School Reform Plans and the ensuing years’ amendments. There are also Special Education Coordinators who work with the schools to assist them in meeting all requirements relative to students with disabilities found within IDEA, NCLB or any other legislation which is pertinent. An integrated monitoring process is used. Each school is visited on a regularly scheduled basis as a part of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP) and all programs, including Title programs, special education and programs for bilingual students are reviewed by a team from CSI, along with school participation. In this monitoring process, all aspects of compliance with applicable requirements are reviewed.
An annual report of data collections to CSI is required. This report contains data for all students, students with disabilities and limited English proficiency students for enrollment, achievement, attendance, and graduation rates. The Indian Student Equalization Program (ISEP) is a record of enrollment that also can be used for demographic data for all students or subgroups. Triangulation from varied data sources such as the Annual Report, ISEP, CIMP, observational data from Line Office activities, Consolidated School Reform Plans, Line Office reports or others are used to assure that schools are following the accountability plan of the state in which they are located.
Therefore, the BIA’s Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook will consist of the twenty-three (23) States’ Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbooks that have resident BIA-funded schools. Pursuant to section 1116(g)(1)(B), the Tribal governing body or school board of a school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs may waive, in part or in whole, the definition of adequate yearly progress established pursuant to paragraph (A) where such definition is determined by such body or school board to be inappropriate. In cases where a waiver has been requested and approved, the Accountability Workbook will be modified to incorporate said changes.
PRINCIPLE 1.
A single statewide Accountability System applied to all public schools and LEAs.
CRITICAL ELEMENT / EXAMPLES FORMEETING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS / EXAMPLES OF
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS
1.1How does the State Accountability System include every public school and LEA in the State? / Every public school and LEA is required to make adequate yearly progress and is included in the State Accountability System.
State has a definition of “public school” and “LEA” for AYP accountability purposes.
- 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).
State policy systematically excludes certain public schools and/or LEAs.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
All BIA-funded schools are school-wide Title Schools. Due to the unique circumstances of 184 BIA-funded schools located in twenty-three (23) States, BIA-funded schools use the State assessment(s) systems and protocols. Any BIA-funded school that is located in two or more states will use the assessment(s) system of one State. Which state to use will be a school level decision. [NCLB Section 1116(g)(1)(A)(ii)].
Using the State assessment(s) and protocols includes but is not limited to: 1) using the State’s testing dates, 2) using the State’s testing contractors for scoring and reporting test scores, 3) using the State’s ‘make-up’ dates, and 4) using the State’s special education accommodations. Not withstanding States’ assessment(s) systems and protocols, special education accommodations will not include out-of-level testing for any population. BIA-funded schools that do not have a sufficient number of students to meet the (n) identified in their respective State assessment(s) and protocols will use their State’s “small school” assessment system. Where a BIA-funded school is located in a State without a “small school” assessment system OIEP-CSI, acting as the SEA, will require the following:
1)for the single K-2 school the third grade assessment results will be used to determine AYP;
2)for schools with insufficient students to meet the “n” requirement 2 or 3 year rolling averages will be used to reach a sufficient “n” for accountability;
3)if a school is so small a sufficient “n” cannot be reached even using rolling averages, student level, single subject analysis will be required from the schools;
4)for Kindergarten schools Dibels assessments will be used.
In the BIA educational system, all BIA-funded schools are identified as LEAs and all schools/LEAs are required to participate in the accountability system of their respective state. All students and pertinent subgroups are included for accountability as determined by the state.
Office of Indian Education Programs-Center for School Improvement (OIEP-CSI) monitors accountability through Education Line Officers (ELO), Field Education Specialist (FES), Special Education Coordinators (SEC), annual reports, Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP), and Consolidated School Reform Plans (CSRP). Schools that are K-2 are also monitored by using their State specific assessment instrument. If the State does not have a K-2 specific assessment instrument, then OIEP-CSI will track students to their respective 3rd grades. OIEP-CSI will only be able to track K-2 students that enter a BIA-funded school or public school in the same state as the K-2 school.
Note: All twenty-three (23) States’ Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbooks are incorporated into the BIA Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook as appendixes A – W.
CRITICAL ELEMENT / EXAMPLES FORMEETING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS / EXAMPLES OF
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS
1.2How are all public schools and LEAs held to the same criteria when making an AYP determination? / All public schools and LEAs are systematically judged on the basis of the same criteria when making an AYP determination.
If applicable, the AYP definition is integrated into the State Accountability System. / Some public schools and LEAs are systematically judged on the basis of alternate criteria when making an AYP determination.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OIEP-CSI will determine each BIA-funded school’s AYP status by using the appropriate State criteria for making AYP determinations. For example, for all BIA-funded schools in the State of New Mexico, OIEP-CSI will use the State of New Mexico’s AYP determination criteria to assign AYP status to each NM based BIA-funded schools. Status determination will be based on whether the school has made AYP based on the accountability system of the state where located.
Note: All twenty-three (23) States’ Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbooks are incorporated into the BIA Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook as appendixes A – W.
CRITICAL ELEMENT / EXAMPLES FORMEETING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS / EXAMPLES OF
NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS
1.3Does the State have, at a minimum, a definition of basic, proficient and advanced student achievement levels in reading/language arts and mathematics? / State has defined three levels of student achievement: basic, proficient and advanced.[1]
Student achievement levels of proficient and advanced determine how well students are mastering the 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. / Standards do not meet the legislated requirements.
STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS
From the twenty-three (23) States’ Plans, OIEP-CSI will identify the definitions to be used for each BIA-funded school’s determination of basic, proficient and advanced (or equivalent) student achievement levels in reading and/or language arts and mathematics. For example, for all BIA-funded schools in the State of New Mexico, OIEP-CSI will use the State of New Mexico’s definitions of basic, proficient and advanced student achievement levels in reading and/or language arts and mathematics.