Current through Register Vol. 48, No. 38, September 20, 2024
A student's scores shall count among those for his or her
school or district, as applicable, for a given year only if he or she was
enrolled continuously in the district on or before May 1 of the previous
academic year through State testing the following spring. Students who feed
into another school within the same district during the summer based upon the
district's progression of students among attendance centers based on grade
level shall have their scores counted for the school and district. Any student
who is continuously enrolled within the district but, for reasons not mandated
by the district, changes to a new school within the district after May 1 will
be counted at the district level but not at the school level. Nothing in this
Section is intended to exempt a student from the requirement for participation
in the State assessment, except as provided in subsection (b)(1) of this
Section.
a) Relevant scores shall be
disaggregated by content area for any subgroup identified in this subsection
(a) whose membership meets the minimum subgroup size. For purposes of this
Section
1.60,
"minimum subgroup size" shall mean 45 students across all the grades tested in
the school or district, as applicable. Except as provided in subsection (b) of
this Section, each student's scores shall be counted in each of the subgroups
to which he or she belongs.
1) Students with
disabilities, i.e., students who have Individualized Education Programs
(IEPs);
2) For school years through
2009-10, racial/ethnic groups:
A)
White,
B) Black,
C) Hispanic,
D) American Indian or Alaskan
Native,
E) Asian/Pacific
Islander,
F)
Multiracial/ethnic;
3)
For school year 2010-11 and beyond, racial/ethnic groups:
A) Hispanic or Latino of any race,
B) For students who are not Hispanic or
Latino:
i) American Indian or Alaska
Native,
ii) Asian,
iii) Black or African American,
iv) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander,
v) White,
vi) Two or more races;
4) Students who have been
identified at the local level as having limited proficiency in English as
provided in 23 Ill. Adm. Code
228.15;
and/or
5) Students who are eligible
for free or reduced-price meals under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (
42 USC
1771 et seq.) or the National School Lunch
Act (
42 USC
1751 et seq.).
b) Special provisions shall apply to the
treatment of scores achieved by students of limited English proficiency in
certain circumstances.
1) An Illinois student
who is in his or her first year of enrollment in school in the United States
and who is identified as having limited proficiency in English may elect to
participate in the State assessment in reading. Any student who elects not to
participate shall nevertheless be treated as having participated for purposes
of calculating the participation rate.
2) The score achieved by a student who elects
to participate in the regular State assessment in reading under subsection
(b)(1) of this Section shall be counted for purposes of calculating the
participation rate but not for purposes of calculating performance.
3) An Illinois student who is in his or her
first year of enrollment in school in the United States and who is identified
as having limited proficiency in English shall be required to participate in
the State assessment in mathematics. The score achieved by such a student shall
be counted for purposes of calculating the participation rate but not for
purposes of calculating performance.
4) A student who has previously been
identified as having limited proficiency in English and whose scores have been
attributed to that subgroup shall continue to have his or her scores attributed
to that subgroup for the first two years after the last year when he or she was
considered to have limited English proficiency. However, districts and schools
shall not be required to count students to whom this subsection (b)(4) applies
as part of the subgroup with limited English proficiency for purposes of
determining whether the minimum subgroup size exists.
c) All relevant scores of a district's
students with disabilities who participate in the alternate form of the State
assessment shall be included in the district's calculations for purposes of
determining whether adequate yearly progress has been made.
1) The number of scores earned by students
who participate in the alternate form of the State assessment that may be
counted as demonstrating proficiency in a content area shall be no more than 1
percent of all scores achieved by the district's students in that subject. (See
the regulations of the U.S. Department of Education at
34 CFR
200.6.)
2) Except as provided in subsection (c)(3) of
this Section, for purposes of calculating adequate yearly progress at the
district level, each score that demonstrates proficiency but is in excess of
the 1 percent maximum set forth in subsection (c)(1) of this Section shall be
counted as not demonstrating proficiency and shall be included as such in the
calculations for each subgroup of which the student is a member.
3) A district may apply to the State
Superintendent of Education for a one-year exception to the 1 percent maximum
set forth in subsection (c)(1) of this Section, which may be renewed for one or
more subsequent years if warranted. Using a format established by the State
Superintendent, the district shall display information demonstrating that the
prevalence of students for whom the alternate assessment is appropriate exceeds
1 percent of the total population. The district shall also supply a narrative
explaining the disproportionate representation of these students in its
population. The State Superintendent of Education shall approve a district's
request for an exception if the district superintendent provides assurances
that the district meets all the requirements of
34 CFR
200.6 and if the information supplied by the
district demonstrates that:
A) families of
students with the most significant intellectual disabilities have been
attracted to live in the district by the availability of educational, health,
or community services that respond to their needs; or
B) the district's student population is so
small that the presence of even a small number of students with the most
significant intellectual disabilities causes the district to exceed the 1
percent threshold (e.g., in a population of 50 students, one student represents
2 percent); or
C) other
circumstances exist such that the overrepresentation of students with the most
significant intellectual disabilities is outside the control of the district,
i.e., the overrepresentation is not a result of inappropriate decision-making
as to the form of the State assessment that should be used for particular
students.
4) When scores
that demonstrate proficiency and were achieved by students on the IAA make up
more than 1 percent of a district's scores in either reading or mathematics,
and the district has not received approval for an exception to the 1 percent
maximum pursuant to subsection (c)(3) of this Section, the district shall be
required to identify the "proficient" scores on the IAA that will be counted as
not demonstrating proficiency for purposes of calculating adequate yearly
progress (AYP). In making this determination, a district may choose to
identify:
A) scores of students who belong to
the fewest subgroups;
B) scores of
students who belong to the largest subgroups;
C) scores of students who belong to the
smallest subgroups;
D) scores of
students who belong to the subgroups whose performance is farthest above the
target applicable to the year in question; or
E) scores of students who belong to the
subgroups whose performance is farthest below the target applicable to the year
in question.
5) The
State Superintendent of Education shall notify each district that is affected
by the requirement to identify excess "proficient" scores on the IAA. The
deadline set by the State Superintendent shall allow at least five business
days for districts' responses. For any district that does not submit the
requested information on this selection within the time allowed, the State
Superintendent shall identify the scores that will be considered as not
demonstrating proficiency for this purpose.
d) Targets for scores demonstrating
proficiency
1) In each subject and for each
subgroup of students, the percentage of scores demonstrating proficiency that
is required for AYP shall increase from the original baseline of 40 percent for
the 2002-03 school year according to the following schedule:
A) For 2003-04, 40 percent;
B) For 2004-05 and for 2005-06, 47.5
percent;
C) For 2006-07, 55
percent;
D) For 2007-08, 62.5
percent;
E) For 2008-09, 70
percent;
F) For 2009-10, 77.5
percent;
G) For 2010-11, 85
percent;
H) For 2011-12 and for
2012-13, 92.5 percent;
I) For
2013-14, 100 percent.
2)
In order to avoid penalizing schools and districts for the decision bias that
is associated with a minimum subgroup size, a 95 percent "confidence interval"
shall be applied to subgroups' data. (A confidence interval is a mathematical
approach designed to compensate for the unreliability of data derived from
consideration of small groups.)
e) "Safe Harbor"
A school or a district in which one or more subgroups fail to
achieve the required academic target for a particular year may nevertheless be
considered as having made AYP for that year. Each subgroup in question must
have attained the minimum subgroup size in the preceding year and, for each
such subgroup, there must have been a decrease of at least ten percent in the
proportion of scores that do not demonstrate proficiency in comparison to that
subgroup's scores for the preceding year. In addition, if the school is a high
school, the relevant subgroup's graduation rate must at least equal the target
rate for that year, and, if the school is an elementary or a middle school, the
relevant subgroup's attendance rate must at least equal the target rate for
that year (see Section
1.70
of this Part). This "safe harbor" method for calculating AYP shall apply only
to subgroups within schools or districts; it shall not be used for the
aggregate scores of a school or a district as a whole.
