Arizona’s School
Accountability System
2010
Technical Manual

State of Arizona
Department of Education

Volume II: Adequate Yearly Progress
Research & Policy
Arizona Department of Education
Achieve@azed.gov
Published by the Arizona Department of Education, June 2011.
The Arizona Department of Education of the State of Arizona does not discriminate on the basis of race,
religion, color, national origin, sex, disability or age in its programs, activities or in its hiring and
employment practices. If you have questions or grievances related to this guideline, please contact the
Administrative Services DAS at (602)542-3186.

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................3
2. OVERVIEW OF THE NCLB EVALUATION SYSTEM ........................................................................................5
SCHOOLS TO BE EVALUATED ....................................................................................................................................5
PROFICIENCY STANDARDS .........................................................................................................................................5
GROWTH MODEL PILOT .............................................................................................................................................8
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS ASSESSED ......................................................................................................................8
APPLICABLE SUBGROUPS ..........................................................................................................................................8
ADDITIONAL INDICATORS OF SCHOOL PERFORMANCE .............................................................................................. 9
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER.......................................................................................................................................9
3. TIMELINE .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
TIMELINE ................................................................................................................................................................. 11
4. MEETING THE ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES FOR PROFICIENCY ............................................. 12
CALCULATION OF ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES (AMOS) ............................................................................ 12
DATA USED ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
SPECIAL RULES ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
5. THE GROWTH MODEL ........................................................................................................................................ 16
SETTING THE GROWTH TARGETS ............................................................................................................................. 16
DETERMINING IF A STUDENT MEETS THE GROWTH TARGET ................................................................................... 16
MEETING THE AMO ................................................................................................................................................ 18
DATA USED ............................................................................................................................................................. 18
SPECIAL RULES ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
6. MEETING THE GOAL FOR NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED..................................................................... 21
CALCULATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
DATA USED ............................................................................................................................................................. 21
SPECIAL RULES ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
7. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS OF SCHOOL PERFORMANCE .......................................................................... 23
ATTENDANCE RATE ................................................................................................................................................. 23
GRADUATION RATE ................................................................................................................................................. 23
8. CALCULATION OF ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS FOR K-2 SCHOOLS ............................................... 26
MEETING THE 95 PERCENT TESTED REQUIREMENT AND ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES ............................... 26
9. CALCULATION OF ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS FOR SMALL SCHOOLS ........................................ 27
MEETING THE 95 PERCENT TESTED REQUIREMENT ................................................................................................. 27
MEETING THE ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES IN SMALL SCHOOLS................................................................. 27
MEETING THE ADDITIONAL INDICATOR ................................................................................................................... 27
10. DETERMINING ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CHARTER
HOLDERS ................................................................................................................................................................... 28
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEA AND SCHOOL AYP EVALUATION METHODS ............................................................. 28
11. ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) APPEALS PROCESS ................................................................... 30
PROCEDURE AND TIMELINE ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

i

List of Tables and Figures
Table 1.1
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 4.1
Table 5.1
Table 5.2

Comparison of Arizona's Accountability Systems……………………………….….4
Annual measurable Objectives (AMOs) and Intermediate Goals ..............................7
Categories to be Evaluated Under NCLB for a Middle School .................................10
Rules for Determining UB99 for Small n and p…………………………………….13
Annual Growth Target for 4th Grade Math ................................................................17
Met Annual Growth Target for Alternative Assessments .........................................19

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

ii

1. Introduction
The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires states to establish an
accountability system to evaluate the performance of local public schools and school districts,
including charter schools. Specifically, states are required to:
Institute performance standards for reading/language arts, mathematics, and science.
Develop and administer tests in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science in
grades 3 through 8 and high school to measure whether students meet these standards.
Arizona meets this requirement with the AIMS test.
Establish a timeline to ensure that all students are proficient according to state standards
by 2013-2014.
Create a statewide accountability system to evaluate school progress in meeting the goals
of the timeline, and issue report cards informing parents of school performance.
In 2001, Arizona voters approved Proposition 301 that, among other things, called for a
state accountability system for public schools. Since the passage of NCLB and Proposition 301
the staff of the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) has worked with scholars, school
officials ranging from superintendents to teachers to members of the public to develop an
accountability system that fulfills the requirements of both laws. The result is a system that
consists of two components. The system created to comply with NCLB, commonly referred to as
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), provides a single-year snapshot of school performance.
Arizona LEARNS was created to comply with Proposition 301. Its primary focus is on
longitudinal change through time of student performance. Table 1.1 provides a brief comparison
of the two accountability systems.
The State of Arizona’s complete plan to meet the requirements of NCLB is contained in
the workbook submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. The workbook is available at
http://www.ade.az.gov/azlearns/workbook.asp.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

3

Table 1.1 Comparison of Arizona’s Accountability Systems for 2010
NCLB
Required by federal law

Arizona LEARNS
Required by state law

Components of evaluation
AIMS scores
Growth model
Percent students assessed
Attendance/Graduation rates

Components of evaluation
AIMS scores
Measure of Academic Progress
English language assessment
Graduation/dropout rates

Labels schools on a yes/no system

Labels schools on a graded scale:
Failing to meet academic standards
Underperforming
Performing
Highly performing
Excelling

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

4

2. Overview of the NCLB Evaluation System
This section provides an overview of how to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP)
for a school. More detailed discussions how to determine AYP, including descriptions of
equations, algorithms, and data used are given in the following chapters.
The No Child Left Behind Act requires that every public school and district/charter
holder in a state be evaluated on three measures:
1. Progress toward meeting the goal of 100 percent proficiency in state standards;
2. Percentage of students assessed; and
3. An additional measure of school performance. NCLB mandates that for high
schools this indicator be the graduation rate. States may select an alternative
indicator for elementary schools. Arizona, along with many other states, has
chosen attendance rate for the other indicator for elementary schools.
If an entity—school or district/charter holder—passes on all three measures, then it is
deemed to have made adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Schools to Be Evaluated
All schools—including extremely small schools, new schools, and schools that only offer
grades K-2—must receive an AYP determination. Similarly, the state’s system for school
accountability, Arizona LEARNS provides profiles for all schools. A major difference in the two
evaluations is that AZ LEARNS allows alternative and extremely small schools to be evaluated
under different criteria where NCLB requires all public schools in the state to be given an AYP
designation based on the same criteria.

Proficiency Standards
NCLB requires that every student in Arizona meet state standards in reading/language
arts and mathematics—that is, pass AIMS—by the year 2013-2014. To further this goal, the state
must set annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for each grade and subject evaluated. In Arizona,
the grades evaluated by AIMS are three through eight, and high school. The annual measurable
objectives describe yearly growth in fractions of students passing AIMS. These objectives are
necessary for Arizona to reach the 100 percent requirement by 2013-2014. To make AYP an
entity must reach the AMOs for both mathematics and reading/language arts in each grade it
offers. If an entity fails to reach an AMO, it still may be deemed to have made adequate yearly
progress if it satisfies the safe harbor provisions that will be described later.
In 2010 Arizona revised the annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for mathematics to
account for implementation of new standards and a new test.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

5

In June of 2008 the State Board of Education approved new math standards for Arizona.
Students were first tested on these standards in the 2009-2010 school year. In June 2010, the
State Board approved new performance standards for the math assessment, resulting in a more
difficult test. The percentage of students proficient fell across all grades, with the size of the
decrease ranging from 7 to 16 percentage points.
This decrease was not only caused by higher standards on the test, but was also the
expected, transitory impact of a change in instruction. Teachers had to learn the new standards
and adjust their instruction. Also, students may not have been exposed in previous years to
material the standards now expect.
The AMOs were adjusted to allow for this transition period. The new AMOs will be first
used for the AYP evaluations released at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, based on
the 2009-2010 assessments.
The AMOs for Arizona are given in table 2.1 below.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

6

Arizona Annual Measurable Objectives
Reading AMO
Math AMO
Grade 3
(percent passing)
(percent passing)
2010
62.6
53
2011
71.9
65
2012
81.2
77
2013
90.5
88
2014
100
100
Grade 4
2010
56
50
2011
67
63
2012
78
75
2013
89
88
2014
100
100
Grade 5
2008-10
54.6
44
2011
65.9
58
2012
77.2
72
2013
88.5
86
2014
100
100
Grade 6
2010
56
43
2011
67
57
2012
78
72
2013
89
86
2014
100
100
Grade 7
2010
59.2
44
2011
69.4
58
2012
79.6
72
2013
89.8
86
2014
100
100
Grade 8
2010
54.0
44
2011
65.5
58
2012
77.0
72
2013
88.5
86
2014
100
100
High School
2010
48.6
48
2011
61.4
61
2012
74.2
74
2013
87.0
87
2014
100
100

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

7

There are two additional steps taken when determining if a school has met the AMO for a
specific subject and grade. First, rather than comparing the actual percentage of students who are
proficient to the AMO, a 99 percent confidence interval is calculated around the percent
proficient. If the upper bound of this confidence interval is above the AMO, the school is deemed
to have met the objective.
Second, if a school fails to meet the objective after the confidence interval is applied, it
may still be deemed to have met the AMO if it meets the safe harbor provision. Safe harbor is a
two-part test that requires schools to demonstrate sufficient progress over the previous year in the
percentage of students failing to meet the standard and meet a threshold set by the Arizona
Department of Education for an additional indicator. Both of the confidence interval and safe
harbor will be discussed in more detail later.

Growth Model
In 2007, Arizona was approved by the U.S. Department of Education to implement a
growth model for AYP evaluations. Under Arizona’s growth proposal, students are only counted
proficient in the current year, regardless of whether they have passed the AIMS, if they are
making sufficient progress to reach proficiency within three years or by eighth grade, whichever
comes first. If the percentage of students in a subgroup who meet their growth target is equal to
or greater than the AMO, that subgroup has met the AMO for the AYP evaluation. The growth
model is applied to grades four through seven. The growth model is not used for small schools,
K-2 schools, and high schools.
In 2010, there was no growth model calculation for Math due to the changes in the AIMS
Math test.

Percentage of Students Assessed
In order for a school or district/charter holder to make adequate yearly progress it must
assess 95 percent of its students for each subject in every grade offered, including each
applicable subgroup. Students count as assessed if they had a valid score for AIMS or the
alternate assessment for the severely disabled, AIMS-A. Starting in 2006, in compliance with
federal guidance, students who tested with alternate accommodations were not counted as tested.
All the students enrolled for the day of testing (high school) or the first day of the testing
window (elementary) represent the population to be assessed.

Applicable Subgroups
In addition to assessing 95 percent of its students and meeting the annual measurable
objectives for all subject/grade combinations it encompasses, an entity must also meet the same
objectives for every applicable subgroup within each subject/grade combination. NCLB specifies
the following subgroups be evaluated: the five major ethnic groups—Hispanic, White, AfricanAmerican, Asian-Pacific Islander, and Native American—English Language Learners (ELL),
students with disabilities (SPED), and students from low-income families. A student is identified
as being from a low-income family if the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS)
demographic information indicates she is eligible for a free or reduced lunch. Students are

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

8

considered program members (ELL, SPED, or free or reduced lunch) if they were enrolled in
that program at any time during the school year at the school in which they were tested.

Additional Indicators of School Performance
NCLB requires that an additional indicator be used for AYP determinations. The law
mandates that a four-year graduation rate be used for high schools, but allows states to select the
standard schools must meet. In 2010, the performance goal for the high school graduation rate
changed to 80 percent. To make adequate yearly progress, a high school must have a four-year
graduation rate of 80 percent, or show a 2 percentage-point improvement in the graduation rate
over the previous year.
NCLB allows states to select the additional indicator used for elementary schools.
Arizona has chosen to use the school-wide attendance rate. The performance goal for the
attendance rate was set at 90 percent. To make AYP, elementary schools must have a schoolwide attendance rate of 90 percent, or show a 1 percentage-point improvement in the attendance
rate over the previous year.

Putting It All Together
Table 2.2 provides an example of how the three performance measures—proficiency in
state standards, percentage of students assessed, and an additional indicator—are combined to
determine whether a school has made AYP. The example given is for a middle school serving
grades 7 and 8. The school is evaluated based on student performance on AIMS reading and
mathematics tests for these two grades, the percentage of students evaluated for each test and
attendance rates. All the combinations for which a typical middle school would be evaluated
under NCLB are provided; there are 73 separate combinations examined.
NCLB requires that schools be evaluated using a conjunctive model. That is, to make
AYP, a school must meet the performance objective in every category in which it is evaluated.
For example, if the school in table 2.2 fails to meet the objective in any one of the cells in the
table, it fails to make AYP.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

9

Table 2.2. Categories Evaluated Under NCLB for a Middle School
Seventh
Eighth
Math
Reading
Math
Reading
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
95%
AMO?
95%
AMO?
95%
AMO?
95%
AMO?
tested?
tested?
tested?
tested?
All students
Yes/No Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
African American Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Asian-Pacific
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Islander
Hispanic
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Native American
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
White
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Special Education Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
English Language Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Learner
Low Income
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Met Other School
wide Indicator:
Y/N
Attendance Rate?
Grade
Subject
Subgroup

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 10

3. Timeline
Districts and charter holders (Local Education Agencies - LEAs) are solely responsible
for submitting the data necessary for calculating achievement profiles for their schools and for
ensuring its accuracy. Because of the stakes involved and the volume and scope of the data used,
the ADE considers it prudent to allow LEAs to review their data before preliminary AYP
evaluations were carried out.
From March 15, 2010 through May 28, 2010 schools and LEAs were given the
opportunity to review and correct the data used for calculating the four-year graduation rate used
in the AYP evaluation. From June 21, 2010 through June 30, 2010 schools and LEAs were given
an opportunity to review and correct their testing data through the common logon on the ADE
web site. The primary purpose of the application was to allow LEAs to correct the information
for individual students.
Schools and LEAs were also given the opportunity to correct student demographic and
program information from March 22, 2010 through May 28, 2010. All program membership,
demographic information, and student activity codes relevant to AYP evaluations were taken
from the state’s SAIS database of student records. Consequently, the only information that
schools needed to correct in the ADE AIMS testing files were students’ SAIS IDs (needed for
matching). If any demographic or program information was incorrect, schools and LEAs were
required to correct it in the SAIS database. Schools were not allowed to correct the indicators for
alternate testing modifications.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The criteria used to select AIMS scores for evaluation of AYP differ
from the criteria used to select scores for AZ LEARNS. Indeed, the criteria differ among the
separate components of the AYP evaluation. The criteria also differ from the scores provided to
schools by the testing contractor, and the scores publicly reported by ADE, which are available
here: http://www.ade.az.gov/researchpolicy/AIMSResults/.

Timeline
The timeline for the 2010 AYP determinations was:
March 15, 2010.

Start of statistical review and appeals of graduation rate data.

May 28, 2010.

Close of statistical review and appeals of graduation rate data.

June 21, 2010.

Start of testing data verification process.

June 21, 2010.

Preliminary release of AYP evaluations for all schools and LEAs;
opening of substantive appeals process.

June 30, 2010.

Close of testing data verification process.

June 30, 2010.

Closing of substantive appeals and data correction processes.

July 28, 2010.

Public release of AYP evaluations for all schools and LEAs.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 11

4. Meeting the Annual Measurable Objectives
for Proficiency
Calculation of Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
This section describes the calculation used to determine if schools met the annual
measurable objectives (AMOs) for student proficiency in math and reading/language arts. NCLB
requires that schools meet the AMOs set by the state in order to make AYP. Schools must meet
the AMOs for each subject/grade combination and all the applicable subgroups.
The formula used to calculate the percentage of students passing is:
Percent Passing =

# of students meeting or exceeding the standard in AIMS
# of students tested

This fraction is rounded to two digits, e.g.: .941=.94; .946=.95.
To ensure that the decision regarding whether a school met the AMOs is reliable and not
overly influenced by random factors, the determination for meeting the AMOs is made
employing a 99 percent (one-tailed) confidence interval. The confidence interval methodology is
designed to ensure that 99 out of 100 times the confidence interval will contain a school’s true
performance level. If the AMO in question is below the upper bound of the confidence interval
calculated for the school, the school is deemed to have met the standard.
Example. Fifty percent of a school’s third graders passed the AIMS mathematics test. The upper
bound of the 99 percent confidence interval for this subject/grade combination for this school is
calculated to be 56 percent. Since this is greater than the AMO of 54.6 percent, the school is
considered to have met the standard.
Let p = the percent of students in a group passing the AIMS and n = the number of
students in the group. Then the equation for the upper bound of the 99 percent confidence
interval (UB99) is:

UB99

p 2.33 p(1 p) n.

As can be seen from the equation, the confidence interval depends upon the percent of
students who passed the test, and the number of students tested. Thus, the confidence interval
will differ among grades, subjects, and schools.
The equation is an approximation of the confidence interval for a binomially distributed
variable. It uses the standard normal distribution and is sufficiently accurate if the group size and
percentage of students passing are large enough. For small values of n and small p, a more
accurate estimate of the confidence interval is made using statistical tables that provide

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 12

confidence intervals for a binomially distributed variable.1 The tables were applied using the
rules given in table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Rules for Determining UB99 for Small n and p.
If n ≥ 40 and n <45, and
p ≥ 0.00 and p < 0.05, UB99 = 0.13
p ≥ 0.05 and p < 0.10, UB99 = 0.22
p ≥ 0.10 and p < 0.15, UB99 = 0.28
p ≥ 0.15 and p < 0.20, UB99 = 0.35

If n ≥ 55 and n < 60, and
p = 0.00, UB99 = 0.10

If n ≥ 45 and n <50, and
p ≥ 0.00 and p < 0.05, UB99 = 0.12
p ≥ 0.05 and p < 0.10, UB99 = 0.21
p ≥ 0.10 and p < 0.15, UB99 = 0.27

If n ≥ 100 and n < 200 and
p = 0.00, UB99 = 0.06

If n ≥ 50 and n < 55, and
p ≥ 0.00 and p < 0.05, UB99 = 0.11
p ≥ 0.05 and p < 0.10, UB99 = 0.20

If n ≥ 60 and n < 100 and
p = 0.00, UB99 = 0.09

If n ≥ 200 and
p = 0.00, UB99 = 0.00

Even if after calculating the confidence interval the percent of students proficient in a
subgroup still falls short of the AMO, the group may still make AYP if its achievement
indicators meet certain safe harbor provisions. To make safe harbor a subgroup has to meet the
following two-part test:
a) Make a 10 percent decrease in the percentage of students failing to meet the standard
(i.e. failing AIMS) from the previous year, and
b) Meet the performance goal or make a one-percentage point improvement for the
additional indicator: graduation rate for high school and attendance rate for other
grades.
Examples
1.

In the current year, 50 percent of fifth graders in Gila Monster Elementary passed
the AIMS reading test. The upper bound of the confidence interval was 52
percent, still below the annual measurable objective of 54.6 percent. However in
the previous year, 40 percent of fifth graders passed the AIMS reading test, thus
Gila Monster Elementary saw a decrease of 17 percent in the percentage failing
[(50-60)/60 = -17 percent]. Furthermore, the attendance rate for Gila Monster’s
fifth grade was 96 percent, greater than the standard of 90 percent. So, Gila
Monster’s fifth graders make AYP in reading.

1

Mansfield, Edwin. 1991. Statistics for Business and Economics, 4th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton and
Company. 280-284.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 13

2.

In the current year, 50 percent of fifth graders in Javelina Elementary School
passed the AIMS reading test. The upper bound of the confidence interval was 52
percent, still below the annual measurable objective of 54.6 percent. In the
previous year, 48 percent of fifth graders passed the AIMS reading test, thus
Javelina Elementary School saw a decrease of only percent in the percentage
failing [(50-52)/52 = -4 percent]. Even though the attendance rate for Javelina’s
fifth grade was 96 percent, greater than the standard of 90 percent, it fails to make
the safe harbor provisions, and so does not make AYP in fifth grade reading.

3.

In the current year, 55 percent of third graders in Gila Monster Elementary passed
the AIMS reading test. The upper bound of the confidence interval was 60
percent, still below the annual measurable objective of 62.6 percent. However in
the previous year, 48 percent of third graders passed the AIMS reading test, thus
Gila Monster El. saw an improvement of 13 percent in performance [(45-52)/52 =
-13 percent]. However, the attendance rate for Gila Monster’s third grade was 85
percent, less than the standard of 90 percent and the same as last year’s attendance
rate, so Gila Monster’s third graders fail to make AYP in reading.

4.

In the current year, 55 percent of third graders in Saguaro Elementary passed the
AIMS reading test. The upper bound of the confidence interval was 60 percent,
still below the annual measurable objective of 62.6 percent. However in the
previous year, 48 percent of fifth graders passed the AIMS reading test, thus
Saguaro Elementary saw an improvement of over 13 percent in performance [(4552)/52 = -13 percent]. The attendance rate for Saguaro’s third grade was 82
percent, less than the standard of 90 percent. However in the previous year, the
attendance rate for Saguaro’s third grade was 81 percent. Since Saguaro saw an
13 percent improvement in the percentage of third graders meeting the standard in
math and a 1 percent improvement in the attendance rate for third graders, it
meets the safe harbor provision for third grade math, and thus makes AYP.

Data Used
Students are included in the calculation if they meet the following criteria:
Have taken either the AIMS or AIMS-A and received a score of FFB or above;
Were enrolled in the school on the spring testing date (high school graduation cohort,
cohort 2012 for 2010 test dates) or first day of the testing window (grades 3 through
8) and were matched to SAIS with valid ID;
Were enrolled in the school for the full academic year. A student was considered
enrolled for the full academic year if she enrolled in a school during the first 10
school days of the school year and remained continuously enrolled up through the
testing date (first day of the testing window for grades 3 through 8). This information
was obtained from SAIS.
Did not take the test with alternate accommodations;

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 14

Were not recently arrived limited English proficient (RALEP). A student was
identified as RALEP if he met the following criteria: a) was enrolled in SAIS as a
member in an English language learner program; b) has no enrollment in SAIS one
year or more before the test date; c) his birthplace was outside of the United States;
and d) the enrollment code for first enrollment in SAIS indicates that the student was
not previously enrolled in any Arizona school.

Special Rules
Tests used. AIMS reading and mathematics tests are used for the AMO calculation. The writing
test is not used.
High school cohort. The AMO calculation only includes students who are in their second year
of high school. Thus, students retained in ninth grade are included. Students retained in 10th
grade are not included.
Minimum group size. A group or subgroup is not evaluated if it had less than 40 test scores that
meet the selection criteria.
Concurrently enrolled students. Students enrolled in two schools on the testing date are only
included in the AMO determination of the school in which they were tested.
English language learners. For AMO determinations, former English language learners who
have become proficient are included in the English language learner subgroup for two additional
years. Former ELL students are not counted toward the minimum group size of 40.
Example 1. A school’s ELL subgroup is made up of 50 students, of which 45 were enrolled in
the ELL program and 5 former ELL students. This subgroup will be evaluated.
Example 2. A school’s ELL subgroup is made up of 50 students, of which 35 were enrolled in
the ELL program and 15 former ELL students. This subgroup will not be evaluated.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 15

5. The Growth Model
The approved growth model is calculated for all subgroups for both schools and LEAs,
parallel to the traditional AYP evaluation. The model looks at progress individual students make
toward proficiency from one year to the next. The goal is proficiency within three years for
grades three and four, or by the eighth grade for grades five through seven. Annual growth
targets are set that measure each student’s progress toward that goal. Students are deemed to
have made sufficient progress if they meet the annual growth target. Scores for individual
students are aggregated by the relevant subgroups. If the percentage of students in a subgroup
that meets the target for growth is equal to or greater than the annual measurable objective
(AMO), then the subgroup is considered to have met AYP.

Setting the Growth Targets
The growth target for each student is how much improvement measured by scale score
points the student would have to make over her previous year’s score in equal intervals in order
to achieve proficiency within three years or by the eighth grade, whichever comes first. The
growth target is set by subtracting the student’s previous year scale score from the scale score for
proficiency in the target grade and dividing by the number of remaining grades. The targets are
rounded to the nearest whole number. Demographic factors are not used to set the target.
Example: A student scores 402 on the 3rd grade math test in 2006. The passing score on
the 6th grade math test is 496. The student’s math score must improve 31 points each
year—(496 – 402)/(6-3) = 94/3 = 31—for him to reach proficiency by 6th grade.
Example. A student scores 469 on the 6th grade reading test in 2006. The passing score
on the 8th grade reading test is 499. The student’s reading score must improve 15 points
each year—(499-469)/(8-6) = 30/2 = 15—for her to reach proficiency by 8th grade.

Determining If a Student Meets the Growth Target
To ensure that schools do not receive credit for spurious changes that may be a function
of regression to the mean or statistical error, a corrected score is calculated for the student and
compared to the growth target. To calculate the corrected score, current year scores are regressed
on the previous year’s scores using a regression model with school fixed effects. The estimated
coefficients are used to generate predicted scores for the current year for each student. The
standard error of the prediction is then used to evaluate whether the predicted value is truly larger
than the growth target or whether the difference is due only to measurement error.
Specifically, the following equation is estimated by subject and grade:
Scalscorit

j

Scalscori ,t

1

i

.

(1)

Scalscorit is the scale score of student i on the AIMS test for the current year.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 16

Scalscori ,t 1 is the scale score of student i on the AIMS for the previous year.

is the fixed effect for school j;
standard deviation .
j

i

is a normally distributed error term with mean zero and

The estimated coefficients are then used to generate predicted scores, PREDit, for each student:
PRED it

ˆj

ˆ Scalscor

i ,t 1

.

Also estimated is the standard error of the prediction: SEPREDit. The lower bound value found
using the 97.5th percentile of the t distribution is then calculated for the prediction:
Lowerit

PRED it

t 2.5 SEPRED it ;

where t2.5 is the 97.5th percentile of the t distribution.
If Lowerit ≥ Growth Target, then the student is deemed to have met the growth target.
This estimate is used to evaluate whether the fitted value at time t is truly larger than the
expected score at time t.
The standard error of the prediction is calculated using the following formula:

SEPRED it
where hi xi X X
squared error.

1

hi s 2

xi ; X is the matrix of regressors, xi is the ith row of X, and s2 is the mean

The estimates of the parameters, the predicted values, and the standard errors of the
predicted values are all generated using the SAS PROC MIXED procedure. Since we assume
there are no random effects and the variance is constant across schools, the procedure is
equivalent to ordinary least squares.
The following table shows the results for 4th grade math for a single school.

Student

3rd Grade
Score

A
B
C
D

362
409
456
521

Table 5.1 Annual Growth Target for 4th Grade Math
3 Grade
Predicted Standard
4th Grade
Lower
Performance
4th Grade
Error of
Score
Bound
Level
Score
Prediction
FFB
447
417
4.27
409
A
456
455
4.27
447
M
470
493
4.27
485
E
579
546
4.27
537
rd

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Growth
Target
407
438
469
513

Met
Growth
Target?
Y
Y
Y
Y

Arizona Department of Education 17

For this grade, subject, and school the estimated parameters are:

ˆj
ˆ

123.26;
0.8111.

Sample calculations are given for student A:
PREDA = 123.26 + 0.8111 X 362 = 417
LOWERA = 417 – 1.96 X 4.27 = 409.
where t2.5 with 62,600 degrees of freedom is approximately 1.96.
The following example illustrates how the expected score at time t is determined for
student A:
Annual growth target = (496 – 362)/(6 – 3) = 45.
The student must score 362 + 45 = 407 on the 4th grade math test in order to meet the
growth target. Since 409 > 407, the student met the growth target.

Meeting the AMO
To determine if a subgroup meets the AMO, the following percentage is calculated:
# of students (proficient and non-proficient) meeting growth target
# of students in analysis

If this percentage is greater than or equal to the AMO, then the group is deemed to have made
AYP.

Data Used
Students are included in the calculation if they meet the following criteria:
Have taken either the AIMS or AIMS-A and received a score of FFB or above;
Were enrolled in the school on the testing date and were matched to SAIS with valid
ID;
Were not recently arrived English language learners. A student was identified as a
recently arrived English language learner if he met the following criteria: a) was
enrolled in SAIS as a member in an English language learner program; b) has no
enrollment in SAIS one year or more before the test date; c) his birthplace was
outside of the United States; and e) the enrollment code for first enrollment in SAIS
indicates that the student was not previously enrolled in any Arizona school.
Did not take the test with alternate accommodations;

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 18

Were enrolled in the school for the full academic year. A student was considered
enrolled for the full academic year if she enrolled in a school during the first 10
school days of the school year and remained enrolled up through the testing date. This
information was obtained from SAIS.

Special Rules
Unmatched students. Students without a score for the previous year are counted at their current
performance level. Proficient students are considered to have met their growth target; nonproficient students are considered to not have met their growth target.
Inclusion of students. To be included in the growth measure a student must have been enrolled
in his current school for the full academic year. However, to be included a student does not have
to have been enrolled in the same school or LEA for two consecutive years. Furthermore, to be
included, a student does not have to have been enrolled for a full academic year the previous
year.
Minimum group size. Only subgroups with 40 or more students who have been present the full
academic year are evaluated.
Confidence interval. A confidence interval is not used for the growth model.
New growth targets are set for each student, each year. The model sets new individual growth
targets for each student each year. The clock starts over for students who leave and then return to
the Arizona public school system.
Example. A student enrolls in school A in third grade. The next year she enrolls in
school B. She must be proficient by sixth grade.
Example. A student enrolls in school A in third grade. The next two years she attends a
private school. She re-enrolls in school A as a sixth grader. She must be proficient by
eighth grade.
Alternate tests. Students who take the AIMS-A are included in the growth model. Students who
move up a performance level are considered as having met their growth target.
Table 5.2. Met Annual Growth Target for Alternate Assessment
Performance Level Current Year
Performance
Level Previous
Year
FFB
A
M
E

FFB
N
N
N
N

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

A
Y
N
N
N

M
Y
Y
Y
N

E
Y
Y
Y
Y

Arizona Department of Education 19

Third and eighth grade. These grades are evaluated using the standard status/safe harbor method
rather than the growth model.
K-2 schools, high schools, and small schools. The growth model is not used in the evaluation of
K-2, small, or high schools. Those schools continue to be evaluated using the current method.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 20

6. Meeting the Goal for Number of Students
Tested
Calculation
This section describes the calculation used to determine if a school has assessed 95
percent of its students. To make AYP, schools must test 95 percent of their students in reading
and mathematics in all grades in which AIMS is administered, and must test 95 percent of their
students in each applicable subgroup.
The formula used to calculate the percentage of students tested is:
Percent Tested

Number of students tested
Number of students enrolled

The fraction of percent tested is rounded to two digits, e.g.: .941=.94; .946=.95.

Data Used
Number of students tested. A student is counted as tested if she took either the AIMS or AIMSA and received a score of FFB or above; was enrolled on the spring testing date (for high school)
or first day of the testing window (grades 3 through 8); and was matched to SAIS with valid ID.
Students who receive a score of Did Not Attempt (DNA) or took the test with alternate
accommodations are not counted as having tested.
Number of students enrolled. A student is counted as enrolled if she is enrolled first day of the
testing window (for grades 3 through 8), or she is enrolled on the specified test day (for high
school). For high school, enrollment used is the number of students in the specified graduation
cohort (cohort 2012 for 2010 test dates) for the day the test was administered. Students are
counted in the enrollment of a program subgroup (ELL, SPED, free or reduced lunch) if they
participated in that program at the school in which they were tested at anytime during that school
year.

Special Rules
Tests used. AIMS reading and mathematics tests are used for the AMO calculation. The writing
test is not used.
High school cohort. The percent tested calculation only includes students who are in their
second year of high school. Thus, students retained in ninth grade are included. Students
retained in 10th grade are not included.
Minimum group size. A group or subgroup is not evaluated if it had less than 40 students
enrolled on the relevant day. A sample size of 40 was considered large enough to provide
statistically meaningful results.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 21

Best of current year or three-year average. If a school does not test 95 percent of its students in
a subgroup for the current year, a three-year average of percent of students tested is calculated
using the following formula:
Percent Tested =

# tested in 2008 + # tested in 2009 + # tested in 2010
# enrolled in 2008 + # enrolled in 2009 + # enrolled in 2010

If the three-year average is greater than or equal to 95 percent then the subgroup is deemed to
have met the goal of testing 95 percent of its students.
Concurrently enrolled students. If a student is enrolled in two schools on the testing date and
has tested in one of the schools, she is included in the percent tested calculation of the school in
which she was tested. She is not included in the calculation, neither in the number tested nor the
number enrolled, of the other school. If a student is enrolled in two schools on the testing date
and has tested in neither school, she is counted against both schools.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 22

7. Additional Indicators of School Performance
This section describes the calculation used to determine if a school met the additional
performance indicators for AYP. NCLB requires that schools be evaluated on a third
performance indicator as well as percentage of students assessed and percentage of students
proficient in the standard. The law requires that graduation rate be used for the third indicator for
high schools, and gives states the discretion to choose the third indicator for elementary schools.
Arizona has chosen the school-wide attendance rate as the third indicator for elementary schools.
To make AYP a high school must have a graduation rate of 80 percent; an elementary school
must have an attendance rate of 90 percent.

Attendance Rate
Calculation. The formula used to calculate the attendance rate is:
Schoolwide Attendance Rate

Average Daily Attendance
Average Daily Membership

The attendance rate is rounded to two digits, e.g.: e.g.: .891=.89; .896=.90.
Data used. The average daily attendance (ADA) and average daily membership (ADM) for the
100-day counts for all grades, except for pre-school and kindergarten, offered by a school are
used in the calculation.
Safe Harbor. If a school demonstrates a one-percentage point improvement in its attendance
rate from the previous year, it is deemed to have met the performance standard. The growth rate
is rounded to the nearest hundredth of a point, e.g. .009 = .01, .004=.00.
Example. Gila Monster Elementary had an attendance rate in the current year of 88
percent, less than the standard of 90 percent. However, its attendance rate for the
previous year was 86 percent. Gila Monster Elementary demonstrated an improvement of
two percentage points over the previous year, and so is deemed to have met the
requirements for attendance rate.
Special rules. Safe harbor is not determined for schools with an ADM of less than 40.
However, if they do not meet the goal in the current year, they are considered to have met the
goal if the weighted average of the attendance rates over the past three years is greater than 90
percent.

Graduation Rate
The Graduation Rate is a four-year, longitudinal measure of how many students graduate
from high school. The formula used to calculate the graduation rate is:

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 23

Graduation Rate =

Number in cohort who graduated within four years
Original cohort + Transfers in - Transfers out

The graduation rate is rounded to two digits, e.g.: .705=.71; .704=.70.
Data used. Federal requirements mandate that Arizona use the four-year graduation rate rather
than the five-year rate used for Arizona LEARNS. The graduation rate was for the cohort class
of 2009, which represents the most recent graduation rate available, was used for the calculation;
with growth being measured against the graduation rate for the cohort class of 2008.
Students are considered a potential member of the cohort of 2009 if:
1. The student enrolled as a 9th grader or ungraded secondary (US) for the first time in the
2005-2006 school year.
2. The student enrolled as a 10th grader or US in the 2006-2007 school year, and had not
previously enrolled in a high school grade (9-12, US).
3. The student enrolled as an 11th grader or US in the 2007-2008 school year, and had not
previously enrolled in a high school grade (9-12, US).
4. The student enrolled as a 12th grader or US in the 2008-2009 school year, and had not
previously enrolled in a high school grade (9-12, US).
For the calculation of the four-year graduation rate students in the cohort fall into three
categories:
A. Students who have graduated. These are students in the cohort of 2009 who have
graduated on or before the beginning of the 2010 school year (defined as September 1, 2010).
They have exit/year-end codes of W7, G, or S7.
B. Students who remain in the cohort but have not graduated. These are students in the
cohort of 2009 who remained in school but have not graduated, or who have left the school
and have not re-enrolled in another school. They have exit/year-end codes of W2, W3, W4,
W5, W10, W11, W12, W13, S2, S3, S4, S5, S10, S11, S12, S13, C, A, SA, SC, or SE.
Note: Students with year-end codes P or R are considered dropouts if there is no subsequent
enrollment or appropriate summer withdrawal.
C. Students who have exited the cohort. These are students who were in the cohort of 2009
but who have exited the cohort. They have exit/year-end codes of W1, W6, W8, W9, S1,
S99, S6, S8, and S9.

Graduation Rate

Students in category A
Students in category A Students in category B

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 24

Because the graduation rate is a cohort measure, schools should especially be aware that:
1. A school is responsible for students in Category B above if it is their last school of record
even if the students were not enrolled in that school in the 2009 school year.
2. A student may be a member of the 2009 cohort because of an enrollment in ninth grade in
another school regardless of when the student was considered a 9th grader in her current
school.
Safe Harbor. If a school demonstrates a two percentage point improvement in its graduation
rate from the previous year, it is deemed to have met the performance standard. The growth rate
is rounded to the nearest hundredth of a point, e.g. .005 = .01, .004=.00.
Example. Gila Monster High School had a graduation rate in 2009 of 79 percent, less
than the standard of 80 percent. However, its 2008 graduation rate was 77 percent. Gila
Monster High demonstrated an improvement of two percentage points over the previous
year, and so is deemed to have met the requirements for graduation rate.
Special rules. Safe harbor is not determined for schools with a current-year cohort of less than
40. However, if they do not meet the goal in the current year, they are considered to have met
the goal if the weighted average of the graduation rates over the past three years is greater than
80 percent.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 25

8. Calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress for
K-2 Schools
The No Child Left Behind Act requires that a state evaluate all schools. Consequently, an
alternative methodology for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) had to be developed
for schools that did not offer any of the grades in which AIMS is administered. In Arizona, this
group consisted of schools that offered grades two and below.

Meeting the 95 Percent Tested Requirement and Annual Measurable Objectives
Starting in 2008, K-2 schools are evaluated based on all three of the same criteria as all
other schools: whether they meet the annual measurable objectives, percent tested and attendance
rate. Because AIMS is not administered in these schools, the AMO and percent tested
evaluations used the data based on the AMO and percent tested determination of the 3rd grade of
the school to which it sends the plurality of its students.
Example. Desert Primary School feeds three different schools. Most of its students go to
Mountain Elementary School. The AYP evaluation for Desert Primary is based on the 3rd grade
of Mountain Elementary. If Mountain Elementary tests only 93 percent of its 3rd graders, or its
3rd graders fail to make the AMO, then Desert Primary will also not make AYP.
Special rules. For the purposes of AYP, a K-2 school may serve grades higher than grade 2;
however, the sum of all of the enrollments for all grades above 2 may not be greater than 10.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 26

9. Calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress for
Small Schools
The No Child Left Behind Act requires that a state evaluate all schools. Consequently, an
alternative methodology for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) had to be developed
for schools that did not have any grade with 40 students enrolled. All the calculations are done
the same way for small schools as the regular schools. There are two differences: (a) Three years
of data is used in the calculations (b) Small schools do not get safe harbor part of the calculation.
This is explained in detail below.

Meeting the 95 Percent Tested Requirement
For this calculation, the current year percent tested is calculated as well as the three year
average. In the current year, if 95 percent of the students were tested, the school has met the 95
percent requirement. The formula used to calculate the percent tested in the current year is:
Percent Tested =

# tested in 2010
# enrolled in 2010

Data is aggregated across three years to evaluate whether 95 percent of the students were
tested in the past three years. The formula used to calculate percent tested is:
Percent Tested =

# tested in 2008 + # tested in 2009 + # tested in 2010
# enrolled in 2008 + # enrolled in 2009 + # enrolled in 2010

Meeting the Annual Measurable Objectives in Small Schools
Annual measurable objectives are calculated by aggregating data for the past three years.
The same rules are used for excluding students as with other schools. For small schools, there is
no safe harbor because improvement cannot be determined.
The formula used to calculate the percent passing is:
Percent Passing =

# passing in 2008 + # passing in 2009 + # passing in 2010
# tested in 2008 + # tested in 2009 + # tested in 2010

The upper bound of a 99 percent confidence interval is also calculated for small schools.
Please refer to regular school calculations which are discussed in an earlier chapter.

Meeting the Additional Indicator
Additional indicators for small schools are calculated in the same manner as for other
schools, however due to the above differences, these schools may meet the required percentage
level either using the most recent year’s data (2009 for attendance or 2008 for graduation rate) or
a three year average.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 27

10. Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for
School Districts and Charter Holders
The No Child Left Behind Act requires that local education agencies (LEAs), districts
and charter holders, be evaluated for Adequate Yearly Progress. The method for determining
AYP for LEAs is analogous to that used for schools with data being aggregated to the LEA level
as if the LEA were one large school.2 The details of the AYP calculation for LEAs are nearly
identical to that for schools.
LEAs are evaluated for percentage of students passing AIMS, percentage of students
assessed, and a third indicator.
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and the performance goals for percentage of
students assessed, attendance rate, and graduation rate are the same for LEAs as they are
for schools.
The applicable subgroups for AYP evaluation are the same for LEAs as they are for
schools.
Confidence intervals, safe harbor provisions, and minimum group size requirements are
applied to LEA AYP using the same methodology and parameters as for school AYP.
The growth model is applied using the same methodology as for schools. However, since
the regression used to calculate the predicted score is calculated separately at the LEA
and school levels the parameters for the growth model differ at the school and LEA
levels. Consequently, students’ predicted scores and the lower bounds of the predicted
scores used for LEA AYP evaluations may vary from those used for the school AYP
evaluations.
LEA AYP uses a conjunctive model. To make AYP, a LEA must meet all the
performance standards for all subjects, grades, and subgroups that are applicable.

Differences between LEA and School AYP Evaluation Methods
There are three differences between the AYP evaluation method used for LEAs and that
used for schools.
1. Measure of student mobility. NCLB requires that students mobile with respect to an
entity are not included in the AMO part of the AYP evaluation. For a school, this means
excluding students who were not continuously enrolled at that school. LEA level mobility
is determined by whether the student was continuously enrolled in the LEA, even if she
was enrolled in different schools.
2

All statements in this section apply to both districts and charter holders. For the sake of brevity, we use ―district‖
to refer to both types of entities/LEAs.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 28

2. Limit on the number of students with alternative assessment who count toward meeting
the proficiency standard. NCLB mandates that the number of students who take an
alternative assessment who count as being proficient may not be greater than 1 percent of
the total number enrolled in the grades tested. For AYP determinations since 2005,
students who took the AIMS-A are considered to have taken an alternate assessment.
Federal guidance requires that students be treated consistently at all levels of
accountability. Therefore a student who is deemed not proficient because her LEA
exceeded the 1 percent cap will be deemed not proficient when determining if her school
met AYP as well.
Example. In 2009 Gila Monster Elementary District has 1000 students enrolled in
grades three through eight and cohort 2011. Only one percent can be counted as
proficient for AMO for AIMS-A. One percent of 1000 is 10, therefore, if 20 students
took the AIMS-A and 15 of them were proficient, only 10 of them will be counted as
proficient when determining if Gila Monster Elementary District met the AMO. The
other five students will be counted as not proficient.
3. Graduation/Attendance Rates. Graduation rate is used as the third indicator required by
NCLB for unified and high school LEAs. Attendance rate is used for elementary LEAs.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 29

11. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Appeals
Process
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Appeals Process developed by the Arizona
Department of Education (ADE) provides LEAs and schools the opportunity to appeal their AYP
determinations. In accordance with Title I, Section 1116 of the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB), the ADE allows LEAs and schools to appeal their respective AYP determinations
for statistical and/or substantive reasons.

Procedure and Timeline
Step 1: Data Correction. The first step in completing the AYP Appeals Process required all
LEAs and schools to review all data in order to confirm its accuracy. Data correction took place
March 15, 2010 through June 30, 2010. It is important to note that LEAs were solely responsible
for verifying information. If an entity did not verify the information for its LEA and schools
through the correction process, the ADE assumed the data available were correct as listed.
Step 2: Substantive Appeal Submission. Administrators choosing to appeal a LEA or school
AYP determination submitted AYP appeals via e-mail to the Research and Evaluation Section
during the specified appeal window. Substantive appeals were accepted from June 21, 2010
through June 30, 2010.
LEAs and schools were able to appeal AYP determinations in two categories: data
(statistical) and non-data (substantive) reasons – LEAs and schools were not limited to one
category and were able to appeal in both if necessary. Statistical appeals are appeals of the
accuracy of the data used in the AYP determination. Given the extensive time allowed to view
and correct the data, it is expected that any errors should be corrected by the time preliminary
profiles are released. Statistical appeals were not granted unless the underlying data was
corrected. Substantive appeals are arguments by LEAs and schools that that circumstances
outside of the LEA’s/school’s control negatively affected school performance on any of the AYP
indicators.
Administrators that chose to appeal a school or LEA AYP determination must have
clearly articulated the issues they believe merited an appeal. Administrators must have submitted
evidence that the issues they believe merited an appeal directly resulted in a significant decrease
in student academic achievement as demonstrated on the AIMS and/or a decrease in student
participation during the administration of AIMS. The evidence must have been submitted to
ADE at the time the appeal was submitted. Failure to provide this evidence resulted in the appeal
not being granted. Evidence submitted after the appeal deadline closed was not considered.
NOTE: In order to protect student privacy and the integrity of the appeals process,
schools were asked to refer to a specific student only by that student’s SAIS ID. The SAIS ID
was required so that ADE staff could verify the contentions in the appeal.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 30

The ADE, if necessary, requested that a school or LEA administrator provide additional
information/evidence to assist in the appeals process. Only those requests for additional
information that were provided during the specified time-frame allotted were included in the
appeals process. Requests submitted after the specified time-frame were excluded from the
appeals process. Unsolicited additional information submitted after the appeal deadline was not
accepted.
Both school and LEA AYP determinations were separate and distinct. Schools and LEAs
had to submit separate appeals for both if necessary. Appealing the school determination did not
have an impact on the LEA determination or vice versa.
Step 3: Appeal Resolution. After all appeals were submitted and the appeals window
closed, the ADE began to process the appeals. Appeals were addressed categorically, not
necessarily in the order received, so the fact that a school or LEA submitted its appeal during the
first day of the appeal window did not mean it necessarily received a decision first during the
resolution process.
Statistical appeals were resolved only through recalculation of the AYP evaluation by
ADE staff using any corrected data submitted by the school. The purpose of a statistical appeal is
principally to advise ADE staff that data was in error and has been corrected. Calculations
submitted by schools via an appeal were not taken at face value nor used to alter an AYP
evaluation if the underlying data was not corrected.
Substantive appeals were resolved in a committee process. Committee members
represented a diverse background of ADE staff and school administrators to ensure that appeals
were considered from multiple perspectives. Appeals were evaluated using an appeals rubric that
evaluated the significance of the argument presented and how the circumstances presented in the
argument affected the LEA’s or the school’s performance. The committee based their decisions
on the following criteria:
1. Was the circumstance that affected the school outside of its control? Appeals involving
the adverse affect of school or LEA policies; errors made by school or LEA personnel
regarding test administration or data entry; or events whose impact could have been
foreseen and mitigated by school or LEA action were not considered valid appeals.
2. Did the special circumstance actually have an impact on performance? Schools or
LEAs must have shown that the adverse circumstance had a real impact on test scores or
other performance measures.
3. Was this problem one that was recurring and likely to happen in the future? Appeals
regarding recurring events or circumstances, such as student demographics, were not
considered valid.
4. Was the problem eligible for appeal? Arguments that targeted NCLB regulations and
ADE policy were not valid. For example, schools or LEAs could not argue that the 95
percent tested threshold be lowered for their school or that certain subgroups be excluded
from the requirements.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 31

5. Did the LEA or school provide compelling evidence of the circumstance? Compelling
evidence of impact needed to be provided to support all substantive appeals. For
example, if percent of students tested objective was not met, specific details to support
the claim needed to be provided with the appeal at the time it was submitted. Simply
stating ―Students were absent and unable to make up the test‖ was not compelling; the
committee needed to know why the students were unable to make up the test such as
being extremely ill, suspended, incarcerated, or dealing with a family emergency for the
entire test window.
Once all appeals were resolved, notifications were sent to the LEAs and/or schools that
filed appeals. The contact person of record for the LEA/school received an email from Achieve
with directions as to how to access appeal information via the Common Logon when the appeal
had been processed. LEAs and schools were notified before the final public release of the AYP
determinations as to the outcome of the appeal process. All appeals were final.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 32

12. School Improvement and LEA
Improvement Designations
Overview
While all public schools and local education agencies (LEAs) participate in Arizona’s NCLBbased accountability program, AYP results from entities receiving Title I funds are additionally
examined to determine if an entity is required to participate in the ADE School Improvement
Program or LEA Improvement program. Details regarding specific consequences and support
may be found at http://www.ade.az.gov/schooleffectiveness/schoolimprovement. The rules
governing required participation in these programs are distinctive for schools and LEAs and are
explained in the following sections.

School Improvement Program Participation
Title I schools identified for participation in the School Improvement Program participate at one
of the following sequential levels of support:
Warning
Year 1 School Improvement
Year 2 School Improvement
Year 3 School Improvement (Corrective Action)
Year 4 School Improvement (Plan to Restructure)
Year 5 School Improvement (Implement Restructuring Plan)
When a school initially fails to meet AYP requirements, they are identified as being in a
Warning year.
If a school fails to meet one or more identical indicators (i.e., reading3, mathematics4, or the
additional indicator of attendance or graduation rate) for two consecutive years, the school then
advances to the next level of the School Improvement Program.
If a Title I school does not meet AYP for two consecutive years, yet data indicates that the
school has not missed in the same indicator for both years, then the school remains at the
previous level of School Improvement and is considered frozen.
A school must meet all AYP requirements for two consecutive years in order to no longer be
identified for participation in the School Improvement Program.

3

The reading indicator includes meeting the required percent tested in reading and meeting the reading AMO.
Failure to meet either of these will result in the reading indicator not being met.
4
The mathematics indicator includes meeting the required percent tested in mathematics and meeting the
mathematics AMO. Failure to meet either of these will result in the mathematics indicator not being met.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 33

If a school that is participating in the School Improvement Program at a level of Year 1 School
Improvement or beyond meets all AYP requirements, then the school continues to participate in
the School Improvement Program at its current level and is considered frozen until AYP is met
for two consecutive years.
For schools that have been identified at the Warning level, if the school meets all AYP
requirements in the following year, then the school is no longer identified for participation in the
School Improvement Program.
Example One
Consider the example of Desert Water Elementary that by 2006 had been identified at the level
of School Improvement Year 1. In 2006 Desert Water Elementary missed the reading and
attendance indicators. The AYP data for Desert Water Elementary for 2006 and the following
three years were as follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Attendance

2006
not met
met
not met

2007
not met
met
met

2008
met
met
met

2009
met
met
Met

The 2007 data resulted in Desert Water Elementary advancing to the level of School
Improvement Year 2 because the reading indicator had not been met for two consecutive years
(2006 and 2007). In 2008 Desert Water Elementary met all indicators and remained frozen at the
level of School Improvement Year 2. The 2009 data resulted in Desert Water Elementary no
longer being identified for participation in the School Improvement Program because it had met
AYP for two consecutive years.
Example Two
Consider now the example of Watery Desert Elementary that by 2006 had also been identified at
the level of School Improvement Year 1. In 2006 Watery Desert Elementary missed the reading
and attendance indicators. The AYP data for Watery Desert Elementary for 2006 and the
following three years were as follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Attendance

2006
not met
met
not met

2007
not met
met
met

2008
met
not met
not met

2009
met
not met
met

The 2007 data resulted in Watery Desert Elementary advancing to the level of School
Improvement Year 2 because the reading indicator had not been met for two consecutive years
(2006 and 2007). In 2008 Watery Elementary missed the mathematics and the attendance
indicators but it had not missed any one indicator for two consecutive years. Consequently,
Watery Elementary remained at the level of School Improvement Year 2 but was additionally
identified as being frozen. The 2009 data then led to Watery Desert advancing to the level of
Corrective Action because the mathematics indicator had not been met for two consecutive
years.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 34

Example Three
Consider the example of Spruce High School that by 2006 had been identified at the level of
School Improvement Year 1. In 2006 Spruce High School missed the reading and graduation
indicators. The AYP data for Spruce High School for 2006 and the following three years were as
follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Graduation

2006
not met
met
not met

2007
not met
not met
not met

2008
not met
not met
not met

2009
met
met
not met

The 2007 data resulted in Spruce High School advancing to the level of School Improvement
Year 2 because the reading and the graduation indicators had not been met for two consecutive
years (2006 and 2007). Failure to meet either the reading or the graduation indicator in 2007
would have led to Spruce Mountain entering the School Improvement Year 2 level. In 2008
Spruce High School missed all indicators and advanced to the level of Corrective Action. In
2009 although Spruce High School met both the reading and mathematics indicator, the failure to
meet the graduation requirement for two consecutive years (2008 and 2009) led to the school
being identified for the Plan to Restructure level of the School Improvement Program.

LEA Improvement Program Participation
Title I LEAs identified for participation in the LEA Improvement Program participate at one of
the following sequential levels of support:
Year 1 LEA Improvement
Year 2 LEA Improvement
Year 3 LEA Improvement (Corrective Action)
A Title I LEA is identified for LEA Improvement only when it misses AYP in the same subject5
and in all grade spans for two consecutive years, or the other academic indicator (i.e., attendance
or graduation) in all grade spans for two consecutive years. Applicable grade spans are K-5, 6-8,
and 9-12.
Similarly, a Title I LEA advances to the next level of LEA Improvement only when it misses
AYP in the same subject and in all grade spans for two consecutive years, or the other academic
indicator (i.e., attendance or graduation) in all grade spans for two consecutive years.
For LEAs containing both elementary grade spans and the high school grade span, the additional
academic indicator assessed for LEA improvement is graduation rate.

5

The assessed subjects are mathematics and reading. Each subject is assessed separately. Each subject requirement
includes meeting the required percent tested in the subject and meeting the subject AMO. Failing to meet either
percent tested or AMO within a subject results in the subject indicator not being met.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 35

Example 4 (X = indicator not met)
Elem.
Reading

Middle
Reading

H.S.
Reading

Elem.
Math

Middle
Math

H.S.
Math

Elem.

Middle

attendance

attendance

Grad
Rate

Year 1
X
X
X
Year 2
X
X
X
In this example, the LEA has missed AYP in the same subject (reading) across all grade spans for two
consecutive years. Thus, the LEA would be identified for improvement.

Example 5 (X = indicator not met)
Elem.
Reading

Middle
Reading

H.S.
Reading

Elem.
Math

Middle
Math

H.S.
Math

Elem.

Middle

attendance

attendance

Grad
Rate

Year 1
X
X
Year 2
X
X
In this example, the LEA has missed AYP in the graduation indicator for two consecutive years. Thus, the LEA
would be identified for improvement.

Example 6 (X = indicator not met)
Elem.
Reading

Middle
Reading

H.S.
Reading

Elem.
Math

Middle
Math

H.S.
Math

Elem.

Middle

attendance

attendance

Grad
Rate

Year 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
Year 2
X
X
X
X
In this example, the LEA missed AYP in mathematics across all grade spans in Year 1. To be identified for
improvement, the LEA would have to miss AYP across all grade spans in the same subject, mathematics, or
again miss graduation rate, in Year 2. While the LEA missed AYP in middle school mathematics, it did not miss
the AYP targets across all grade spans in mathematics for Year 2. The LEA made the elementary and high school
math targets. Additionally, even though the LEA missed the additional indicator in middle attendance, since it
contains both elementary and high school grade spans, it would need to have missed grad rate in Year 2 to be
identified for improvement in this category. Thus, the LEA is not identified for improvement, but will be reported
as missing AYP.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 36