Arizona’s School
Accountability System 2011
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, January 2012.
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.

Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Overview of the NCLB Evaluation System .............................................................................................. 6
Schools to be Evaluated ............................................................................................................................ 6
Proficiency Standards ................................................................................................................................ 6
Growth Model ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Percentage of Students Assessed .......................................................................................................... 9
Applicable Subgroups ................................................................................................................................ 9
Additional Indicators of School Performance ............................................................................... 10
Putting it All Together ............................................................................................................................ 10
3. Timeline ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
Timeline ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
4. Meeting the Annual Measurable Objectives for Proficiency ........................................................ 13
Calculation of Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) .............................................................. 13
Data Used ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Special Rules ............................................................................................................................................... 15
5. The Growth Model ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Setting the Growth Targets ................................................................................................................... 17
Determining If a Student Meets the Growth Target .................................................................... 17
Meeting the AMO ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Data Used ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Special Rules ............................................................................................................................................... 20
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 in Small Schools .............................................. 27
Meeting the Annual Measurable Objectives in Small Schools ................................................. 27
Meeting the Additional Indicator ....................................................................................................... 28
10. Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for Districts and Charter Holders ........................ 29
Differences Between LEA and School AYP Evaluation Methods ............................................ 29
11. Adequate Yearly Progress Appeals Process .................................................................................... 31
Procedure and Timeline ........................................................................................................................ 31
12. School Improvement and LEA Improvement Designations ...................................................... 34
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 34
School Improvement Program Participation ................................................................................. 34
LEA Improvement Program Participation ...................................................................................... 36
2
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

List of Tables
Table 1.1 Comparison of Arizona's Accountability Systems for 2011.............................................. 5
Table 2.1 Arizona Annual Measurable Objectives .................................................................................... 8
Table 2.2 Categories Evaluated Under NCLB for a Middle School ..................................................11
Table 4.1. Rules for Determining UB99 for Small n and p. .................................................................14
Table 5.1 Annual Growth Target for 4th Grade Math .............................................................................18
Table 5.2 Met Annual Growth Target for Alternate Assessment ......................................................20

3
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 schools
districts, including charter schools (LEAs). 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, and 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. AZ 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
here:
http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/files/2011/07/conappaypwb-10_07_06.pdf.

4
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

Table 1.1 Comparison of Arizona's Accountability Systems for 2011

NCLB
Required by federal law

AZ 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 school on a yes/no system

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

5
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 (LEA) 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. State may select an alternative indicator for
elementary schools. Arizona, along with many other states, has chosen attendance
rate for the third indicator for elementary schools.
If an entity - school or LEA - passes on all three measures, then it is deem to have
met adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Schools to be Evaluated
All schools - including extremely small schools, new schools, and school that only
serve grades K-2 - must receive an AYP determination. Similarly, the state's system for
school accountability, AZ 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 determination based on the same criteria.
Schools that do not have any grade with 40 students enrolled are considered small
schools. The calculation of AYP for these schools is described in chapter nine of this
document.

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 (at the high school level, AIMS is administered in the 10th grade). The
annual measurable objectives describe yearly growth in fractions of students passing AIMS.
These objectives are necessary for Arizona to reach the 100 percent passing requirement
by 2013-2014. To make AYP, an entity must reach the AMOs for both mathematics and
6
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

reading/language arts in each grade it serves. If an entity fails to reach an AMO, it still may
be deemed to have met 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.
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 proficient students 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 for the 2010-2011
school year.
The AMOs for Arizona are given in table 2.1 below.

7
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

Table 2.1 Arizona Annual Measurable Objectives
Reading AMO
Math AMO
Grade 3
(percent passing)
(percent passing)
2011
71.9
65
2012
81.2
77
2013
90.5
88
2014
100
100
Grade 4
2011
67
63
2012
78
75
2013
89
88
2014
100
100
Grade 5
2011
65.9
58
2012
77.2
72
2013
88.5
86
2014
100
100
Grade 6
2011
67
57
2012
78
72
2013
89
86
2014
100
100
Grade 7
2011
69.4
58
2012
79.6
72
2013
89.8
86
2014
100
100
Grade 8
2011
65.5
58
2012
77.0
72
2013
88.5
86
2014
100
100
High School
2011
61.4
61
2012
74.2
74
2013
87.0
87
2014
100
100

8
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 are 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 ADE for an additional indicator. Both 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. 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.

Percentage of Students Assessed
In order for a school or LEA to meet AYP, 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 on 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 AMOs for all
subject and grade combinations it encompasses, an entity must also meet the same
objectives for every applicable subgroup within each subject/grade combination. NCLB
9
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

specifies the following subgroups be evaluated: the five major ethnic groups - Hispanic,
White, African American, 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 considered members of a program (SPED, ELL, 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. To meet 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. To meet AYP, elementary
schools must have a school-wide attendance rate of 90 percent, or show a 1 percentagepoint 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.

10
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

Table 2.2 Categories Evaluated Under NCLB for a Middle School
Grade
Seventh
Eighth
Subject
Math
Reading
Math
Reading
Subgroup
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?

11
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

3. Timeline
Districts and charter holders (Local Education Agencies - LEAs) are solely
responsible for submitting the data necessary for calculating AYP determinations 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 are carried out.
From April 27, 2011 through June 30, 2011, 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, their testing data through the Common Logon on the ADE
website, and their student demographic information, including program membership, and
student activity codes. All data relevant to AYP evaluations was 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 student 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 AYP evaluation 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.azed.gov/research-evaluation/aims-assessmentresults/.

Timeline
The timeline for the 2011 AYP determinations was:
April 27, 2011
April 27, 2011
April 27, 2011
June 15, 2011
June 15, 2011
June 30, 2011
July 27, 2011

Start of statistical review and appeals of the graduation rate data.
Start of testing data verification process.
Start of statistical review and appeals of demographic information.
Start of substantive appeals submission process.
Preliminary release of AYP evaluations for all schools and LEAs.
End of all data verification and correction and appeals processes.
Public release of AYP evaluations for all schools and LEAs.

12
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

4. Meeting the Annual Measurable Objectives for Proficiency
Calculation of Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
This section describes the calculation used to determine if a school 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 AIMS 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 68 percent. Since this is greater than the AMO of 65 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 of 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.
13
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

The equation is an approximation of the confidence interval for a binomially
distributed variable. It uses the 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 confidence intervals for a binomially distributed variable.1 The tables were applied
using the rules given in table 4.1. 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 ≥ 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 ≥ 55 and n < 60, and
p = 0.00, UB99 = 0.10
If n ≥ 60 and n < 100 and
p = 0.00, UB99 = 0.09
If n ≥ 100 and n < 200 and
p = 0.00, UB99 = 0.06
If n ≥ 200 and
p = 0.00, UB99 = 0.00

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

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 must
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.
For example:

1

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

14
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

In 2011, 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
AMO of 54.6 percent. However, in the previous year, 40 percent of the 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.

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 2013 for 2011 test dates) or the first day of the testing window
(grades 3 through 8) and were matched to SAIS with a valid SAIS ID;



Were enrolled in the school for the full academic year (FAY). A student was
considered FAY 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;



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 calculations. 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.

15
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 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.
For example, in an ELL subgroup of 50 students, 45 of which were enrolled in the ELL
program and 5 were former ELL students, this subgroup will be evaluated. If an ELL
subgroup of 50 students has 35 enrolled in the ELL program and 15 former ELL students, it
will not be evaluated.

16
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 grade 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 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 2007. The passing
score on the 6th grade math test is 496. The student's match score must improve 31 points
each year -- (496 - 402)/ (6-3) = 94/3 = 31-- for him to reach proficiency by 6th 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

Scalscorit

is the scale score of student I on the AIMS test for the current year.
Scalscori ,t 1
is the scale score of student I on the AIMS for the previous year.
17
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

j is the fixed effect for school j;  i is a normally distributed error term with mean zero and
standard deviation  .
The estimated coefficients are then used to generate predicted scores, PREDit, for each
student:

PRED it  ˆ j  ˆ Scalscori ,t 1 .
Also estimated is the standard error of the prediction: SEPRED it. 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  hi s 2



where hi  xi X  X  xi ; X is the matrix of regressors, xi is the ith row of X, and s2 is the
mean squared error.
1

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.
3rd
Student
A
B
C
D

Grade
Score
362
409
456
521

Table 5.1 Annual Growth Target for 4th Grade Math
Grade
4th
Predicted Standard
Lower
Performance
Grade
4th Grade
Error of
Bound
Level
Score
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
3rd

Growth
Target
407
438
469
513

Met
Growth
Target?
Y
Y
Y
Y

18
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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

ˆ j  123.26;
ˆ  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, the subgroup 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 a
valid SAIS ID;
Were not recently arrived English language learners (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 prior to 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.
19
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov




Did not take the test with alternate accommodations;
Were enrolled for the full academic year (FAY). A student was considered FAY 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; non-proficient students are considered not to 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, the 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 the 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.
Alternate tests. Students who take the AIMS-A are included in the growth model. Students
who move up a performance level are considered to have 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
FFB
N
Y
Y
A
N
N
Y
M
N
N
Y
E
N
N
N

E
Y
Y
Y
Y

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.

20
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 meet 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:
Number of students tested
Number of students enrolled
The fraction of percent tested is rounded to two digits, e.g.: .941=.94; .946=.95.
Percent Tested 

Data Used
Number of students tested. A student is counted as tested if she took either the AIMS or
AIMS-A and received a score of FFB or above; was enrolled on the spring testing date (for
high school) or the first day of the testing window (grades 3 through 8); and was matched
to SAIS with a valid SAIS ID number. Students who receive a score of Did Not Attempt
(DNA) or took the test with alternate accommodations are not counted as tested.
Number of students enrolled. A student is counted as enrolled if she is enrolled on the
first day of the testing window (for grades 3 through 8) or on the specified test day (for
high school). For high school, enrollment used is the number of students in the specified
graduation cohort (cohort 2013 for 2011 test dates) for the day the test was administered.
Students are counted in the enrollment of a program (SPED, ELL, Low SES) 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 percent tested
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 tenth grade are not included.
Minimum group size. A group or subgroup is not evaluated if it has less than 40 students
enrolled on the relevant day. A sample size of 40 was considered large enough to provide
statistically meaningful results.

21
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 2009 + # tested in 2010 + # tested in 2011
# enrolled in 2009 + # enrolled in 2010 + # enrolled in 2011

If the three-year average is greater than or equal to 95 percent, 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.

22
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 standards. The law requires that graduation rate be used as 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 meet 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.: .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.
Special rules. Safe harbor is not determined for schools with an ADM of less than 40.
However, if the school does not meet the goal in the current year, it is 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:
23
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 AZ LEARNS. The graduation rate in 2011 was for the
cohort class of 2010, which represents the most recent graduation rate available, with
growth being measured against the graduation rate for the cohort class of 2009.
Students are considered a potential member of the 2010 cohort if:
1. The student was enrolled in 9th grade or ungraded secondary (US) for the first time
in the 2006-2007 school year.
2. The student was enrolled in 10th grade or US in the 2007-2008 school year, and was
not previously enrolled in a high school grade (9-12, US).
3. The student was enrolled in 11th grade or US in the 2008-2009 school year, and was
not previously enrolled in a high school grade (9-12, US).
4. The student was enrolled in 12th grade or US in the 2009-2010 school year, and was
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 2010 cohort who have
graduated on or before the beginning of the 2011 school year (defined as September 1,
2011). 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 2010 cohort who remained in school but did not graduate, 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 cohort
2010 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

24
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 the last school of
record even if the students were not enrolled in that school in the 2010 school
year.
2. A student may be a member of the 2010 cohort because of an enrollment in
ninth grade in another school regardless of when the student was considered a
ninth 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.
Special rules. Safe harbor is not determined for schools with a current-year cohort of
less than 40. However, if the school does not meet the goal in the current year, it is
considered to have met the goal if the weighted average of the graduation rates over the
past three years is greater than 80 percent.

25
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 AYP had to be developed for
schools that do not offer any of the grades in which AIMS is administered. In Arizona, this
group consists of schools that offer 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 serves grades K-2. It feeds three different schools. Most
of its students go to Mountain Elementary School. The AYP evaluation for Desert Primary
School 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 meet the AMO, then Desert
Primary will also not meet 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.

26
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 AYP had to be developed for
schools that do not have any grade with 40 or more students enrolled. There are two
differences in the calculations for small schools as compared to the calculations for regular
schools:
a) Three years of data is used in the calculations;
b) Small schools do not receive the safe harbor portion of the calculations. This is
explained in detail below.

Meeting the 95 Percent Tested Requirement in Small Schools
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 requirement. The formula used to calculate the percent tested in the current year
is:
Percent Tested =

# tested in 2011
# enrolled in 2011

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
across three years is:
Percent Tested =

# tested in 2009 + # tested in 2010 + # tested in 2011
# enrolled in 2009 + # enrolled in 2010 + # enrolled in 2011

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 to calculate percent passing is:
Percent Passing =

# passing in 2009 + # passing in 2010 + # passing in 2011
# tested in 2009 + # tested in 2010 + # tested in 2011

The upper bound of a 99 percent confidence interval is also calculated for small
schools. Please refer to chapter 4 of this document for further details on this calculation.
27
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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
percentages either using the most current year's data (2011 for attendance or 2010) for
graduation rate) or a three-year average. Please refer to chapter 7 of this document for
further details on the three-year average calculations for attendance rate and graduation
rate. Please be aware that safe harbor is not used for the additional indicator for small
schools.

28
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

10. Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for Districts and
Charter Holders
The No Child Left Behind Act requires that local education agencies (LEAs), districts
and charter holders, be evaluated for AYP. 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
the calculations 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 calculations using the same methodology and parameters as
for school AYP calculations.
The growth model is applied using the same methodology as for schools. However,
since the regression used to calculate the predicted scores is calculated separately at
the LEA and school levels, the parameters for the growth model differ at the LEA
and school levels. Consequently, students' predicted scores and the lower bounds of
the predicted scores used for LEAs may vary from those used for schools.
LEA AYP uses a conjunctive model. To meet AYP, an LEA must meet all the
performance standards for all applicable subjects, grades, and subgroups.

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 portion 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 the student was enrolled in different schools.
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
2

All statements in this section apply to both districts and charter holders. For the sake of brevity, we use the term
"LEA".

29
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 alternative assessment. Federal guidance requires that students be treated
consistently at all levels of accountability. Therefore, a student who is deemed not
proficient because the LEA exceeded the 1 percent cap will be deemed not proficient
when determining if the school met AYP as well.
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.

30
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

11. Adequate Yearly Progress Appeals Process
The 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, 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 from April 27, 2011 through June 30, 2011. It is important to note that LEAs were
solely responsible for verifying information. If an entity did not very the information for its
LEA and schools through the correction process, the ADE assumed the data available were
correct.
Step 2: Substantive Appeal Submission. Administrators choosing to appeal LEA or school
AYP determination submitted appeals vial the online appeals application during the
specified appeals window. Substantive appeals were accepted from June 15, 2011 through
June 30, 2011.
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 circumstances outside of the control of the entity negatively affected school
performance on any of the AYP indicators.
Administrators that chose to appeal an AYP determination for a school or LEA 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 number.
31
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

The SAIS ID number was required so that ADE staff could verify the contentions in the
appeal.
The ADE, if necessary, requested that a school or LEA administrator provide
additional information or evidence to assist in the appeals process. Only those requests for
additional information that were provided during the specified timeframe were included in
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 they were 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 a
rubric that evaluated the significance of the argument presented and how the
circumstances presented in the argument affected the entity's performance. The
committee based its decisions on the following criteria:
1. Was the circumstance that affected the entity 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? Entities
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 like to happen in the future?
Appeals regarding recurring events or circumstances, such as student
demographics, were not considered valid.
32
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

4. Was the problem eligible for appeal? Arguments that targeted NCLB regulations
and ADE policy were not considered 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.
5. Did the entity provide compelling evidence of the circumstance? Compelling
evidence of impact needed to be provided to support all substantive appeals. For
example, if the 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 schools that
filed appeals. The contact person of record for the entity received an email from Achieve
when the appeal had been processed. Entities were notified no later than July 22, 2011 of
the outcome of the appeals process. The final public release of the AYP determinations
occurred on July 27, 2011. All appeals were final.

33
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

12. School Improvement and LEA Improvement Designations
Overview
While all public schools and LEAs participate in Arizona's NCLB-based
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 on the ADE website:
http://www.azed.gov/improvement-intervention/school-improvement/. 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, it is identified as being in 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 Plan.
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.
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
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.

34
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

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 1:
Consider the example of Desert Water Elementary that, by 2007, had been identified
at the level of Year 1 School Improvement. In 2007, Desert Water Elementary missed the
reading and attendance indicators. The AYP data for Desert Water Elementary for 2007
and the following three years were as follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Attendance

2007
not met
met
not met

2008
not met
met
met

2009
met
met
met

20010
met
met
met

The 2008 data resulted in Desert Water Elementary advancing to the level of Year 2
School Improvement because the reading indicator had not been met for two consecutive
years (2007 and 2008). In 2009, Desert Water Elementary met all indicators and remained
frozen at the level of Year 2 School Improvement. The 2010 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 2:
Watery Desert Elementary was also identified at the level of Year 1 School
Improvement by 2007. In 2007, Watery Desert Elementary missed the reading and
attendance indicators. The AYP data for Watery Desert Elementary for 2007 and the
following three years were as follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Attendance

2007
not met
met
not met

2008
not met
met
met

2009
met
not met
not met

2010
met
not met
met

The 2008 data resulted in Watery Desert Elementary advancing to the level of Year
2 School Improvement because the reading indicator had not been met for two consecutive
years (2007 and 2008). In 2009, Water Desert Elementary missed the mathematics and
attendance indicators but it had not missed any one indicator for two consecutive years.
Consequently, Water Desert Elementary remained at the level of Year 2 School
Improvement but was additionally identified as being frozen. The 2010 data then led to
Watery Desert Elementary advancing to the level of Corrective Action because the
mathematics indicator had not been met for two consecutive years.
35
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

Example 3:
Spruce High School had been identified at the level of Year 1 School Improvement by
2007. In 2007, Spruce High School missed the reading and graduation rate indicators. The
AYP data for Spruce High School for 2007 and the following three years were as follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Graduation

2007
not met
met
not met

2008
not met
met
not met

2009
not met
not met
not met

2010
met
met
not met

The 2008 data resulted in Spruce High School advancing to the level of Year 2 School
Improvement because the reading and the graduation rate indicators have not been met for
two consecutive years (2007 and 2008). Failure to meet either the reading or the
graduation rate indicator in 2008 led to Spruce High School entering the Year 2 School
Improvement level. In 2009, Spruce High School missed all indicators and advanced to the
level of Corrective Action. In 2010, although Spruce High School met both the reading and
mathematics indicators, the failure to meet the graduation rate requirement for two
consecutive years (2009 and 2010) 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 rate) in all grade pans 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, of the
other academic indicator (i.e., attendance rate or graduation rate) in all grade spans for two
consecutive years.

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.

36
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

For LEAs containing both elementary grades spans and the high school grade span,
the additional indicator assessed for LEA Improvement is graduation rate.
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.

37
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov

38
Research and Evaluation1535 West JeffersonPhoenix, Arizona 85007602-542-5151www.azed.gov