Arizona’s School
Accountability System
2008
Technical Manual

Tom Horne
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Arizona Department of Education
Volume II: Adequate Yearly Progress
Research & Policy
Arizona Department of Education
Robert Franciosi, Deputy Associate Superintendent
Achieve@azed.gov
Published by the Arizona Department of Education, January 2009.
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 ........................................................................................................................... 4
2. OVERVIEW OF THE NCLB EVALUATION SYSTEM .................................................................... 5
SCHOOLS TO BE EVALUATED ....................................................................................................... 5
PROFICIENCY STANDARDS ........................................................................................................... 5
GROWTH MODEL PILOT ............................................................................................................... 7
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS ASSESSED ........................................................................................ 7
APPLICABLE SUBGROUPS ............................................................................................................. 7
ADDITIONAL INDICATORS OF SCHOOL PERFORMANCE................................................................. 7
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER ......................................................................................................... 8
3. TIMELINE .................................................................................................................................... 9
TIMELINE ..................................................................................................................................... 9
4. MEETING THE ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES FOR PROFICIENCY ................................ 10
CALCULATION OF ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES (AMOS) .............................................. 10
DATA USED ............................................................................................................................... 12
SPECIAL RULES .......................................................................................................................... 13
5. THE GROWTH MODEL.............................................................................................................. 14
SETTING THE GROWTH TARGETS ............................................................................................... 14
DETERMINING IF A STUDENT MEETS THE GROWTH TARGET ...................................................... 14
MEETING THE AMO .................................................................................................................. 16
DATA USED ............................................................................................................................... 16
SPECIAL RULES .......................................................................................................................... 17
6. MEETING THE STANDARD FOR NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED ............................................ 19
CALCULATION ........................................................................................................................... 19
DATA USED ............................................................................................................................... 19
SPECIAL RULES .......................................................................................................................... 19
7. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS OF SCHOOL PERFORMANCE .......................................................... 21
ATTENDANCE RATE ................................................................................................................... 21
GRADUATION RATE ................................................................................................................... 21
8. CALCULATION OF ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS FOR K-2 SCHOOLS ................................. 24
MEETING THE 95 PERCENT TESTED REQUIREMENT AND ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES .. 24
9. CALCULATION OF ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS FOR SMALL SCHOOLS ............................ 25
MEETING THE 95 PERCENT TESTED REQUIREMENT ................................................................... 25
MEETING THE ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES IN SMALL SCHOOLS ................................... 25
MEETING THE ADDITIONAL INDICATOR ..................................................................................... 25
10. DETERMINING ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CHARTER
HOLDERS ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

1

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISTRICT AND SCHOOL AYP EVALUATION METHODS ........................ 26
11. ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) APPEALS PROCESS .................................................. 28
PROCEDURE AND TIMELINE ....................................................................................................... 28
12. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND LEA IMPROVEMENT DESIGNATIONS..................................... 31
OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 31
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ................................................................... 31
LEA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ........................................................................ 33

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

2

List of Tables and Figures
TABLE 1.1 COMPARISON OF ARIZONA’S ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS ............................................. 4
TABLE 2.1 ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES (AMOS) ................................................................ 6
TABLE 2.2 CATEGORIES EVALUATED UNDER NCLB FOR A MIDDLE SCHOOL ................................. 8
TABLE 4.1 RULES FOR DETERMINING UB99 FOR SMALL N AND P .................................................. 11
TABLE 5.1 ANNUAL GROWTH TARGET FOR 4TH GRADE MATH ..................................................... 15
TABLE 5.2 MET ANNUAL GROWTH TARGET FOR ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT ................................. 17

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

3

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 to measure whether students meet these standards.
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.
The purpose of this technical manual is to describe the method Arizona has created to
Table 1.1 Comparison of Arizona’s Accountability Systems
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
AYP
Labels schools on a graded scale:

Labels schools on a yes/no system

Failing to meet academic standards
Underperforming
Performing
Highly performing
Excelling

evaluate schools in order to comply with NCLB. Arizona also has an accountability system
required by state law: AZ LEARNS. The table below briefly compares the two systems.

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 adequate yearly progress (AYP) is determined
for schools and districts. More detailed discussions of the methodology used to determine AYP,
including descriptions of equations, algorithms, and data used are given in subsequent chapters.
The No Child Left Behind Act requires that every public school and district in a state—as
well as the state itself—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, district, or state—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. The state’s system for school accountability,
Arizona LEARNS also 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 ten. The annual measurable objectives
set goals for yearly growth in the percentage of students passing AIMS. To make AYP an entity
must reach the AMOs for both mathematics and reading/language arts in each grade it offers.
The AMOs for Arizona are given in table 2.1 below.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

5

Table 2.1 Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
Grade 3
2008-10
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 4
2008-10
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 5
2008-10
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 6
2008-10
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 7
2008-10
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 8
2008-10
2011
2012
2013
2014
High School
2008-10
2011
2012
2013
2014

Reading AMO (percent
passing)
62.6
71.9
81.2
90.5
100

Math AMO (percent
passing)
54.6
65.9
77.2
88.5
100

56
67
78
89
100

63.2
72.4
81.6
90.8
100

54.6
65.9
77.2
88.5
100

46.6
59.9
73.2
86.5
100

56
67
78
89
100

54.4
65.8
77.2
88.6
100

59.2
69.4
79.6
89.8
100

58.4
68.8
79.2
89.6
100

54.0
65.5
77.0
88.5
100

38.0
53.5
69.0
84.5
100

48.6
61.4
74.2
87.0
100

40
55
70
85
100

There are two additional steps taken when determining if a school 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 to estimate the percent

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

6

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 these refinements will be discussed
in more detail later.

Growth Model Pilot
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.

Percentage of Students Assessed
In order for a school, district, or the state 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 alternative
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, and students from low-income families. A student is identified as being
from a low-income family if SAIS demographic information indicates she is eligible for a free or
reduced lunch. Students are considered program members (ELL, sped, or free or reduced lunch)
if they were enrolled as a member of 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
Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

7

standard schools must meet. To make adequate yearly progress, a high school must have a fouryear graduation rate of 71 percent, or show a 1 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.

Table 2.2 Categories Evaluated Under NCLB for a Middle School
Grade
Subject
Subgroup

All students
African American
Asian-Pacific
Islander
Hispanic
Native American
White
Special Education
English Language
Learner
Low Income
Met Other School
wide Indicator:
Attendance Rate?

Seventh
Math
Reading
Met
Met
Met
Met
95%
AMO?
95%
AMO?
tested?
tested?
Yes/No Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Eighth
Math
Reading
Met
Met
Met
Met
95%
AMO?
95%
AMO?
tested?
tested?
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N

Y/N

Y/N

Y/N

Y/N

Y/N

Y/N

Y/N

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Y/N

Arizona Department of Education

8

3. Timeline
Districts and charter holders 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 allows districts and charter
holders to review the data used in the evaluations.
From February 21, 2008 through May 30, 2008 schools and districts 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 13, 2008 through September 12, 2008 schools and districts
were given an opportunity to review and correct student demographic and program membership
information. 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 districts were required to correct it in the SAIS database.
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://azed.gov/researchpolicy/AIMSResults/.

Timeline
The timeline for the 2008 AYP determinations was:
February 21, 2008.

Start of statistical review and appeals of graduation rate data.

May 30, 2008.

Close of statistical review and appeals of graduation rate data.

May 31, 2008.

Start of verification process for student information.

September 3, 2008.

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

September 12, 2008. Closing of appeals and data correction processes.
October 1, 2008.

Public release of AYP evaluations for all schools and districts.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education

9

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 meets 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 Pass

Number of students meeting or exceeding the standard on AIMS
Number 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 meets an AMO is reliable the
AMO determination is made employing a 99 percent (one-tailed) confidence interval. 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. Twenty-nine 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 35 percent. Since this is greater than the intermediate goal of 32
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 size of the confidence
interval will differ among subgroups.
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 10

confidence intervals for a binomially distributed variable.1 The tables are 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, 20 percent of fifth graders in Gila Monster Elementary passed
the AIMS reading test. The upper bound of the confidence interval was 25
percent, still below the annual measurable objective of 32 percent. However in the
previous year, 10 percent of fifth graders passed the AIMS reading test, thus Gila
Monster Elementary saw a decrease of 11 percent in the percentage failing [(8090)/90 = -11 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 11

2.

In the current year, 20 percent of eighth graders in Javelina Middle School passed
the AIMS reading test. The upper bound of the confidence interval was 27
percent, still below the annual measurable objective of 31 percent. In the previous
year, 15 percent of fifth graders passed the AIMS reading test, thus Javelina
Middle School saw a decrease of only 6 percent in the percentage failing [(8085)/85 = -6 percent]. Even though the attendance rate for Javelina’s eighth 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 eighth grade reading.

3.

In the current year, 30 percent of third graders in Gila Monster Elementary passed
the AIMS reading test. The upper bound of the confidence interval was 40
percent, still below the annual measurable objective of 44 percent. However in the
previous year, 20 percent of third graders passed the AIMS reading test, thus Gila
Monster El. saw an improvement of 13 percent in performance [(70-80)/80 = -13
percent]. However, the attendance rate for Gila Monster’s third grade was 85
percent, less than the standard of 90 percent and identical to last year’s attendance
rate, so Gila Monster’s third graders fail to make AYP in reading.

4.

In the current year, 20 percent of third graders in Saguaro Elementary passed the
AIMS reading test. The upper bound of the confidence interval was 30 percent,
still below the annual measurable objective of 32 percent. However in the
previous year, 10 percent of fifth graders passed the AIMS reading test, thus
Saguaro Elementary saw an improvement of over 11 percent in performance [(8090)/90 = -11 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
11 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 testing date (first day of the testing window for
grades 3 through 8) and were matched to SAIS with valid ID;
Did not take the test with alternate accommodations;
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.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 12

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.

Special Rules
Minimum group size. A group or subgroup is not evaluated if it has 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 13

5. The Growth Model
The approved growth model is calculated for all subgroups for both schools and districts,
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 or who are proficient 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 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.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 14

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

is a normally distributed error term with mean zero and

i

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

PRED it

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.
Table 5.1 Annual Growth Target for 4th Grade Math
rd

Student

3 Grade
Score

A
B
C
D

362
409
456
521

3rd Grade
Performance
Level
FFB
A
M
E

4th Grade
Score
447
456
470
579

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Predicted
4th Grade
Score
417
455
493
546

Standard
Error of
Prediction
4.27
4.27
4.27
4.27

Lower
Bound

Growth
Target

409
447
485
537

407
438
469
513

Met
Growth
Target?
Y
Y
Y
Y

Arizona Department of Education 15

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:
# Students (proficient and non - proficient) meeting growth target
Number 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;

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 16

Did not take the test with alternate accommodations;
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 district 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 17

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 18

6. Meeting the Standard 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, a school must test 95 percent of its students in reading and
mathematics in all grades in which AIMS is administered, and must test 95 percent of its
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. All students who take either the AIMS or AIMS-A and received a
score of FFB or above; were enrolled on the day of testing (on the first day of the testing window
for grades 3 through 8), and were 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. The denominator for the percent tested calculation is enrollment
count at the school level. For grades 3 through 8 the enrollment used for all subjects is the
students enrolled first day of the testing window. For grade 10, enrollment used is for the day the
test was administered. Students are counted in the enrollment of a program subgroup (ELL,
special education, 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
Minimum group size. A group or subgroup is not evaluated if it had less than 40 students
enrolled on the relevant day.
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 2006 # tested in 2007 # tested in 2008
# enrolled in 2006 # enrolled in 2007 # enrolled in 2008

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.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 19

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 20

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 71 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 offered by a school, except for pre-school and kindergarten, 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. Unless a school is determined to be a small school, its’ attendance rate is not
evaluated if it had an ADM of less than 40. Small schools must meet the 90 percent standard
since they do not receive safe harbor calculations. They may however, do so either using the
current year, 2008, or the average of the past three years, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

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 21

Graduation Rate

Number in cohort that graduated in 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 threshold graduation rate was for the
cohort class of 2007, which represents the most recent graduation rate statistics. The graduation
rate for the cohort class of 2006 was used for the determination of safe harbor.
Students are considered a potential member of the cohort of 2007 if:
1. The student enrolled as a 9th grader or ungraded secondary (US) for the first time in the
2004 school year.
2. The student enrolled as a 10th grader or US in the 2005 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 2006 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 2007 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 2007 who have
graduated on or before the beginning of the 2008 school year (defined as September 1, 2008).
They have exit/year end codes of W7, G, S7.
B. Students who remain in the cohort but have not graduated. These are students in the
cohort of 2007 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 W3, W4, W5,
W11, W12, W13, S3, S4, S5, 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 2007
but who have exited the cohort. They have exit/year end codes of W1, W2, W6, W8, W9,
W10, S1, S99, S2, S6, S8, S9, and S10.
Graduation Rate

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

Because the graduation rate is a cohort measure, schools should especially be aware that:

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 22

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 2007 school year.
2. A student may be a member of the 2007 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 one 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 2007 of 69 percent, less
than the standard of 71 percent. However, its 2006 graduation rate was 67 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. Unless a school is determined to be a small school, its graduation rate is not
evaluated if it had a cohort of less than 40. Small schools must meet the 71 percent standard
since they do not receive safe harbor calculations. They may however, do so either using the
current year, 2007, or the average of the past three years, 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 23

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 their graduates in the third grade AIMS. The attendance rate
is based on the current year’s students. As for other schools, the conjunctive model is used. A K2 school has to meet all three criteria, the AMO, the percent tested, and the performance standard
for attendance rate to make AYP.
The Arizona Department of Education has the ability to track students across years. ADE
created rosters of grade 2 students who attended K-2 schools in the 2006-07 school year. It then
determined the school that the plurality of these students attended in 2008. The 2008 AYP
determinations for AMO and percent tested for grade 3 of this matched school were used for the
K-2 school along with its attendance rate.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 24

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 method for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) was 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 with 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 2008
# enrolled in 2008

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 2006 # tested in 2007 # tested in 2008
# enrolled in 2006 # enrolled in 2007 # enrolled in 2008

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

# passed in 2006 # passed in 2007 # passed in 2008
# tested in 2006 # tested in 2007 # tested in 2008

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 (2008 for attendance or 2007 for grad-rate) or a
three year average.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 25

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 districts is analogous to that used for schools with data being aggregated to the district
level as if a district were one large school.2 The details of the AYP calculation for districts are
nearly identical to that for schools.
Districts 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 districts as they
are for schools.
The applicable subgroups for AYP evaluation are the same for districts as they are for
schools.
Confidence intervals, safe harbor provisions, and minimum group size requirements are
applied to district 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 district
and school levels the parameters for the growth model differ at the school and district
levels. Consequently, students’ predicted scores and the lower bounds of the predicted
scores used for district AYP evaluations may vary from those used for the school AYP
evaluations.
District AYP uses a conjunctive model. To make AYP, a district must meet all the
performance standards for all subjects, grades, and subgroups that are applicable.

Differences between District and School AYP Evaluation Methods
There are three differences between the AYP evaluation method used for districts 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 did not start the year at that school. District level mobility is
determined by whether the student started the school year at the district. If the student did
not start the school year at the district, she is excluded from the AMO calculation.
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 26

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 district
exceeded the 1 percent cap will be deemed not proficient when determining if her school
met AYP as well.
Example. Gila Monster Elementary District has 1000 students enrolled in grades
three, five, eight and ten. Only one percent can be counted as proficient for AMO for
AIMS-A. One percent of 1000 is 10, therefore, if 20 students too 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 districts. Attendance rate is used for elementary
districts.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 27

11. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Appeals
Process
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Appeals Process developed by the Arizona
Department of Education (ADE) provides districts 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 districts 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
districts and schools to review all data in order to confirm its accuracy. Data correction took
place February 21, 2008 through September 12, 2008. It is important to note that districts and
charter holders were solely responsible for verifying information. If a district or charter holder
did not verify the information for its district and schools through the correction process, the ADE
assumed the data available were correct as listed.
Step 2: Appeal Application. Administrators choosing to appeal a district or school AYP
determination completed the AYP Appeal Application, which was accessible via the common
logon during the specified appeal window. Appeals were only accepted through the website
application. Appeals sent to ADE via email, fax, or mail/delivery were not accepted.
Districts and schools were able to appeal AYP determinations in two categories: data
(statistical) and non-data (substantive) reasons – districts 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 districts and schools that that circumstances
outside of the district’s/school’s control negatively affected school performance on any of the
AYP indicators.
Administrators that chose to appeal a district or school 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. Once
appeals were submitted through the Common Logon, the school/district/charter holder received
an email verifying that the appeal was received.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 28

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.
The ADE, if necessary, requested that a district or school administrator provide additional
information/evidence to assist in the appeals process. Only those requests for additional
information that were provided during the specified timeframe allotted were included in the
appeals process. Requests submitted after the specified timeframe were excluded from the
appeals process. Unsolicited additional information submitted after the appeal deadline was not
accepted.
Both district and school AYP determinations were separate and distinct. Districts and
schools had to submit separate appeals for both if necessary. Appealing the school determination
did not have an impact on the district 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 district or school 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 district’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 district policies; errors made by school or district
personnel regarding test administration or data entry; or events whose impact could have
been foreseen and mitigated by school or district action were not considered valid
appeals.
2. Did the special circumstance actually have an impact on performance? Schools or
districts 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.

Arizona’s Accountability System: Volume II

Arizona Department of Education 29

4. Was the problem eligible for appeal? Arguments that targeted NCLB regulations and
ADE policy were not valid. For example, districts or schools 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 district 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 districts and/or schools that
filed appeals. The contact person of record for the district/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. Districts 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 30

12. School Improvement and LEA Improvement
Designations
Overview
While all public schools and local education agencies (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 at http://azed.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 indicate that the school
has not missed any 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 31

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 2005 had been identified at the level
of School Improvement Year 1. In 2005 Desert Water Elementary missed the reading and
attendance indicators. The AYP data for Desert Water Elementary for 2005 and the following
three years were as follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Attendance

2005
not met
met
not met

2006
not met
met
met

2007
met
met
met

2008
met
met
met

The 2006 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
(2005 and 2006). In 2007 Desert Water Elementary met all indicators and remained frozen at the
level of School Improvement Year 2. The 2008 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 2005 had also been identified at
the level of School Improvement Year 1. In 2005 Watery Desert Elementary missed the reading
and attendance indicators. The AYP data for Watery Desert Elementary for 2005 and the
following three years were as follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Attendance

2005
not met
met
not met

2006
not met
met
met

2007
met
not met
not met

2008
met
not met
met

The 2006 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
(2005 and 2006). In 2007 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 2008 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 32

Example Three
Consider the example of Spruce High School that by 2005 had been identified at the level of
School Improvement Year 1. In 2005 Spruce High School missed the reading and graduation
indicators. The AYP data for Spruce High School for 2005 and the following three years were as
follows:
Indicator
Reading
Mathematics
Graduation

2005
not met
met
not met

2006
not met
not met
not met

2007
not met
not met
not met

2008
met
met
not met

The 2006 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 (2005 and 2006). Failure to meet either the reading or the graduation indicator in 2006
would have led to Spruce Mountain entering the School Improvement Year 2 level. In 2007
Spruce High School missed all indicators and advanced to the level of Corrective Action. In
2008 although Spruce High School met both the reading and mathematics indicator, the failure to
meet the graduation requirement for two consecutive years (2007 and 2008) 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 33

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 34