The purpose of this Commissioner’s Memo is to provide information regarding the implementation of the 1.0 percent cap for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP). The 1.0 percent cap file will be posted during the data discrepancy/corrections process. If districts do not respond during the data discrepancy/corrections timeframe, NORMES will count or exclude students in this category based on order in the data set. The districts will have an opportunity to make corrections on appeal if corrections are not submitted during the official corrections window. See Commissioner’s Memo COM-07-128, dated May 21, 2007, for the corrections tentative timeline.
Part I of this Commissioner’s Memo provides an overview of the 1.0 percent cap. Part II of this Commissioner’s Memo outlines the process that will be used to implement the 1.0 percent cap.
Part I: Overview of the 1.0 Percent Cap
What is the 1.0 percent cap?
States have the flexibility to count the proficient and advanced* scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternate assessment as long as the number of the proficient scores does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed. The 1.0 percent cap is applied at the district level, not the school level. The 1.0 percent cap does not restrict the number of students who may participate in an alternate assessment. It does limit the number of proficient and advanced scores that may be used in the calculation of AYP. All scores outside the 1.0 percent cap will be calculated as not proficient for purposes of determining AYP.
(*Students scoring at the functional independence and independent levels.)
How is the 1.0 percent cap calculated?
The 1.0 percent cap is based on the number of students enrolled in the tested grades. The number of students in a tested grade is based on enrollment at the time of testing.
What principles should guide the implementation of the 1.0 percent cap?
First, regardless of how an individual student’s score is treated in AYP calculations, the parent must be informed of the actual academic achievement level earned by the student. Second, all scores based on the alternate assessment must be included in the school, LEA, and State AYP calculations. Moreover, individual student’s score used for calculating AYP must remain the same at each level of the educational system – school, LEA, and State, and for each subgroup of which the student is a member for which AYP is calculated.
For additional information on the 1.0 percent cap, go to http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc
Part II: Directions for Determining Proficient Scores for AYP 1.0 Percent Cap Purposes
1) Run the 2007 SPED 1% Report available on the NORMES ED.STATS portal, 2006/07 AR Analysis Reports tab under ‘District Reports’.
i) If the report indicates the district has exceeded the maximum of 1.0 percent of alternately assessed students’ scoring Functional Independence or Independent, proceed to step two of the directions.
ii) If the district did not exceed the 1.0 percent cap, then proceed to the 2007 Discrepancy Reports to assess the extent of the corrections schools may want to submit prior to AYP calculations.
2) Download the file ‘SPED_Proficient_LIT07.csv’ and the file ‘SPED_Proficient_Math07.csv’ from the NORMES ED.STATS portal.
i) NOTE: If the district did not exceed the 1.0 Percent Cap, there will not be a data set available. If the district did not exceed the 1.0 Percent Cap, the .csv will produce an error message with zero (0) observations.
3) Indicate which students’ proficiency (Functional Independence/Independent) category will be counted in AYP calculations.
a) Insert a ‘1’ in column G to include this proficient (Functional Independence/Independent) score in the 1.0 percent significant cognitive disability cap for AYP purposes. Students with a ‘1’ in Column G will be counted proficient for the school’s AYP calculations.
b) Insert a (zero) ‘0’ in column G to exclude this proficient (Functional Independence/Independent) score from the 1.0 percent significant cognitive disability cap for AYP purposes. Students with a (zero) ‘0’ in Column G will not be counted proficient for the school’s AYP calculations.
c) See the example on the attachment. Please note: students from one school cannot be counted for another school.
3. Repeat the procedure (if necessary) for SPED_proficient_MATH07.csv
4. Submit the datasheets to NORMES at email@example.com by the 2007 Discrepancy Report corrections due date.
As stated above, Commissioner’s Memo COM-07-128, dated May 21, 2007, provided a tentative timeline for the release of the 2007 school improvement reports based on the 2006-2007 assessments. The 1.0 Percent Cap process will be posted with the data discrepancy/corrections. Please be aware that a Commissioner’s Memo will be released alerting districts/schools that the data discrepancy/corrections including the 1.0 Percent Cap data have been posted to ED.STATS.