2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

1.      Ratings model for Arizona schools based on AIMS Baseline performance and AIMS growth

2.      Exempt ELLS and exempt special ed excluded

3. Baseline and growth categories derived relative to state sextiles
4. Credit given for both increasing % of students mastering and decreasing % of students in the lowest (Falls Far Below) category
5. Added evidence derived from AIMS Extended Writing scores and Stanford 9 cohort data, or from graduation and dropout rate (high school)
6. Ratings given as “Underperforming”, “Maintaining Performance”, “Improving”, & “Excelling”

1. Mobile students now excluded
2. Baseline computed on a two rather than one year baseline
3. Added evidence not added to each subject & grade separately, but as a “lump”, and weight in model increased
4. Statuatory language rewritten to allow for more excelling schools
5. Making/not making AYP added as a factor in model
6. Highest two levels subject to additional requirements (i.e., more than just enough total points)
7. Labels changed to “Underperforming”, “Performing”, “Highly Performing”, and “Excelling”

1. Extended writing no longer a part of the added evidence
2. Labeling system for small/new/alternative schools will be used
3. Potential of 3 year consecutive year underperforming (= ”Failing”) schools

Excelling                  1   1%

Improving                 32  32%

Maintaining Performance   47  47%

Underperforming           20  20%

Excelling                 10  11%

Highly Performing         11  12%

Performing                61  65%

Underperforming           12  13%

Excelling                 10   9%

Highly Performing         13  11%

Performing                90  77%

Underperforming            3   3%

Failing                    1   1%

2004-05

1. Baseline one year (2003) and growth two years (2004 & 2005)
2. Added evidence computed (in part) on one year of Terra Nova scores and “normalized”
3. Grades 4, 6 & 7 added with no growth possible
4. Current status made more important
5. New label (Performing Plus) added

Excelling                   7    6%

Highly Performing          16   14%

Performing Plus            36   31%

Performing                 50   43%

Underperforming             8    7%