Office of Finance & Management

ESEA Consolidated State Application

PART II: STATE ACTIVITIES TO IMPLEMENT ESEA PROGRAMS

Describe the State’s system of standards, assessments, and accountability and provide evidence that it meets the requirements of the ESEA. In doing so –

The purpose of any effective instructional design is to 1) determine what body of knowledge all students should know, 2) assess the degree to which students have learned that knowledge, 3) provide feedback to educators as to the effectiveness of instruction, and 4) provide resources for educators to improve their teaching. The programs outlined in Part II below will demonstrate a comprehensive plan as to how South Dakota will reach these goals. The tenets set forth in NCLB require that states are "…responsible for having strong academic standards for what every child should know and learn in reading, math, and science for elementary, middle and high schools." It also requires them "…to set standards for student achievement, and hold students, teachers and other educators accountable for results." The plan set forth in the following pages reaches these objectives.
 

1. The June 2002 submission, provide a timeline of major milestones, for either:
   --adopting challenging content standards in reading/language arts and mathematics at each grade level for grades 3 through 8, consistent with section 1111(b)(1) or
   --disseminating grade-level expectations for reading/language arts and mathematics for grades 3 through 8 to LEAs and schools if the State’s academic content standards cover more than one grade level.

   The South Dakota Board of Education adopted challenging content standards in K-12 reading/language arts and mathematics on l5 December 1998. These standards meet the requirements of 1111(b)(1).

   A set of content standards is available for each grade, K-8. The high school standards are currently organized into a single 9-12 span for each content area (note the exception below in paragraph 3).

   In November 2000 the state board initiated a review process for the content standards in South Dakota. It began on January 2002. (See attachment 1) The decision to review and update the standards, including the timetable, was made independently of the yet-to-be enacted No Child Left Behind Act. The process established by the state board calls for each set of core content standards--language arts/reading, mathematics, science and social studies—to be reviewed in a cycle that extends across the next four years. South Dakota has an expectation that these rigorous and challenging standards are applicable to all students enrolled in the public schools of the state including, but not limited to, LEP and IEP students.

   Pursuant to state board action a 24-member Language Arts Content Standards Revision Team has been appointed and met for the first time on 30 April 2002. Dr. Jan Sheinker, private consultant, was contracted to provide overall leadership and guidance throughout the four year review cycle. Language Arts/Reading is the first set of content standards to be reviewed in the cycle, followed by mathematics, science, and social studies. A decision has been made that the review work will include re-grouping the 9-12 high school standards in each content area into a core set of expectations for each grade, i.e. 9^th grade language arts/reading content standards, 10^th grade language arts/reading content standards, 11^th grade language arts/reading content standards, 12^th grade language arts/reading content standards. High school mathematics, science and social studies standards will likewise be re-grouped as the review proceeds through the four-year cycle.
     

2. In the June 2002 submission, provide a timeline of major milestones, for adopting challenging academic content standards in science that meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(1).
    
   The South Dakota Board of Education adopted challenging science standards K-12, on 22 June 1999. These standards meet the requirements of 1111(b)(1). A set of content standards is available for each grade, K-8. The high school standards are currently organized into a single 9-12 span for each content area . These standards will be reviewed beginning in January, 2004, per the cycle and timelines established by the state board for review of content standards (previously described in section a).
    
3. In the June 2002 submission, provide a timeline of major milestones for the development and implementation, in consultation with LEAs, of assessments that meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(3) in the required subjects and grade levels.

   Goals of the SD Assessment System under NCLB

   The goals and structure of the South Dakota system of assessments, as applied to NCLB, are being developed without benefit of final regulations and guidance from USED. Therefore, there is a possibility that modifications will be made to the assessment plan in order to fully comply with final regulations and guidance, when available.

   The SAT 9, the Dakota Assessment of Content Standards, and the Stanford Writing assessment combine to form South Dakota’s assessment system. The state will be seeking revision of its current assessment law so that the required grades and tests more closely match the requirements of NCLB. Currently, the test administration pattern in South Dakota is:

   SAT 9: complete battery in grades 2, 4, 8, 11;
   DACS: reading and mathematics in grades 3, 6, and 10;
   Stanford Writing: grades 5 and 9.

   Legislative revisions will be drafted and introduced to the 2003 Legislature that will require uniform administration of the tests in the DACS online system in grades 3-8 and grade 10. The state will continue to "spot check" student performance against a national norm group via the SAT 9 in grades 2-4-8-11, and via the Stanford Writing assessment in grades 5 and 9. South Dakota will also add administration of the NAEP tests to its system in school year 2002-2003.

   Utilizing the assessment pattern that currently exists in state law, the SEA has undertaken work to align the reading/language arts and mathematics tests from each of these systems to the South Dakota Content Standards. A weighted formula that uses the scores from all three assessments to calculate AYP is used to rank schools and disaggregated groups. Test score data from combined grades will be calculated together via the weighted formula to determine AYP as follows:

   • Elementary reporting span will include Grade 3 DACS, Grade 4 SAT 9 and Grade 5 Writing;
   • Middle school reporting span will include Grade 6 DACS, Grade 8 SAT 9 and Grade 9 Writing;
   • The high school reporting span will include Grade 9 Writing, Grade 10 DACS and Grade 11 SAT 9.

   An initial AYP starting point will be determined for reading and mathematics; annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals will be set with the first increase to take place in 2003-2004. The intermediate goals will occur at three-year intervals. The goal will be to ensure that all students meet or exceed the Proficient level in 12 years. Each student group must meet the statewide achievement goal for a school to make AYP. If a group does not meet the State goal, the school can be considered to have made AYP if the percentage of students in that group not reaching the proficient level falls by at least 10 percent and that subgroup has made progress on one or more of the other academic indicators mentioned below. This is known as the Safe Harbor Provision. Only students who have been in schools in a district for a full academic year will be counted toward LEA’s AYP.

   Students with disabilities have and will continue to participate in the South Dakota Assessment system with reasonable adaptations and accommodations. An extensive coding system has been developed to accommodate students with disabilities. South Dakota has also developed an alternate assessment for students with disabilities called Statewide Team-Led Alternate Assessment and Reporting System (S.T.A.A.R.S.) This assessment gives students the opportunity to demonstrate their progress in meeting goals linked to appropriate South Dakota Content Standards. Score reporting of students taking the alternate assessment is being researched at this time to ensure their inclusion in LEA’s AYP. Limited English proficient students have and will continue to participate in the South Dakota Assessment system with reasonable adaptations and accommodations. Any LEP student who has been a student in United States schools for three years will be required to take South Dakota assessments in English.

   Achievement standards have been developed and approved by the South Dakota Board of Education in the areas of reading and math. These documents are referred to as "performance descriptors," and describe each level of proficiency in relation to the SD Content Standards.

   In addition to assessment data graduation rates will be used as an AYP indicator at the secondary level and attendance data will be used at the elementary and middle school level. South Dakota has unique student identification numbers for all students K-12 and a comprehensive data collection system called DDN Campus. Utilizing DDN Campus will allow for all required disaggregation and will be used to ensure that 95% or more of all students are tested by required disaggregated group.

   SOUTH DAKOTA ASSESSMENT SYSTEM COMPONENTS

   Dakota Assessment of Content Standards

   In order to meet the requirements of NCLB, the State of South Dakota will engage in the development of a criterion-referenced test. Milestones for development and implementation of such an assessment include:

   1. The State of South Dakota will develop a criterion-referenced assessment system designed to measure the SD Content Standards. The assessment system will be referred to as the Dakota Assessment of Content Standards (DACS) and will include online tests in reading and mathematics for grades 3-8 and grade 10, and will be expanded to include online tests in science for the same grades by school year 2007-2008.
   2. Currently, South Dakota public schools are required to administer the tests in the DACS system in order to measure the proficiency for all students at least once in grades 3, 6, and 10 for the school year 2004-2005. In accordance with NCLB the same assessment will be used to measure the achievement of all students in grades 3 through 8 and grade 10, beginning with school year 2005-2006. Work has begun to develop additional tests within the DACS system to measure academic standards specific to those outlined in Math and Reading in grades 4, 5, 7, 8 so that a full DACS battery will be available in math and reading for grades 3-8 plus grade 10 by school year 2005-2006. Additionally, no later than the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, an assessment of academic standards in Science will be developed within the DACS system and will be administered to all students in grades 3 - 8 and 10.
   3. An alignment study of the assessments within the DACS system will be conducted by the BUROS Institute, Lincoln, NE, to provide data on the alignment of the assessments to the state’s academic content standards. It is intended that the DACS system will ultimately provide a comprehensive set of online assessments that measure the breadth and depth of knowledge and skills set forth in the state’s content standards.
   4. As each test in the DACS assessment system is developed, evidence of its high technical quality will be submitted to the Secretary for review. A technical manual will accompany the submission.
   5. In conjunction with the SAT 9, and Stanford Writing assessments, the DACS assessment will involve multiple measures of student academic achievement including higher order thinking skills. This combined use of assessments will enhance the state’s efforts to address the depth and breadth of the State’s academic achievement standards.
   6. The DACS online system will be developed in such manner as to provide reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with disabilities and will provide for the inclusion of limited English proficient students.
   7. The development of the DACS assessment system will involve pilot testing, using a field test of the assessment to determine all psychometric analysis. Pilot testing will include testing administration manuals and training to schools.
   8. For accountability purposes the DACS scores will be used only for students who have attended school is a LEA for a full academic year. The criterion to determine a full academic year will include:
   1. only students attending a LEA for a full academic year will be included in the accountability system.
   2. A full academic year is defined as continued attendance from October 1 to May 1 of a given year.
   9. Results of the DACS assessment will be disaggregated to provide reports for several levels and sub-groups, including the State, each LEA, and each school, both the entire group and sub-groups by gender, major racial and ethnic group, English proficiency status, migrant status, students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled students and economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged.
   10. Results of the DACS will report the proficiency of each student in four levels of achievement: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. Cut scores will be established on a continuum scale to determine the proficiency levels indicated. Results will also be reported specific to the student’s grade level.
   11. DACS results will also be reported in such manner that parents, teachers, principals, and administrators can interpret and address specific academic needs of students as indicated by the students achievement and assessment items. DACS results will produce interpretative, descriptive, and diagnostic reports for each student.
   12. Accountability measures will be established with the DACS test to certify that 95% of those students eligible for accountability have been assessment in each LEA.

   Norm-Referenced component

   SAT 9 description: The Stanford Achievement Test Series, Ninth Edition, (SAT-9) is designed to measure achievement in the areas of reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social science; SAT-9 also provides several other measures including a thinking skills, using information and listening (Grades 4 & 8) score. The Stanford yields the traditional types of scores found on norm-referenced tests. In addition, four levels of performance standards were set: Advanced = Solid academic performance, Proficient = Solid academic performance, Basic = Partial mastery and Below Basic = Less than partial mastery.

   Depending on the particular grade, there are from 9 to 11 subtests, which take from three hours and 45 minutes to five hours and 25 minutes for the entire test battery. No individual subtest lasts longer than 50 minutes.

   Reliability of SAT 9

   Reliability is the degree to which test scores are consistent, dependable, or repeatable, that is, free of errors of measurement. Based on the intended uses of the scores for individual decisions about students, the K-R20 coefficients were in the acceptable range of the mid .80s to .90s for the Reading and Mathematics tests.

   Validity of SAT 9

   Validity is the degree to which a certain inference from a test is appropriate or meaningful. An alignment study is being done on the SAT 9 and the South Dakota Content Standards in the areas of Reading and Mathematics. The report of alignment, when available will show the percentages of alignment between the tests and the standards. It will also identify gaps—i.e. standards that are not well assessed by either system. This will provide a roadmap for further assessment work for the state. However, preliminary indications show a very positive alignment through the combined coverage of the three assessment systems.

   Writing Performance Component

   Stanford Writing description: The Stanford Writing Assessment Program, Third Edition, is a direct measure of achievement in written expression for South Dakota students in Grades 5 and 9. It offers a means of assessing students’ writing development within four modes: Persuasive, Expository, Descriptive and Narrative. Two types of scores are available, holistic and analytic. Four levels of performance standards have been set: Advanced = Solid academic performance, Proficient = Solid academic performance, Basic = Partial mastery and Below Basic = Less than partial mastery.

   The Stanford Writing Assessment Program, Third Edition, provides comprehensive information about student strengths and weaknesses that helps with instructional planning as well as with program development and evaluation. Assessment time is 50 minutes. Forty minutes for writing and 10 minutes for activities such as planning the essay and final checking.

   Stanford Writing Reliability

   "Writing by its very nature has reliability problems" said H.D. Hoover, U. of Iowa. Since no two prompts can yield the same performance interpreting can some times create a real challenge. Interrater reliability coefficients at the grades tested with the writing assessment ranged from .70 to .91.

   Stanford Writing Validity

   The writing assessment is directly tied to the South Dakota Content Standards used by all schools in the state so it would be safe to say it is valid for its intended purpose.

   Assessment Implementation Timeline:

   2001-2002 – students tested in Math and Reading using multiple measures

   • DACS (grades 3, 6, 10)
   • SAT9 (grades 4, 8, 11)
   • Stanford Writing (5 & 9)

   2001-2002 - Implement National Assessment of Educational Progress

   2004-2005 – all students in grades 3-8 will be tested in Reading and Math using

   • DACS grades 3-8 and grade 10
   • SAT 9 grades 3-8 and grade 10
   • Stanford Writing 3-8 and grade 10

   2007-2008 – addition of Science assessments in previous listed grades

   • DACS – General Science – grades 3-8 Science grade 10
   • SAT 9 - Science – grades 3-8

   State use of Formula Funds for the Development and Implementation of State Assessments

   Funding received for assessment under NCLB provisions will be used for several projects necessary to meet the requirements. A majority of expenditures will be accrued with the development of the criterion-referenced tests in the DACS assessment system. Exact amounts are unavailable at the time of the consolidation application; vendors are in the process of submitting proposals. Other costs related to test development, test administration, scoring, training for local test administrators, training for LEA staff on reading and interpreting assessment reports, will also be detailed in vendor proposals.

4. In the June 2002 submission, provide a timeline of major milestones for setting, in consultation with LEAs, academic achievement standards in mathematics, reading/language arts, and science that meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(1).

   Teachers and administrators from across the state have been, and will continue to be, involved in the setting of academic achievement standards. Workgroups are generally formed with representation from school districts of various size, demographics, and geographical locations. The Committee of Practitioners and School Support Team are usually represented as well as persons representing various student groups such as student with disabilities and English Language Learners. The SEA extends opportunities to LEA’s for involvement in the development of academic achievement standards.

   South Dakota has chosen four proficiency levels for reporting student achievement on state content standards: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. Performance descriptors (narrative descriptions) of each level have been developed for Language Arts and Mathematics content standards. These descriptors will be revised at the same time the content standards are revised. Cut scores for the SAT9 were set several years ago. These cut scores will be revised in August 2003 at the same time cut scores are set for the Writing and Dakota Assessment of Content Standards (DACS) assessments. Results from the three assessments during the year 2002-2003 school year will be available at that time and will be used in the standards-setting process.

   The following timeline represents the activities that have already been completed and those that are scheduled to take place over the next few years.

   2001

   • August 2001 – Performance descriptors were developed for mathematics and reading/language arts at grade levels the state assessments are administered and at the upper level of each grade cluster. This includes descriptors for grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

   2003

   • June 2003 – Performance standards-setting workshop facilitated by Buros Institute, UNL. Cut scores for DACS at grades 3, 6, and 10; SAT9 at grades 2, 4, 8, and 11; and Writing at grades 5 and 9 will be determined.
   • June 2003 – Revised Language Arts content standards and performance descriptors presented to State Board of Education. Standards and descriptors will be set for all grades, K-12.
   • September 2003 – Revised Language Arts content standards and performance descriptors adopted by Board. Districts will begin revising course guidelines for language arts.

   2004

   • June 2004 – Revised Mathematics content standards and performance descriptors presented to State Board of Education. Standards and descriptors will be set for all grades, K-12.
   • July 2004 – School districts must have course guidelines written for adoption of revised Language Arts content standards. Schools will implement the revised standards during the 2004 – 2005 school year. State assessment(s) for reading/language arts will be aligned to the revised standards.
   • September 2004 – Revised Mathematics content standards and performance descriptors adopted by Board. Districts will begin revising course guidelines for mathematics.

   2005

   • June 2005 – Academic achievement standards revised for reading/language arts to reflect changes in content standards.
   • June 2005 – Revised Science content standards and performance descriptors presented to State Board of Education. Standards and descriptors will be set for all grades, K-12.
   • July 2005 – School districts must have course guidelines written for adoption of revised Mathematics content standards. Schools will implement the revised standards during the 2005 – 2006 school year. State assessment(s) for mathematics will be aligned to the revised standards.
   • September 2005 – Revised Science content standards and performance descriptors adopted by Board. Districts will begin revising course guidelines for science.
   • September 2005-May 2006 – Administer chosen state assessment(s) in reading and math at grades 3-8.

   2006

   • June 2006 – Mathematics academic achievement standards revised to reflect changes in content standards.
   • June 2006 -- Cut scores for grades 3 – 8 in reading/language arts and mathematics on the chosen state assessment(s) will be set.
   • July 2006 – School districts must have course guidelines written for adoption of revised Science content standards. Schools will implement the revised standards during the 2006 – 2007 school year. State assessment(s) for science will be aligned to the revised standards.

   2007

   • June 2007 – Standards setting workshop to determine cut scores for science in required grade spans in science on the chosen state assessment(s).

   Task	Reading / LA	Math	Science
   Content Standards and Performance Descriptors presented to State Board of Education	June 2003	June 2004	June 2005
   Content Standards and Performance Descriptors adopted by State Board of Education	Sept. 2003	Sept. 2004	Sept. 2005
   Course guidelines adopted by LEA’s	July 2004	July 2005	July 2006
   LEA’s implement revised content standards	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07
   Assessments aligned to revised standards administered	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07
   Academic achievement standards set for revised standards / assessments	June 2005	June 2006	June 2007
   Administer reading and math assessment(s) in grades 3-8	2005-06	2005-06
   Academic achievement standards set for grades 3-8	June 2006	June 2006



5. No submission required 6/12/02
    
6. No submission required 6/12/02
    
7. No submission required 6/12/02
    
8. In the June 2002 submission, provide a plan for how the State will implement a single accountability system that uses the same criteria, based primarily on assessments consistent with section 1111(b), for determining whether a school has made adequate yearly progress, regardless of whether the school receives Title I, Part A, or other federal funds.

   Context:

   The drive to "reinvent" government has touched all levels of government—federal, state, and local. According to Osborne & Plastrik, reinvention is "about restructuring public organizations and systems by changing their purposes, their incentives, their accountability, their distribution of power, and their cultures." Public school systems, like other units of government, are increasingly called upon to demonstrate effective use of resources. For K-12 schools, the challenge is to deliver educational services that help all students learn at higher levels. At the same time, the public demands more accountability from its schools for results. The Education Commission of the States defines accountability as "the systematic collection, analysis and use of information to hold schools, educators and others responsible for the performance of students and the education system."

   The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) includes President George W. Bush's four basic education reform principles: stronger accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work.

   An "accountable" education system involves several critical steps (some of which South Dakota has already taken):

   • States create their own standards for what a child should know and learn for all grades. Standards must be developed in math and reading immediately. Standards must also be developed for science by the 2005-06 school year. South Dakota has these academic content standards in place.
   • With standards in place, states must test every student’s progress toward those standards by using tests that are aligned with the standards. Beginning in the 2002-03 school year, schools must administer tests in each of three grade spans: grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12 in all schools. Beginning in the 2005-06 school year, tests must be administered every year in grades 3 through 8 in math and reading. Beginning in the 2007-08 school year, science achievement must also be tested. As of spring 2002, South Dakota has been granted a timeline waiver for its assessment system. The final system will be in place for the 2003 spring testing window; approval of the system is anticipated before the June 2003 waiver deadline. Additional work is being done and will continue throughout the summer in order to address the requirements of No Child Left Behind.
   • Each state, school district, and school will be expected to make adequate yearly progress toward meeting state standards. State assessment results will also be disaggregated into the following groups: economically disadvantaged, major ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and Limited English Proficient students. South Dakota will set its baseline for determining adequate yearly progress by August 1, 2003, after the tests that comprise its approved assessment system have been administered. South Dakota is developing AYP standards.
   • School and district performance will be publicly reported in district and state report cards. Individual school results will be on the district report cards. Some state reporting mechanisms are already in place, additional requirements at the district and school levels will be implemented.
   • If a district or school fails to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years as a whole or for any of the four disaggregated subgroups, the district or school will be placed in school improvement, i.e. it will be held accountable. South Dakota lacks a school "accountability" mechanism, which will require legislative and administrative changes.

   Historical Perspective:

   For many years, South Dakota has accredited its K-12 schools using a few limited performance measures based on inputs to the educational system. As the state devolves more power to a broader range of stakeholders (from school administrators to communities) and commits a greater share of funding to local schools, interest has grown in holding K-12 schools more accountable for results. This new trend calls for a reinvention of the current system to take into account process and outcome indicators, besides the traditional input measures.

   Currently, schools (public and private) in South Dakota are accredited based on minimum legal standards. Schools are evaluated annually by the state education agency to ensure they meet requirements for the school calendar, courses offered, and certified staff. However, there is little or no emphasis on outcomes. South Dakota’s current accreditation mechanism does not encourage educational innovation, nor does it focus on helping schools find ways to improve teaching and learning.

   A state with a long tradition of local educational control, South Dakota moved even more toward decentralized administrative power and authority in 1995. The 1995 legislative session was an historic one for education in South Dakota. A new way of distributing state aid—based on the foundation program—was developed, and more than 500 administrative rules and nearly 100 statutes were repealed. With the new state aid formula in place, state government’s share of funding K-12 education had increased from 45 percent to 52 percent by 2000.

   Along with changes in governance and funding, other developments may make performance-based school accountability a more viable option today for South Dakota. Performance-based accountability is better understood by the public and by lawmakers as the capstone to a statewide school improvement plan that already includes academic content standards in the core subject areas and multiple, challenging assessments geared to those standards. In 1999, academic content standards were adopted statewide. In spring 2002, South Dakota implemented a series of new student assessments aligned to its content standards. Both movements were rooted in new state laws.

   Now, given the additional emphasis on school accountability contained within the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, the time is right for South Dakota to move into the arena of local school accountability and apply uniform standards to all its public schools. A final consideration for state policy makers will be whether an accountability system should be merged with a school accreditation system. Several unanswered questions remain.

   The Plan to Implement a Single Accountability System:

   In order to comply with provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, South Dakota must begin immediately to build a framework for single performance-based school accountability system that will be applied uniformly to all public schools, whether or not the school received Title I funds. While planning for this system can and should begin immediately, it is anticipated that the accountability system envisioned under federal law will require both legislative (South Dakota Legislature) and administrative (South Dakota Board of Education) approval before it can be fully implemented in this state.

   Under South Dakota law, the Legislature currently delegates authority to the South Dakota Board of Education to adopt rules "to establish standards for the classification and accreditation of schools within this state" (see South Dakota Codified Law 13-1-12.1). The Legislature also grants authority to the chief state school officer to "establish a uniform system for the gathering and reporting of educational data for the keeping of adequate educational and financial records and for the evaluation of educational progress" (see SDCL 13-3-51). SDCL 13-3-51 also refers to an "annual written evaluation of the educational progress in the state," which could be construed as the "state report card" required under the 2002 federal act.

   However, current South Dakota law is silent on several key components needed for the accountability infrastructure outlined in the federal law:

   • Authority of the Department of Education & Cultural Affairs to create a system of accountability based primarily on assessment results;
   • Authority of the South Dakota Board of Education to implement a system of accountability based primarily on assessment results via promulgation of administrative rule;
   • Calculation of AYP and application of AYP to every public school in the state;
   • Use of actual performance incentives, i.e. either rewards or sanctions, which the state would apply to public schools based primarily on assessment data.

   Hence it appears that, at the minimum, statutory authority must be granted to the state education agency to institute an accountability system for public schools, and to base it primarily on assessments. In addition, it is anticipated that the South Dakota Board of Education will need the authority to adopt a body of administrative rules to address the specifics of the school accountability system.

   To guide development of a school accountability system in South Dakota, the following general timeline is recommended:

   • July 1, 2002 – appoint a small empowered advisory panel representing major stakeholder groups to research and develop school accountability model for South Dakota; include representatives of local school boards, superintendents, parents, teachers, principals, student services personnel; contract with an experienced, nationally-recognized consultant to guide the work (CRESST or ECS are possibilities).
   • Summer and Fall 2002 – the advisory panel will meet periodically, as well as hold public input sessions across the state and/or via teleconference, to develop a framework for the accountability system;
   • October 1, 2002 – first draft of South Dakota accountability system due to SD Dept. of Education & Cultural Affairs; draft will be posted on the department’s website; comments and suggestions for change (from the public, as well as from staff of LEAs and SEA) will be accepted until final draft deadline;
   • October 1, 2002 – appropriation request prepared by SD Department of Education & Cultural Affairs’ fiscal office; implementation of a single accountability system for all public schools that includes rewards and sanctions will require additional resources, both human and financial. The appropriate mechanism for requesting additional fte and/or state funds is through the legislative process via an appropriation request.
   • December 1, 2002 – draft of accountability system components will be finalized; information will be presented to the Governor-Elect (South Dakota will elect a new Governor in November, 2002) and his staff for review; as the Governor appoints the department’s Secretary as one of his cabinet members in South Dakota, it becomes very necessary to gain the support of the new Governor-Elect in order to pursue needed legislation during the 2003 Legislative Session as well as administrative rule-making by the South Dakota Board of Education following passage of legislation;
   • January 2003 – present school accountability legislation to South Dakota Legislature; legislative process ensues, including open committee hearings and broad media coverage;
   • March 2003 – present administrative rules spelling out school accountability mechanisms to South Dakota Board of Education; SDBOE rule-making process includes web-postings with input solicited as well as one or more open, advertised hearings;
   • May 2003 – a single accountability system based primarily on assessments is in place in South Dakota;
   • July 1, 2003 – New laws authorizing the South Dakota school accountability system as established by the 2003 Legislature go into effect.

   The Challenges:

   South Dakota has 166 operating K-12 public school districts and another 10 that contract for services with other districts. These 176 districts, covering 75,898 square miles, provide educational services to about 128,000 students. More than half of the state’s public schools serve fewer than 100 students, and 51 of the 176 school districts have a total student enrollment of less than 200. Historically, South Dakota also ranks among those states with the lowest teacher salaries and per-pupil spending.

   In developing accountability system for South Dakota, the challenge will be to balance the special consideration that many will advocate must be given to the unique needs of a rural state with a small population base, many small school systems situated across a large area, and limited financial resources, with the requisites of No Child Left Behind, section 1111b. The state does have choices within the framework provided by federal law.

   Among the questions that will arise and will need to be addressed in developing the school accountability system in South Dakota are the following:

   1. Given the contextual realities of a rural state, such as sparsity, limited per-pupil spending, low teacher salaries, and decentralized decision making, what type of performance-based school accountability model should South Dakota create?
   2. Given the size, scope and resources of the state education agency in South Dakota, what type of performance based school accountability model should South Dakota create?
   3. Given the size, scope and resources that are within reach in South Dakota and can be harnessed to address the needs of schools newly challenged by an accountability system, what model and features should the South Dakota system include?
   4. Are the assessment system and AYP system as currently devised appropriately applied to all public schools whether the school participates in Title I, or are there adjustments that need to be made in either/both systems for uniform and fair accountability?
   5. How should K-12 schools' performance and progress be measured, compared, and reported, i.e. what type of indicators/criteria beyond assessment data--input, process, or outcome—should be used?
   6. Which combination of indicators/criteria will effectively, uniformly and fairly reflect the performance of each South Dakota school?
   7. What system of rewards and sanctions can be developed that:

   1. will be fair and effective;
   2. will find enough support among South Dakota policymakers to be enacted into law and/or administrative rule (i.e. what sort of rewards and sanctions is there sufficient political will to establish in a "local control" state?);
   3. can be implemented with resources available and/or within reach of South Dakota;
   4. will be sustained over time with sufficient resources to be meaningful.

   8. Can and should the accountability system for public schools be merged with the accreditation system for all (public and private) schools?
       
9. In the June 2002 submission, identify the languages present in the student population to be assessed, the languages in which the State administers assessments, and the languages in which the State will need to administer assessments. Use the most recent data available and identify when the data were collected.

   The following assessments are administered by the State of South Dakota: Stanford Achievement Test-Version Nine, Stanford Writing Test and the Dakota Assessment of Content Standards. All the above assessments are administered in English. When necessary, a translator may be provided as an assessment accommodation.

   It has been determined that no language is prevalent in a large and commanding quantity in any one school district in South Dakota. One language present in large numbers in a few school districts is Lakota. Due to the definition of limited English proficient (LEP) students contained in Title IX, Native American students are often identified as LEP because of the influence that speakers of a Native language have on their daily lives. They are, however, not fluent speakers of a Native language and would not be able to take a large-scale assessment in a Native language. As a result, all state-mandated assessments in South Dakota will be provided in English.

   The following language data was collected in the Fall of 2001 and verified during the 2001-2002 school year. LEP data was reported to the Federal Office of English Language Acquisition in April 2002.

   The following languages have 10 or more speakers of the language in South Dakota School Districts:

   Language: # of Students:
   Albanian 12  Amharic 63  Arabic 65  Cambodian-Khmer 12  Chinese-Zhongwen 46  Croatian-Hrvatski 146  Dakota 304  Dinka 54 Ethiopian 13 German 502 Hutterish 244	Kurdish-Zimany Kurdy 25 Lakota 3355 Laothian-Pah Xa Lao 28 Neur 26 Russian 105 Serbian-Srpski 10 Serbo-Croation 38 Spanish 516 Tigrinya 22 Ukranian 80 Vietnamese 62



10. In the June 2002 submission, provide evidence that, beginning not later than the school year 2002-2003, LEAs will provide for an annual assessment of English proficiency that meets the requirements of section 1111(b)(7) and 3116(d)(4), including assessment of English proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, writing, and comprehension. Identify the assessment(s) the State will designate for this purpose.
     
    The student population in South Dakota is becoming increasingly diverse. Some areas of the state have large numbers of immigrant and refugee students who first language is not English. Native American student populations are on the rise. These students are often influenced by the Native language of their parents and grandparents. As a result, one assessment tool does not effectively assess the speaking, listening, reading, writing and comprehending skills of varied populations of English language learners.

    Beginning with the school year 2002-2003 the State of South Dakota will require that all children identified as children who are Limited English Proficient by an LEA will be provided with an annual assessment of English language proficiency. The assessment will include the areas of speaking, listening, reading, writing and comprehension. The State of South Dakota will designate the IDEA Language Proficiency Test (IPT) and the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) as the assessments that will accomplish these requirements.

    The test will be required to be administered beginning in the Fall of each school year. Following the administration of the test beginning in the Fall 2002, a composite of each student’s level of English language proficiency can be established. Once the baseline has been established, each district must demonstrate that all enrolled and identified LEP students will reach proficiency within 3 consecutive school years.
     

11. In the June 2002 submission, describe the status of the State’s effort to establish standards and annual measurable achievement objectives under section 3122(a) of the ESEA that relate to the development and attainment of English proficiency by limited English proficient children. These standards and objectives must relate to the development and attainment of English proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, writing, and comprehension, and be aligned with the State academic content and student academic achievement standards as required by section 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA. If they are not yet established, describe the State’s plan and timeline for completing the development of these standards and achievement objectives.

    The State of South Dakota convened a content standards revision work group in April, 2002. The workgroup consists of education related personnel whose task is to rewrite the current South Dakota Communication/Language Arts Content Standards. It is expected that the first draft of the Communications and Language Arts Content Standards will be available in Fall 2002. The revised content standards will not be fully implemented until they have been adopted by the South Dakota Board of Education. That action is expected to be taken by May 2003. When completed, English Language Acquisition Content Standards will be aligned to the South Dakota Communication/Language Arts Content Standards.

    Students will be considered to be limited English proficient if their language proficiency score is below the 50^th percentile on the IDEA Proficiency Test. Students performing at or below the 3^rd performance level on the Language Assessment Scales will be considered to be limited English proficient. All limited English proficient (LEP) students will be required to meet the same rigorous state content standards as are all students enrolled in school in South Dakota. Students who are identified as LEP must participate in the state’s accountability system. While the student continues to be identified as an LEP student, but has not been enrolled in the school district for more than 3 full, consecutive years, the student can be provided with testing accommodations. The specific accommodations to be provided must be determined by a team of educators from the school in which the student is enrolled. After the student has been enrolled in a school district for 3 or more consecutive years they can only be provided with accommodations through the use of an Individual Education Program or a Section 504 Plan.

    LEP students will be expected to participate in all three of the state’s mandated assessments. They are: Stanford Achievement Test, Stanford Writing Assessment and the Dakota Assessment of Content Standards.