1. (a) Each State must establish a system for annual meaningful differentiation for all public schools, including public charter schools, that -

   1. (1) Includes the performance of all students and each subgroup of students in a school, consistent with §§ 200.16, 200.17, and 200.20(b), on each of the indicators described in § 200.14;
   2. (2) Includes, for each indicator, at least three distinct and discrete levels of school performance that are consistent with attainment of the long-term goals and measurements of interim progress under § 200.13, if applicable, and that are clear and understandable to the public;
   3. (3) Provides information on a school's level of performance (e.g., through a data dashboard) on each indicator described in § 200.14, separately, as part of the description of the State's system for annual meaningful differentiation of schools on LEA report cards under § 200.32;
   4. (4) Results in a single summative determination from among at least three distinct categories for each school, which must meaningfully differentiate between schools based on differing levels of performance on the indicators and which may include the two categories of schools described in § 200.19(a) and (b), to describe a school's overall performance in a clear and understandable manner as part of the description of the State's system for annual meaningful differentiation on LEA report cards under §§ 200.31 and 200.32;
   5. (5) Meets the requirements of § 200.15 to annually measure the achievement of at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students on the assessments described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act; and
   6. (6) Informs the State's methodology described in § 200.19 for identifying schools for comprehensive support and improvement and for targeted support and improvement, including differentiation of schools with consistently underperforming subgroups of students consistent with paragraph (c) of this section and § 200.19(c).

2. (b) In providing annual meaningful differentiation among all public schools in the State, including providing a single summative determination for each school under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, a State must -

   1. (1) Afford substantial weight to each of the following indicators, as applicable, under § 200.14:

      1. (i) Academic Achievement indicator.
      2. (ii) Academic Progress indicator.
      3. (iii) Graduation Rate indicator.
      4. (iv) Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator;
   2. (2) Afford, in the aggregate, much greater weight to the indicators in paragraph (b)(1) of this section than to the indicator or indicators of School Quality or Student Success under § 200.14(b)(5), in the aggregate; and
   3. (3) Within each grade span, afford the same relative weight to each indicator among all schools consistent with paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

3. (c) To show that its system of annual meaningful differentiation meets the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, a State must -

   1. (1) In identifying schools for comprehensive support and improvement under § 200.19(a), demonstrate that performance on the indicator or indicators of School Quality or Student Success may not be used to change the identity of schools that would otherwise be identified for comprehensive support and improvement without such indicators, unless such a school has made significant progress in the prior year as determined by the State, for all students consistent with § 200.16(a)(1), on at least one of the indicators described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section;
   2. (2) In identifying schools for targeted support and improvement under § 200.19(b), demonstrate that performance on the indicator or indicators of School Quality or Student Success may not be used to change the identity of schools that would otherwise be identified for targeted support and improvement without such indicators, unless such a school has made significant progress in the prior year as determined by the State, for each consistently underperforming or low-performing subgroup of students, on at least one of the indicators described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
   3. (3) Demonstrate that a school with a consistently underperforming subgroup of students under § 200.19(c) receives a lower summative determination under paragraph (a)(4) of this section than it would have otherwise received if it did not have any consistently underperforming subgroups of students; and

4. (d)

   1. (1) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section 1111 of the Act how it has met the requirements of this section, including a description of -

      1. (i) How a State calculates the performance levels on each indicator and a summative determination for each school under paragraph (a) of this section;
      2. (ii) How the State's methodology under this section and § 200.19, including the weighting of indicators under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, will ensure that schools with low performance on the indicators described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are more likely to be identified for comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and improvement; and

      3. (iii) Any different methodology, if a State chooses to develop such methodology, that the State uses to include all public schools in its system of annual meaningful differentiation consistent with paragraph (a) of this section, such as -

         1. (A) Schools in which no grade level is assessed under the State's academic assessment system (e.g., P-2 schools), although the State is not required to administer a standardized assessment to meet this requirement;
         2. (B) Schools with variant grade configurations (e.g., P-12 schools);
         3. (C) Small schools in which the total number of students who can be included in any indicator under § 200.14 is less than the minimum number of students established by the State under § 200.17(a)(1), consistent with a State's uniform procedures for averaging data under § 200.20(a), if applicable;
         4. (D) Schools that are designed to serve special populations (e.g., students receiving alternative programming in alternative educational settings; students living in local institutions for neglected or delinquent children, including juvenile justice facilities; students enrolled in State public schools for the deaf or blind; and recently arrived English learners enrolled in public schools for newcomer students); and
         5. (E) Newly opened schools that do not have multiple years of data, consistent with a State's uniform procedure for averaging data under § 200.20(a), if applicable, for at least one indicator (e.g., a newly opened high school that has not yet graduated its first cohort for students).
   2. (2) In meeting the requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to afford substantial weight to certain indicators, a State is not required to afford each such indicator the same substantial weight.

   3. (3) If a school does not meet the State's minimum number of students under § 200.17(a)(1) for the English learner subgroup, a State must -

      1. (i) Exclude the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator from the annual meaningful differentiation for such a school under paragraph (a) of this section; and

      2. (ii) Afford the Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation Rate, and School Quality or Student Success indicators the same relative weights in such a school as are afforded to such indicators in a school that meets the State's minimum number of students for the English learner subgroup.

         (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c), (h); 20 U.S.C. 6571(a); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 3474)

[81 FR 86226, Nov. 29, 2016]