1. A. The State Board of Education shall determine and adopt a series of student performance levels and the corresponding cut scores pursuant to the Oklahoma School Testing Program Act. Beginning July 1, 2009, and through June 30, 2011, the State Board of Education shall carry out two separate rounds of cut score setting for each school year, the first of which shall be non-binding in efforts to determine the feasibility and practicality of setting cut scores prior to administration of the tests. The first round of scores shall be determined prior to the administration of the tests and published after administration of the tests, and the second round of scores shall be determined and published after administration of the tests.
2. B. The State Board of Education shall ensure that the cut scores are tied to the rigor of the tests and shall strive to increase the cut scores by ten percent (10%) of the gap between state and national assessments each year.

3. C. The performance levels shall be set by a method that indicates students are ready for the next grade, course, or level of education, as applicable. The State Board of Education shall establish panels to review and revise the performance level descriptors for each subject and grade level, which shall be set by a method and panel composition similar to that used for the National Assessment of Educational Progress performance setting process. The State Board of Education shall ensure that the criterion-referenced tests developed and administered pursuant to the Oklahoma School Testing Program Act in grades three through eight and the end-of-instruction tests administered at the secondary level are vertically aligned by content across grade levels to ensure consistency, continuity, alignment and clarity. Student performance levels shall be labeled and defined as follows:

   1. 1. Advanced, which shall indicate that students demonstrate superior performance on challenging subject matter;
   2. 2. Proficient, which shall indicate that students demonstrate mastery over appropriate grade-level subject matter and that students are ready for the next grade, course, or level of education, as applicable;
   3. 3. Limited knowledge, which shall indicate that students demonstrate partial mastery of the essential knowledge and skills appropriate to their grade level or course; and
   4. 4. Unsatisfactory, which shall indicate that students have not performed at least at the limited knowledge level.

4. D. The State Board of Education shall develop and implement in accordance with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 (ESEA), P.L. No. 107-110, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, an accountability system as provided for in 20 U.S.C., 6311 and any related federal regulations. The accountability system shall be implemented beginning with the 2002-2003 school year and shall be based on the Academic Performance Index data as established pursuant to Section 3-150 of this title and as modified to meet the mandates of the ESEA. For the 2002-2003 school year and every year thereafter the State Board of Education shall publish and ensure that each local education agency is provided with Academic Performance Index data annually by site and by district so that the local education agency can make Adequate Yearly Progress determinations to identify schools for rewards and sanctions. The State Board of Education shall establish a system of recognition, rewards, sanctions and technical assistance. E. A school that does not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two (2) consecutive years, as AYP is defined by the accountability system developed by the State Board of Education pursuant to this section, because of failure to meet either an academic performance target or an attendance or graduation performance target, or both, and is identified for school improvement shall utilize the assistance of a school support team or other similar team formed by the State Department of Education to provide support for schools in need of improvement, subject to school support team capacity. The school support team shall review and analyze all facets of operation of the school including the design and operation of the instructional program. The school support team shall assist the school in:

   1. 1. Incorporating strategies based on scientifically based research that will strengthen the core academic subjects in the school and address the specific academic issues that caused the school to be identified for school improvement;
   2. 2. Incorporating strategies to promote high quality professional development; and
   3. 3. Training teachers to analyze classroom and school-level data and use the data to inform instruction.

Laws 1989, SB 183, c. 335, § 14, emerg. eff. July 1, 1989; Amended by Laws 1992, SB 1025, c. 248, § 2, emerg. eff. July 1, 1992; Amended by Laws 1992, SB 583, c. 281, § 3, emerg. eff. July 1, 1992 (repealed by Laws 1992, HB 2500, c. 373, § 22, emerg. eff. July 1, 1992); Amended by Laws 1993, SB 528, c. 257, § 13, emerg. eff. May 26, 1993; Amended by Laws 1996, HB 2193, c. 343, § 4, emerg. eff. July 1, 1996; Amended by Laws 1999, HB 1599, c. 356, § 4, emerg. eff. July 1, 1999 (superseded document available); Amended by Laws 2000, SB 491, c. 306, § 2, emerg. eff. July 1, 2000 (superseded document available); Amended by Laws 2001, SB 810, c. 413, § 5, emerg. eff. July 1, 2001 (superseded document available); Amended by Laws 2003, HB 1414, c. 428, § 3, emerg. eff. July 1, 2003 (superseded document available); Amended by Laws 2009, HB 1461, c. 26, § 1, emerg. eff. July 1, 2009; Amended by Laws 2009, SB 222, c. 456, § 12, emerg. eff. July 1, 2009 (superseded document available).