in-20251203-IR-511250370APA: SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

TITLE 511 INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Notice of Additional Public Comment Period LSA Document #25-370 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY PURPOSE OF NOTICE The Indiana State Board of Education (board) is soliciting public comment on adding rules at 511 IAC 6.2-12 concerning assessing school and school corporation academic performance and skill development. The purpose of this third public comment period is to update the summary published in the Notice of Second Public Comment Period of the written comments received by the agency and a summary of the response of the board to written comments submitted during the first public comment period, as required by IC 4-22-2-24(c)(3). The proposed rule language has not changed from the language included in the Notice of Second Public Comment Period. HISTORY Notice of First Public Comment Period: 20250723-IR-511250370FNA Regulatory Analysis submitted with Notice of First Public Comment Period: 20250723-IR-511250370RAA Date of First Hearing: August 22, 2025 Notice of Second Public Comment Period: 20251015-IR-511250370SNA Regulatory Analysis submitted with Notice of Second Public Comment Period: 20251015-IR-511250370RAA Date of Second Hearing: November 17, 2025 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Regulatory Analysis: No changes were made to the Regulatory Analysis published with the Notice of Second Public Comment Period. Notice of Public Hearing: 20251203-IR-511250370PHA CITATIONS AFFECTED: 511 IAC 6.2-12 AUTHORITY: IC 20-19-2-8; IC 20-31-8-4; IC 20-31-8-5.4; IC 20-31-10-1 OVERVIEW Basic Purpose and Background The proposed rule is being promulgated under House Enrolled Act 1498-2025 (P.L.231-2025), which directs the board to develop a new methodology for assigning school performance ratings. P.L.231-2025 requires the board to establish a new methodology for designating school performance and issue letter grades following the 2025-2026 school year. P.L. 231-2025 requires the board to establish the new methodology by December 31, 2025, and adopt rules necessary to implement the factors established by the legislature. Those factors include that the methodology: (1) be based on data available on the department of education (department) Internet dashboard; (2) includes proficiency rates from the determinant evaluation of reading skills approved by the board for schools that contain grade 3; (3) includes proficiency rates from the statewide summative assessment; (4) prioritizes attaining a diploma seal described in 511 IAC 6-7.2-8; and (5) considers other factors the board considers relevant. P.L.231-2025 voids 511 IAC 6.2-10 after the proposed rule is adopted by the board. The proposed rule replaces the existing school accountability model to: (1) address deficiencies found in 511 IAC 6.2-10; (2) align to other state-level education policies, such as Indiana's new diploma; and (3) improve implementation. The current rule is limited in its efficacy due to shifts in Indiana's statewide assessment in high school. Specifically, the department can no longer calculate academic growth in high school after the state shifted to the SAT as the statewide assessment of English/Language arts and math in high school. Without this data, the board must use a modified model. Additionally, Indiana has adopted a new vision for educational outcomes under the Indiana GPS dashboard and recently adopted graduation requirements. Aligning the state's school accountability model to these recently adopted policies is critical. The proposed rule changes will impact approximately 308 K-12 public school corporations encompassing 1,813 public schools, 397 accredited nonpublic schools, and 182 public charter schools. For purposes of IC 4-22-2-28.1, small businesses affected by this rulemaking may contact the Small Business Regulatory Coordinator: For purposes of IC 4-22-2-28.1, the Small Business Ombudsman designated by IC 5-28-17-6 is: Resources available to regulated entities through the small business ombudsman include the ombudsman's duties stated in IC 5-28-17-6, specifically IC 5-28-17-6(9), investigating and attempting to resolve any matter regarding compliance by a small business with a law, rule, or policy administered by a state agency, either as a party to a proceeding or as a mediator. SUMMARY/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The board requested public comment from June 4, 2025, through August 22, 2025. The official first public comment period was from July 23, 2025, through August 22, 2025, and during the first public hearing on August 22, 2025. The official second public comment period was from October 15, 2025, through November 17, 2025, and during the second public hearing on November 17, 2025. The summary below is intended to address comments received during the first public comment period, and the board's responses to the comments are summarized as follows: Comment: Stakeholders emphasized the importance of moving beyond an “all-or-nothing" model that incorporates multiple measures when evaluating overall school performance. There was a general tone of support for the focus on academic mastery and skill development, with stakeholders emphasizing the limitations of a single standardized assessment. Some comments emphasized that the inclusion of non-objective performance metrics should not compromise the overall focus on academic proficiency. One commenter asked the board to describe what the boards ‘new vision for educational outcomes’ is. Response: The board evaluated these comments and made changes that were academic and skills focused as the board values academic outcomes, as well as skills and experiences. The board is focused on ensuring more students have access to the knowledge, skills, and experiences they need now and in the future. In addition, the proposed rule language is student-centered, as it encourages schools to focus on improvement for each individual student. The calculation of total points can be boiled down to two steps. The first step is that the initial points are based on academic mastery. The second step is that additional points can be earned for other knowledge, skills, and experiences. This maintains high academic standards, while acknowledging that students are more than a test score. It also keeps the focus on reading and math in early grades and elevates work-based learning and credentials of value in high school, aligning the accountability model to the recent diploma redesign. The updated rule encourages schools to focus on improvement for all students at all levels of proficiency. The proposed new model encourages schools to address the individual needs of each student and ensures that student’s unique knowledge, skills, and experiences are transparently reflected in a school’s accountability grade. Each school’s letter grade will be determined based on the average points generated by all students. Comment: Additionally, stakeholders stressed the importance of supporting schools in achieving the expectations included in the accountability model and developing resources to help schools and communities understand their overall performance rating. Response: The board is committed to developing a consumer-friendly report card which clearly communicates each school and school corporation’s summative rating. While not a component of the rule itself, the board and the department will continue to work with stakeholders from across the state to develop resources and supports related to the new model. Comment: Feedback on the individual student success indicators themselves were mixed. Attendance was an oft-mentioned indicator across all grades with some stakeholders arguing it is not appropriate because it is outside of a school’s control and others arguing it is not appropriate because it does not demonstrate meaningful achievement. Others shared the importance of highlighting attendance in the model given how much of an issue it is across the state. Response: In Indiana, following the disruptions caused by COVID 19, chronic absenteeism has increased relative to pre-COVID numbers signaling a need for more attention and support around the issue. The board believes including attendance in the model as a student success indicator elevates the issue as a priority for all schools in the state. While comments were mixed in this area, including concerns and support, the concerns centered around two issues. First, it was unfair or inappropriate to hold schools accountable for attendance when it was out of their control. The board responds that research has consistently shown that schools and school systems have a meaningful impact on student attendance. A lot of this research and accompanying resources are provided through the Institute for Educational Statistics’ website on chronic absenteeism (https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/supporting-recovery-with-evidence-based-practices/chronic-absenteeism). Second, many commenters suggested that measuring attendance was an inappropriate way to hold students accountable because it was not a standardized metric and/or was not a measure of academic success. The board responds that research clearly shows that regular school attendance is a critical factor in student achievement. Comment: In grade 3, there was appreciation for the inclusion of IREAD 3; however, stakeholders expressed concerns about the limited number of other student success indicators available for students. Response: The state of Indiana has recently placed a strong emphasis on ensuring our youngest students receive the support they need to become proficient readers. The board’s solution was to update the proposed rule to add a new Accelerated Literacy success indicator that was created specifically for students who are identified as At-Risk on IREAD at grade 2 and later pass in grade 3. The board believes that the changes made to the rule reflect this priority and incentivize ongoing, targeted intervention and support for those struggling to read. Comment: In grades 4 through 8, stakeholders expressed support for the inclusion of academic growth, and how the model incorporates the Science and Social Studies ILEARN assessments. Response: The state of Indiana has recently doubled down on our commitment to supporting students in becoming proficient readers beyond grade 3. The board’s solution was to update the proposed rule language to add a new Adolescent Reading Proficiency success indicator that was created specifically for students who do not pass IREAD in grade 3 and later pass in grades 4-6. The board believes that the proposed accountability model reflects this priority and incentivizes ongoing, targeted intervention and support. Comment: Concerns were expressed about the limited number of student success indicators available in grades 7 and 8. Response: The rule was updated to clarify that high school coursework applies to both 7th and 8th  grade. The same number of indicators exist for these grades as there are for others, except for one, which is a result of no other subject-specific state assessment existing in these grades (i.e. Science or Social Studies). Comment: It often varies across the state when students can take certain courses. A potential unintended consequence of the first draft rule was that it would have required some schools to shift their schedule to offer Biology earlier to receive points. Response: To ensure high schools have the flexibility to offer Biology in any grade and receive points for a student who passes, the Biology ECA assessment was added as a success indicator in grade 12, in addition to grade 10. This better reflects the indicator’s intent, which is for students to demonstrate proficiency in Biology content before graduation, regardless of when they take the course. Comment: In high school, several stakeholders commented on the 9th grade on-track metric with mixed messages. Some stakeholders believed the criteria was too rigorous while others believed the model should be stricter, adding a GPA requirement and making it a pass/fail metric. Response: A key part of the proposed accountability model is encouraging schools to focus on improvement for all students at all levels of academic mastery. Once a student has been identified as off track in grade 9, schools should be incentivized to get that student back on track. These continued supports will help ensure that all students have the best shot at success. To encourage schools to continue supporting students who are off track in grade 9, the board’s solution was to update the proposed rule language to add a new Back On Track success indicator in grade 10 to ensure continued focus on accelerating credit attainment. Comment: Additionally, many stakeholders flagged the limited number of student success indicators available to students in grade 10 who were not pursuing four-year college enrollment upon graduation. Response: The second draft of the rule included additional employment-focused indicators of student success. Specifically, completing a CTE concentrator was added to the grade 10 model as a student success indicator. Comment: For grade 12, there was a significant amount of feedback about the SAT assessment being used as the measure of academic mastery. Several stakeholders flagged that it was inappropriate to use a college entrance exam in the accountability model when Indiana’s new diplomas emphasize enrollment, employment, and enlistment. A suggestion was made to shift the model to prioritize the diploma seals as the measure of academic mastery. Stakeholders commented that the recipes for success that were identified while developing the new diploma and readiness seals should be elevated more based on their currency and value for students. Though other commenters expressed an overall concern that, in doing so, the rule shifts too much emphasis away from assessments in high school to other factors. Response: The board has updated the proposed rule to ensure that the accountability model aligns to the new diploma requirements by elevating the readiness seals as the key outcome in grade 12. For the high school model, specifically 12th grade, diploma completion or graduation rates have been an indicator in Indiana's accountability model since at least 2011. The board is of the opinion that this indicator is included and complimentary to the performance on the state's high school assessment - the SAT - not in its place. The SAT shall remain a key success indicator for students along with the completion of a rigorous high school diploma playing a critical role in a school's overall rating, along with student performance on standardized tests. Comment: Stakeholders commented that schools that do not opt in to the new Indiana diploma and readiness seals prior to the class of 2029 should also be incorporated into the new accountability model. Response: To better align with the implementation timeline of the new Indiana diploma and readiness seals, the existing suite of Core 40 diplomas have been incorporated into the model for graduating cohorts up to 2028. Comment: Several questions were raised about how the model will accommodate transient students and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.  Response: The model defines an eligible student as needing to be enrolled in the school for at least 90% of the school year. This will address the impact of student mobility on a school’s overall performance rating. Indiana has always expected schools to serve all students, consistent with its constitutional mandate to create a uniform statewide system of public schools, regardless of their socioeconomic background. To support this expectation, Indiana has developed a differentiated school funding formula which directs more resources to school corporations serving students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This additional funding is meant to address the additional needs of these students and ensure they have a shot at succeeding just like their more affluent peers. Comment: One stakeholder commented that the board must consider the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution while promulgating the new accountability rule. In addition, the stakeholder asked if the rule was suggesting that different types of instruction/knowledge were equal to one another, how emphasis on work-based learning comports with the Education Clause, and  how the rule accounts for providing for uniformity, if it doesn't measure the same kinds of outcomes. Response: The board is aware that the Education Clause consists of two duties of the General Assembly, first being that the General Assembly must encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement, and the second being to create a uniform statewide system of tuition-free public schools. While the board maintains discretion in formulating educational policy, it also understands its limitations when policy runs afoul of Indiana’s constitutional mandate.  Likewise, the legislature is tasked with enacting laws consistent with Article VIII of the Indiana constitution, as set forth by the factors emphasized in IC 20-31-8-11. The accountability authorizing statute maintains a presumption of constitutionality.  At the core of any board policy is an understanding of its obligations and limitations, whether in consideration of its duty to promote the diffusion of knowledge to promote free government, or in creating a uniform statewide system of public schools.  Ultimately, this rule, like many before it, must be consistent with the authorizing statute requiring rulemaking, in consideration of the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution.  The board accomplishes this by considering the factors emphasized in IC 20-31-8-1 in its methodology, being highly focused on achieving uniform educational outcomes, work-based opportunities, academic mastery, and emphasizing performance on the statewide assessment as the primary means of assessing school improvement throughout the state.  All this is consistent with its constitutional responsibilities and the framework authorized by IC 20-31-8-11. The board does not believe that the rule suggests that different types of instruction/knowledge were equal to one another. Rather, the board is of the opinion that the rule is complex and looks at the combination of different indicators. There is no determination of "equal to one another" as much as there is a longitudinal analysis that suggests each success indicator included in the model has an impact on a student's likelihood for postsecondary success. The board believes that the more success indicators a student has, the more likely they are to be successful. The board is of the opinion that participating in work-based learning encourages moral and intellectual improvement via real-world exposure, and depending on the field, scientific and/or agricultural improvement as well. The board is of the opinion that the rule provides for uniformity by establishing an expectation that all students are postsecondary ready by graduation. All indicators included in the model are connected to postsecondary readiness through research and longitudinal data analyses. The board is of the opinion that the model includes individual student proficiency rates for all statewide summative assessments, as both the SAT and ILEARN are included in the proposed model. The board is of the opinion that the decision to make the diploma seals a key outcome clearly "prioritizes" that indicator as required. Additionally, keeping the SAT in the model fulfills the requirement to “include” proficiency rates from the statewide summative assessment. Comment: Comments were received that the board failed to articulate how the proposed rule is consistent with the board’s statutory authority to create the new accountability method as outlined in Indiana Code § 20-31-8-11, particularly regarding assessments. Response: The board took seriously the statute’s charges in developing this rule, and grappled with its directives, as discussed above.  For example, IC 20-31-8-11(a)(4) states that the methodology must “prioritize (emphasis added) the attainment of a diploma seal described in 511 IAC 6-7.2-8.”  The plain language of the statute indicates that the intent of the legislature was for the board to “prioritize” the attainment of diploma seals in the methodology used to assess high schools in Indiana, which inherently includes placing an emphasis or priority on subjective metrics of students’ performance that are not tied to tests of students’ proficiency in academic subjects. Subjective metrics of students’ performance that are not tied to tests of students’ proficiency in academic subjects are part of the requirements in obtaining a diploma seal, which the General Assembly explicitly stated the board must “prioritize.” Regarding summative testing proficiency, the proposed accountability rule does not make summative testing proficiency the sole factor in a school’s accountability structure. Rather, the proposed rule incorporates the education policy shift to a more student focused model, which is supported by the statute, and clearly seen in Indiana’s new high school diploma system which embraces the student focused model. In further support, the legislature chose to use the word “primary” instead of “only” in IC 20-31-8-11(b). In other words, it was not the intent of the legislature for the board to promulgate a new accountability methodology in which assessments were the only means of assessing an elementary school’s improvement. In grades K-8, the model considers 14 different measures of student success across the academic mastery metric and student success indicators. Of those, 11 of the metrics are objective, test-based indicators of achievement. This represents nearly 80% of all indicators in the model. As such, the model meets the requirement that the performance of a school's students on the statewide assessment program test, and other criterion referenced benchmark assessments recommended by the department and approved by the state board, are the primary means of assessing an elementary school's improvement. Comment: One stakeholder commented that that the board failed to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule as required by the Administrative Rules and Procedures (“ARPA”). And that the JotForm method with a 250-character word limit for each text box was limiting meaningful public comment. Response: The board and the department actively solicited comments prior to the comment period being open and felt it prudent to utilize Jotform as the primary means of soliciting and receiving public comments. Agencies can receive public comments in various ways.  Unlike email and standard mail, Jotform allows the agency to quickly view, organize, and sort through public comments in real time, while still providing the public with a meaningful avenue to submit their comments. Commenters had 1,250 characters to submit comments based on the five form fields and could submit multiple times. In addition, the board did receive a comment via email, and this comment was, in fact, accepted and considered by the board. Another stakeholder who chose not to speak at the first public hearing hand-delivered their comments to the first draft of the accountability rule to department staff prior to the start of the first public hearing. The board accepted and considered these comments as well. Comment: One commenter felt the board did not address enough of the technical basis explaining how the changes in the proposed rule address deficiencies in the existing model, not allowing for the public to appropriately comment. Response: The Board solicited and received hundreds of comments prior to and during the First Public Comment Period, resulting in substantive comments that clearly articulated support, feedback, and critique of the technical components of the proposed rule. The comments received speak for themselves and demonstrate the public understood deficiencies with the old model and how the proposed rule sought to correct them, consistent with the authorizing statute. The department provided comprehensive updates to the Indiana State Board of Education at the Board’s regularly scheduled business meetings (see January 15, 2025, and June 4, 2025 meetings). These updates, specifically the update on January 15, provide a summary of the technical considerations that informed the proposed rule. These updates include: This list reflects just some of the key technical considerations that went into the proposed model. For additional information, interested Hoosiers can review the State Board of Education meetings from January 15, 2025, June 4, 2025, and October 14, 2025. Comment: Some commenters sought additional clarity on how the proposed rule fixes deficiencies that the current accountability method contains. Response: Several examples have been published showing how this model is designed to intentionally address some of the shortcomings and lessons learned from the prior model. Those resources are available on the department’s website (https://www.in.gov/doe/accountability/). The current rule is limited in its efficacy due to shifts in Indiana's statewide assessment in high school. Specifically, the department can no longer calculate academic growth in high school after the state shifted to the SAT as the statewide assessment of English/Language arts and math in high school. Without this data, the board must use a modified model. Additionally, Indiana has adopted a new vision for educational outcomes under the Indiana GPS dashboard and recently adopted graduation requirements. The board is of the opinion that aligning the state's school accountability model to these recently adopted policies is critical and explicitly supported by Indiana law. Comment: Some commenters requested the board elaborate on the dispute resolution mechanism involving school category placement. Response: This mechanism mirrors language in the prior rule. The board will continue to review this language but has not received questions previously or concerns about the language as it has existed. Comment: There was a request that the board ensure that any data on which the board relied upon to formulate this proposed rule would be accessible to the public. Response: The department is consistently committed to strengthening transparency and access to school performance data, as evident by the data associated with the accountability model, which is publicly available on the Indiana GPS dashboard. However, some data used to calculate school ratings include personally identifiable information, protected under state and federal law, and therefore is not able to be released to the general public. Schools will have access to all data used to determine a final summative rating through this model. All additional data relied upon by the board can be accessed for free via the rulemaking docket (https://www.in.gov/sboe/rulemaking-docket/lsa-25-370/). Specifically, the Betebenner article that the Board used is publicly available for free here: https://tea.texas.gov/texas-schools/accountability/academic-accountability/performance-reporting/betebenner-article-emid-2009.pdf. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT The board is soliciting public comment on the proposed rule. Comments may be submitted in one of the following ways: COMMENT PERIOD DEADLINE All comments must be postmarked or time stamped not later than January 5, 2026. The rule, Regulatory Analysis, appendices referenced in the Regulatory Analysis, and materials incorporated by reference (if applicable) are on file at the Department of Education, Indiana Government Center North, 9th Floor, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana and are available for public inspection. Copies of the rule, Regulatory Analysis, and appendices referenced in the Regulatory Analysis are available at the Department of Education office. This notice is the third of three (3) thirty (30) day periods in which the public may comment on the proposed rule. Following this third public comment period, the board may adopt a version of the proposed rule that is the same as or does not substantially differ from the text of the proposed rule published in this notice. EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES IN PROPOSED RULE The proposed rule language has not changed from the language included in the Notice of Second Public Comment Period. The overall structure and design of the proposed accountability model remain largely intact between the first and second draft of the proposed rule, although there are a series of changes between the drafts. None of these changes have created a new fiscal impact, added a fine, fee, or penalty, or otherwise required updates to the tangible and intangible cost considerations contained in the original Regulatory Analysis. As previously referenced in the Notice of Second Public Comment Period, the following changes and revisions were previously made before the prior public comment period: First, the revised draft includes several technical corrections to help strengthen the clarity of the rules. This includes technical corrections to address incorrect references, clarifying language to prevent misinterpretation, and addressing grammatical errors or omissions. Next, multiple student success indicators were added to 511 IAC 6.2-12-43 based on stakeholder feedback. This includes additional student success indicators at each grade span. Changes were also made to the point totals for each grade level. These changes were made to address feedback related to inconsistencies and questions about the point totals in the original proposed rule. Finally, a shift was made to the grade 12 measure of academic mastery in response to stakeholder feedback. The second draft more closely aligns the accountability model to the recently adopted Indiana high school diploma requirements by referencing the Indiana diploma seals outlined in 511 IAC 6-7.2-21(a) as a replacement for the SAT assessment. PROPOSED RULE Sec. 1. The definitions in this rule apply throughout this article. Sec. 2. "9th grade on track" means the determination made for the grade 10 cohort as set forth in section 41(a)(3) of this rule. Sec. 3. "Accountability category" means the summative category, A through F, corresponding to an entity's final numeric rating used to demonstrate an assessed grade span, a school, or a school corporation's overall performance, as calculated under this framework. Sec. 4. "Accountable year" means the school year being assessed. Sec. 5. "Advanced coursework" means high school credit earned in courses designated as approved Indiana diploma courses prior to a student entering high school. Sec. 6. "Alternate assessment" means the assessment instrument adopted under IC 20-32-5.1-11. Sec. 7. "Assessed grade span" means the following grades receiving a final numeric rating under the academic performance and skill development framework outlined in this rule: Sec. 8. "Attendance target" means a student was counted as in attendance for ninety-four percent (94%) of the instructional days while the student was enrolled in a school during the accountable year. Sec. 9. "Atypical school" means a school that lacks enough data points to calculate a final accountability category under this rule. Sec. 10. "Biology end of course assessment" means the statewide assessment adopted for grades 10 through 12 under IC 20-32-5.1-7(c)(1)(B). Sec. 11. "College and career coursework" means the credits listed in 511 IAC 6-7.2-21(b)(1)(G). Sec. 12. "Credential of value" has the meaning set forth in 511 IAC 6-7.2-21(b)(2)(B)(i) and 511 IAC 6-7.2-21(b)(3)(A)(i). Sec. 13. "Cumulative aggregate" means adding the number of eligible students enrolled in a school or school corporation in the accountable year and in each school year immediately preceding the accountable year until the minimum eligible student count necessary for a school or school corporation to be placed in an accountability category is reached. Sec. 14. "Eligible performance only student" means a student who: Sec. 15. "Eligible student" means a student who: Sec. 16. "English learner" has the meaning set forth in the definition provided in the Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2015). Sec. 17. "English/language arts" means the subject area required to be tested under IC 20-32-5.1-7 on the mandatory statewide annual assessment. Sec. 18. "Feeder school" means an elementary school having any combination of kindergarten, grade 1, or grade 2 only. Sec. 19. "Final numeric rating" means the score calculated for each assessed grade span, school, and school corporation, as set forth in this framework, which serves as the basis for the corresponding accountability category. Sec. 20. "Framework" means the calculations and overall structure to calculate an accountability category set forth in this rule. Sec. 21. "Grade" means data for a cohort of students who are at the same class level in the same school year. Sec. 22. "Grade 10 cohort" means the class of students expected to graduate within two (2) years of the accountable year. Sec. 23. "Grade 12 cohort" means the class of students who were expected to graduate and graduated in the school year immediately preceding the accountable year. Sec. 24. "Indiana diploma" refers to the requirements outlined in 511 IAC 6-7.2-20. Sec. 25. "Indiana diploma seal" refers to the requirements outlined in 511 IAC 6-7.2-21. Sec. 26. "Individual student growth target" refers to the student growth percentile target calculated under the academic progress indicator in Indiana's approved ESEA Plan as authorized by Section 1111(c)(4)(B)(i)(II) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. Sec. 27. "Mandatory statewide annual assessment" or "mandatory assessment" means the assessments required under IC 20-32-5.1-7(c)(1)(A), and the alternate assessment adopted under IC 20-32-5.1-11. Sec. 28. "Participation rate" means the percentage of students enrolled in the tested grades at the time of test administrations who completed the mandatory statewide annual assessments and obtained a valid test result. Sec. 29. "PSAT assessment" means the preliminary SAT/national merit scholarship qualifying test (PSAT/NMSQT), which is a standardized assessment administered by College Board and co-sponsored by the national merit scholarship corporation (NMSC) in the United States. Sec. 30. "Pupil enrollment" has the same meaning as "enrollment" as defined in IC 20-26-13-3. Sec. 31. "Receiving school" means an elementary school that has at least thirty (30) students who: Sec. 32. "Science statewide assessment" means the statewide assessment adopted for grades 3 through 5 and grades 6 through 9 under IC 20-32-5.1-7(c)(1)(B). Sec. 33. "Social studies statewide assessment" means the statewide assessment adopted under IC 20-32-5.1-7(c)(2). Sec. 34. "Statewide literacy assessment" means the determinant evaluation of reading skills approved by the state board under IC 20-32-8.5-2. Sec. 35. "Student growth percentile" has the meaning set forth in the standard adopted by the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Winter 2009, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 42–51. Sec. 36. "Student success indicator" has the meaning set forth in section 42 of this rule. Sec. 37. "WIDA Consortium ACCESS assessment" means the tests administered to students in kindergarten through grade 12 who are identified as English learners to measure students’ English language skills in Listening, Reading, Speaking, and Writing. Sec. 38. "Work-based learning" has the meaning set forth in 511 IAC 6-7.2-17. Sec. 39. (a) According to the framework set forth in this rule, the board shall annually place each school corporation, school, and assessed grade span in a school in an accountability category using letter grades A, B, C, D, and F, which correspond to the final numeric rating point ranges as set forth in subsection (b). (b) The following scale is used to determine the accountability category placement: (c) The accountability category calculation for assessed grade spans is as follows: (d) A school or school corporation must have at least thirty (30) eligible students during an accountable year to be placed in an accountability category. If a school or school corporation has at least ten (10) but less than thirty (30) eligible students during an accountable year, its accountability category placement will be based on a cumulative aggregate. (e) If a school has: Sec. 40. (a) A feeder school's accountability category is based on the weighted average of the grade 3 final numeric rating determined under section 43(b) of this rule for eligible students who were enrolled in the highest grade level served by the feeder school in the year immediately preceding the accountable year for each receiving school. (b) If more than five (5) receiving schools are identified for the feeder school, only the five (5) schools with the highest census of feeder school eligible students will be counted in calculating the feeder school's final numeric rating and, accordingly, its accountability category. (c) If no eligible receiving schools exist for a feeder school during the accountable year, the accountability category for the feeder school is "null". (d) Accountability categories are assigned in accordance with the following scale: Sec. 41. The academic mastery metric will be calculated for each assessed grade span as follows: Sec. 42. (a) Each assessed grade span has a set of student success indicators used to calculate a final rating using the academic performance and skill development framework. A student may only earn each student success indicator once during an accountable year. (b) Student success indicators at each assessed grade span consist of the following: Sec. 43. (a) The academic performance and skill development framework is determined in accordance with the following: (b) For the accountable year, for eligible students enrolled in grade 3, the final numeric rating for the assessed grade span is the number determined under STEP TEN of the following formula: (c) For the accountable year, for eligible students enrolled in grades 4 through 8, the final numeric rating for the assessed grade span is the number determined under STEP TEN of the following formula: (d) For the accountable year, for eligible performance only students enrolled in grades 4 through 8 without a valid student growth percentile in mathematics or English/language arts, or both, including those who took the alternate assessment, the final numeric rating for the assessed grade span is the number determined under STEP TEN of the following formula: (e) For the accountable year, for eligible students in the grade 10 cohort, the final rating for the assessed grade span is the number determined under STEP NINE of the following formula: (f) For an accountable year beginning with school year 2029-2030, for each graduate from the grade 12 cohort, the final rating for the assessed grade span is the number determined under STEP NINE of the following formula: (g) For an accountable year beginning with 2025-2026 through 2028-2029, for each graduate from the grade 12 cohort, the final rating for the assessed grade span is the number determined under STEP NINE of the following formula: Sec. 44. A school or school corporation may petition for review of its accountability category placement based on objective factors the school or school corporation considers relevant because the annual assessment data do not accurately reflect school performance, growth, or multiple measures, as applicable. Objective factors include significant demographic changes in the student population, errors in data, or other significant issues, including, but not limited to, errors in applying this rule to determine an accountability category. Sec. 45. (a) For each atypical school, the department shall, without waiting for a request from the board, immediately provide to the board the following information for the grade levels served and available data: (b) Based on the findings of the department and any other information available to the board, the board shall determine the school's accountability category.