DOCSLIB.ORG

Explainer September 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Explainer September 2009 www.educationsector.org Explainer September 2009 NOW Moving Targets: What It Means to Make ‘Adequate Yearly Progress’ Under NCLB ^ By Erin Dillon ABOUT THE AUTHORS ERIN DILLON is a senior policy analyst at Education Sector. She can be reached at [email protected]. ABOUT EDUCATION SECTOR Education Sector is an independent education policy think tank devoted to developing innovative solutions to the nation’s most pressing educational problems. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan, both a dependable source of sound thinking on policy and an honest broker of evidence in key education debates throughout the United States. ABOUT THIS SERIES Education Sector Explainers give lay readers insights into important aspects of education policymaking. They are not intended to be technical manuals. © Copyright 2009 Education Sector. Education Sector encourages the free use, reproduction, and distribution of our ideas, perspectives, and analyses. Our Creative Commons licens- ing allows for the noncommercial use of all Education Sector authored or commissioned materials. We require attribution for all use. For more information and instructions on the commercial use of our materials, please visit our Web site, www.educationsector.org. 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20036 202.552.2840 • www.educationsector.org This summer, states once again announced which public schools made “adequate yearly progress,” or AYP, under the No Child Left Behind Act. It is an annual ritual during which schools find out if enough of their students scored proficient on state assessments to meet that year’s state benchmark. States are required under NCLB to release report cards on the performance of every school before the beginning of the following school year. If schools miss the annual benchmark for more than two consecutive years, they face an escalating series of sanctions, which can culminate in school restructuring. In 2007, Education Sector published States’ Evidence: What The median AMO across states ranged from 50 percent It Means to Make ‘Adequate Yearly Progress’ Under NCLB. (of middle school students in math) to 67 percent (of The report discussed the basics of “making” AYP and the elementary school students in reading). Two years later, 44 multiple routes schools can take to get there. The appendix states and Washington, D.C., have increased their AMOs of the report included three tables showing, by grade level, at every grade level in both math and reading, heading each state’s annual benchmarks for student proficiency, toward the 2014 deadline of 100 percent proficiency.1 called “annual measurable objectives” or AMOs, for school years 2004–05 through 2006–07. In this update, we extend AMOs on the whole are becoming more ambitious—38 the tables through the 2009–10 school year, providing an states required at least 50 percent of students to score up-to-date resource for evaluating each state’s annual proficient in at least one subject during the 2008–09 benchmarks and how those benchmarks have changed school year. There is also less variation among states over time. We also discuss how the changing AMOs fit into as they converge toward the 2014 deadline. The table NCLB’s larger accountability system. below shows the median AMOs across all states and the lowest and highest AMO targets for the 2008–09 The typical way schools can make AYP is by meeting school year. At first glance, it appears that Tennessee that year’s AMO, which sets the minimum percentage of has set the highest expectations for its schools because students who must score proficient on state assessments in order for schools to qualify as having made AYP for that year. AMOs are established by grade level and Table 1. Target Percentage of Students Scoring subject area (reading and math) and must increase in Proficient on State Assessments, 2008–09 equal amounts at least every three years until 2014, when Minimum Maximum 100 percent of students must score proficient on state Median (State) (State) assessments. Critically, all groups of students in a school, Elementary Math 65% 45% (UT) 89% (CO) including low-income, minority, and limited-English proficient students, and students with disabilities, must Elementary Reading 70% 43% (NC) 89% (TN) meet the proficiency benchmark each year for the school Middle School Math 59% 38% (AZ) 86% (TN) to make AYP. By requiring that each subgroup meet the Middle School Reading 67% 43% (NC) 89% (TN) AMO for each year, NCLB prevents schools from using High School Math 63% 40% (UT) 83% (TN) high overall school performance to mask low performance High School Reading 71% 39% (NC) 93% (TN) among some groups of students. Note: Table excludes states that use index scores as their AMOs. States included in the analysis (n=42) report AMOs as the As described in the 2007 report, states’ annual minimum percentage of students scoring proficient on the state measurable objectives that year were still fairly modest. assessments. www.educationsector.org EXPLAINER 1 it requires the highest percentage of students to be As AMOs increase from year to year, there is some proficient in most grade ranges and subjects. But each likelihood that more schools will fail to make AYP and state is allowed to define what proficient means, and will thus be identified as “in need of improvement,” the Tennessee has one of the least rigorous definitions.2 In designation given to schools that miss AYP for at least the first year after the law was passed, NCLB required two consecutive years. Across all states, the percentage states to base their AMO trajectories on actual student of schools not making AYP grew from 29 percent during performance. Tennessee had an easy test then, and pass the 2006–07 school year to 35 percent in 2007–08.4 rates were high. As such, subsequent AMO targets were elevated. But meeting state AMOs is not the only way schools can make AYP. As described in our previous report, NCLB Figure 1 shows the median AMO across states for each provides a number of alternatives, without which the school year. AMOs have gradually increased from the number of schools failing to make AYP would likely be 2004–05 school year through 2009–10. Almost half of even greater. These include confidence intervals, which states chose to make increases in AMOs more frequent create more leeway in the percentage of students that in later years, essentially adopting a “balloon mortgage” must be proficient for a school to make AYP; minimum approach to reaching 100 percent proficiency. As the subgroup sizes, which exempt schools from being held mortgage comes due for these states, annual increases accountable for the performance of small groups of will become larger. California’s AMOs, for example, students; and rolling averages, which allow schools to increased by approximately 11 percent every three years average their scores across multiple years. Schools may through the 2007–08 school year, essentially requiring also benefit from the “safe harbor” provision, which allows schools to increase proficiency rates by nearly 4 percent schools to make AYP by reducing the percentage of a year. But after 2007–08, California’s AMOs began to students scoring below proficient by 10 percent. increase by 11 percent every year, requiring schools to shift from 4 percent to 11 percent annual increases in Growth models are the most recent alternative schools proficiency rates.3 have available for meeting AYP. Under a growth model, Figure 1. Median Annual Measurable Objectives, by Grade Level and Subject Area: 2004–05 Through 2009–10 Elementary School Math Middle School Math High School Math Elementary School Reading Middle School Reading High School Reading 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Annual Measurable Objective 20 10 0 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 School Year www.educationsector.org EXPLAINER 2 a state can get credit for a student who makes enough whether a school is performing well, it is important progress from one year to the next to be on track to to know that year’s proficiency target, or AMO, how reaching proficiency in future years, even if that student rigorous are the state assessments, and how rigorous is not yet scoring proficient on the state assessments. is the requirement for proficiency. The U.S. Department of Education approved pilot growth model programs in nine states between May 2006 and The rigor of proficiency standards in your state July 2007 through a peer reviewed process. Since then, can be estimated by comparing the percentage of the secretary expanded eligibility to all states to apply students scoring proficient on the state exam with the to use growth models in determining AYP, but just six percentage of students in the state scoring proficient additional states have had their growth models approved on the NAEP, a national test of student performance.6 for use.5 This comparison can reveal wide discrepancies across states. In Massachusetts, for example, 48 With a new administration in the White House and NCLB’s percent of students scored proficient on the state reauthorization overdue, it is likely the law will undergo assessment in fourth-grade reading. This is very close substantial changes in the next few years, including to the 44 percent of students who scored proficient revisions to the way AYP is calculated. As lawmakers in fourth-grade reading on the NAEP exam, indicating consider changes to NCLB’s accountability system, they that Massachusetts’ definition of proficiency is well- can learn a lot from the way NCLB has been implemented aligned with the definition used on the NAEP exam. by states, districts, and schools. A good understanding of In contrast, 88 percent of fourth-grade students the many ways schools can currently make AYP and how scored proficient on the state assessment in reading states and districts have used existing flexibility in the law in Tennessee, but only 27 percent scored proficient over the past eight years will be critical to creating a new, on the NAEP exam, an indication that Tennessee’s better accountability system in the next round.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) User's Guide
    Figure: 19 TAC §97.1004(b) Section II: System Overview Under the accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), all districts, campuses, and the state are evaluated for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Following is an overview of the process for determining district and campus 2007 AYP Status. Key Dates Related to the 2007 AYP Process November 30, 2005 AYP Flexibility Agreement Approved USDE and TEA reached a flexibility agreement with respect to the inclusion of students with disabilities for 2005, 2006, and 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress. February 15, 2007 TEA Requests for Amendments TEA submits requests for amendments to the Texas Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook (Texas AYP Workbook). April, 2007 Exception Applications via RF Tracker Districts with residential treatment facilities (RF) and group foster homes may apply for an exception to the 3% cap by registering with the Division of Program Monitoring and Interventions’ RF Tracker Texas Education Agency Secure Environment (TEASE) application. May 9, 2007 AYP Calculations Approved USDE approves amendments to the Texas AYP Workbook related to the 2007 AYP calculations. June, 2007 AYP Guide Released Section II: System Overview 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Guide 12 August 8, 2007 Release of 2007 Preliminary Data Tables to Campuses and Districts TEA provides 2007 AYP preliminary data tables to school districts on the Texas Education Agency Secure Environment (TEASE) for Title I and non-Title I districts and campuses, alternative education campuses, and open-enrollment charter schools. Appeals Begin Student-level data for submission of appeals are available to districts electronically. Appeal letters for district and campus AYP results are accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
    Order Code RL32495 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act Updated August 31, 2006 Wayne C. Riddle Specialist in Education Policy Domestic Social Policy Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act Summary Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), authorizes financial aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children and youth at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels. Over the last several years, the accountability provisions of this program have been increasingly focused on achievement and other outcomes for participating pupils and schools. Since 1994, and particularly under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), a key concept embodied in these requirements is that of “adequate yearly progress (AYP)” for schools, LEAs, and states. AYP is defined primarily on the basis of aggregate scores of various groups of pupils on state assessments of academic achievement. The primary purpose of AYP requirements is to serve as the basis for identifying schools and LEAs where performance is unsatisfactory, so that inadequacies may be addressed first through provision of increased support and, ultimately, a variety of “corrective actions.” Under the NCLBA, the Title I-A requirements for state-developed standards of AYP were substantially expanded in scope and specificity. Under the NCLBA, AYP calculations must be disaggregated — i.e., determined separately and specifically for not only all pupils but also for several demographic groups of pupils within each school, LEA, and state.
    [Show full text]
  • Adequate Yearly Progress, Special Education, and Student Success: Can They All Co-Exist? Ruth Reynolds Olivet Nazarene University, [email protected]
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Olivet Nazarene University Olivet Nazarene University Digital Commons @ Olivet Ed.D. Dissertations School of Graduate and Continuing Studies 5-2010 Adequate Yearly Progress, Special Education, and Student Success: Can They All Co-Exist? Ruth Reynolds Olivet Nazarene University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/edd_diss Part of the Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Special Education Administration Commons, and the Special Education and Teaching Commons Recommended Citation Reynolds, Ruth, "Adequate Yearly Progress, Special Education, and Student Success: Can They All Co-Exist?" (2010). Ed.D. Dissertations. 12. https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/edd_diss/12 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Graduate and Continuing Studies at Digital Commons @ Olivet. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ed.D. Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Olivet. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS, SPECIAL EDUCATION, AND STUDENT SUCCESS: CAN THEY ALL CO-EXIST? by Ruth Reynolds Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Olivet Nazarene University School of Graduate and Continuing Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in Ethical Leadership May 2010 © 2010 Ruth Reynolds All Rights Reserved i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my dissertation team for their tireless reading of many revisions. My advisor, Dr. Melvin Welch, was indispensible for his dedication, helpfulness, and support through the dissertation process. Because of his caring assistance and Christian support I was able to complete this project.
    [Show full text]
  • House Concurrent Resolution No. 51
    SECOND REGULAR SESSION House Concurrent Resolution No. 51 95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES LAMPE (Sponsor), HARRIS, ROORDA, WALTON GRAY, WEBB, FISCHER (107), LOW, STILL AND SCHIEFFER (Co-sponsors). 3700L.01I Whereas, the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB Act), the 2002 2 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, has valuable stated 3 goals of closing achievement gaps, reducing high school dropouts, proclaiming that every child 4 can learn, challenging every child to dream a bright future, and preparing all children to 5 contribute to society; and 6 7 Whereas, its implementation has, despite these laudable goals, in reality 8 undermined the capacity of public schools, especially those serving very poor children and 9 demographically complex populations; and 10 11 Whereas, the NCLB Act overemphasizes standardized testing as the sole indicator 12 of student achievement; and 13 14 Whereas, the NCLB Act forces schools to narrow curriculum and to focus on the 15 tested skills of reading and math, thereby reducing time spent on the arts, social studies, and the 16 humanities; and 17 18 Whereas, the Adequate Yearly Progress rankings in the NCLB Act fail to 19 acknowledge educational growth of particular children and instead measures whether subgroups 20 of children reach particular test score benchmarks; and 21 22 Whereas, the NCLB Act mandates that schools are labeled "in need of 23 improvement" on the basis that test scores fail to reach named benchmarks even when subgroup 24 list scores
    [Show full text]
  • ESEA Reauthorization | Every Student Succeeds Act
    Update ESEA Reauthorization | Every Student Succeeds Act On December 10, 2015, the sixth reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed by President Obama. The Every Student Succeeds Act replaces the previous ESEA reauthorization, No Child Left Behind, which had been in place since 2001. States will be expected to make changes in accordance to the new law by the start of the 2017-18 school year. This brief highlights the evolution of the ESEA, as well as key changes in the Every Student Succeeds Act. THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT In 1965, as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty, Congress WHAT IS TITLE I? enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in an effort to provide equitable access to education for all children. The passage of ESEA Historically, the U.S. Department of elevated the federal government’s involvement in public education, authorizing Education has allocated the majority federal spending on public K-12 programs. Until 2001, with the passing of No Child of ESEA funding to Title I initiatives, Left Behind, ESEA primarily funded initiatives to support low-income and special the purpose of which is “to ensure needs students through a provision known as Title I. The main authority and that all children have a fair, equal, and funding responsibilities for K-12 education were left to states and local districts. significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a With the exception of the 2015 reauthorization, each prior reauthorization minimum, proficiency on challenging increased the federal government’s role in public education—perhaps most state academic achievement standards notably with the 2001 reauthorization, No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
    [Show full text]
  • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Guide
    2012 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Guide For Texas Public School Districts and Campuses Texas Education Agency Department of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting June 2012 Copies of the 2012 Adequate Yearly Progress Guide may be purchased from: Publications Distribution Office Texas Education Agency P.O. Box 13817 Austin, TX 78711-3817 [email protected] Please use the order form on the last page of this publication. Remit $9.00 for each copy for a non-profit institution, or $11.00 for all others. These amounts include mailing and handling charges. Inventory of this publication is not guaranteed. This publication can also be accessed and downloaded free of charge from the Texas Education Agency Internet site at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2012/index.html Copyright © Notice The Materials are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as the property of the Texas Education Agency and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the Texas Education Agency, except under the following conditions: 1) Texas public school districts, charter schools, and Education Service Centers may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for the districts’ and schools’ educational use without obtaining permission from the Texas Education Agency; 2) Residents of the state of Texas may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for individual personal use only without obtaining written permission of the Texas Education Agency; 3) Any portion reproduced must be reproduced in its entirety and remain unedited, unaltered and unchanged in any way; 4) No monetary charge can be made for the reproduced materials or any document containing them; however, a reasonable charge to cover only the cost of reproduction and distribution may be charged.
    [Show full text]
  • The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress, NCLB's School Evaluation System
    The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress, NCLB's School Evaluation System by William J. Mathis Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union University of Vermont The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice PO Box 1263 East Lansing, MI 48826 Phone: (517) 203-2940 Email: [email protected] Web Site: http://www.greatlakescenter.org September 2006 http://www.greatlakescenter.org This research was made possible by a grant from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress, NCLB's School Evaluation System William J. Mathis Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union University of Vermont Executive Summary Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is the key element of the accountability system mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This report reveals that AYP in its 2006 form as the prime indicator of academic achievement is not supported by reliable evidence. Expecting all children to reach mastery level on their state’s standardized tests by 2014, the fundamental requirement of AYP, is unrealistic. The growth model and other improvement proposals now on the table do not have sufficient power to resolve the underlying problems of the system. In addition, the program, whether conceived as implementation costs or remedial costs, is significantly underfunded in a way that will disproportionately penalize schools attended by the neediest children. Further, the curriculum is being narrowed to focus on tested areas at the cost of other vital educational purposes. It is therefore recommended that: • AYP sanctions be suspended until the premises underlying them can be either confirmed or refuted by solid, scientific research and unintended, negative consequences can be avoided.
    [Show full text]
  • At What Point Do Schools Fail to Meet Adequate Yearly Progress and What Factors Are Most Closely Associated with Their Failure? a Survival Analysis1,2
    1 At What Point Do Schools Fail to Meet Adequate Yearly Progress and What Factors are Most Closely Associated with Their Failure? A Survival Analysis1,2 Penny L. Pruitt Alex J. Bowers3 The University of Texas at San Antonio Teachers College, Columbia University ABSTRACT:123 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to examine the factors most The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors most associated with the probability of Texas high schools failing associated with the probability of Texas high schools failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under NCLB, to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) during the first examining the entire population of all Texas public and decade of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This study charter high schools from 2003-2011, n=1721. While focuses on the hazard probability of failing to meet AYP literature to date focuses on the different variables that may and the factors that most influence the failure to meet AYP affect schools in meeting AYP as well as addressing the utilizing data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for success and failure of charter schools, there is a lack of the years 2003 – 2011 and the National Center for research on the specific variables that have the most impact Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data. on failing to meet AYP, considered here as a “hazard”. We used discrete time hazard modeling to estimate the Although both secondary and elementary campuses are probability of a school failing AYP for the first time in the required to meet AYP in Texas during this time period, this time period.
    [Show full text]
  • 150 Subpart A—Defining Adequate Yearly Progress
    SUBCHAPTER E—EDUCATION PART 30—ADEQUATE YEARLY Subpart C—Failure To Make Adequate PROGRESS (Eff. until 4–27–20) Yearly Progress 30.117 What happens if a Bureau-funded Sec. school fails to make AYP? 30.100 What is the purpose of this part? 30.118 May a Bureau-funded school present 30.101 What definitions apply to terms in evidence of errors in identification before this part? it is identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring? Subpart A—Defining Adequate Yearly 30.119 Who is responsible for implementing Progress required remedial actions at a Bureau- funded school identified for school im- 30.102 Does the Act require the Secretary of provement, corrective action or restruc- the Interior to develop a definition of turing? AYP for Bureau-funded schools? 30.120 Are Bureau-funded schools exempt 30.103 Did the Committee consider a sepa- from school choice and supplemental rate Bureau definition of AYP? services when identified for school im- provement, corrective action, and re- 30.104 What is the Secretary’s definition of structuring? AYP? 30.121 What funds are available to assist ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION OF AYP schools identified for school improve- ment, corrective action, or restruc- 30.105 Can a tribal governing body or school turing? board use another definition of AYP? 30.122 Must the Bureau assist a school it 30.106 How does a tribal governing body or identified for school improvement, cor- school board propose an alternative defi- rective action, or restructuring? nition of AYP? 30.123 What is the Bureau’s role
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Your Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 2011-2012
    2011-2012 Understanding Your Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education July 2011 DESE 3341-19 July 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Meeting the Requirements of AYP........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Step 1: Participation Rate ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Step 1 Calculation Details (LND) ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Step 1 Calculation Details (Participati on Rate) .................................................................................................................................... 3 Step 2: Cell Size ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Step 3: Annual Proficiency Target Indicator ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Content Areas ................................................................................................................ .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Adequate Yearly Progress Requirement of the Federal "No Child Left Behind" Act on Schools in The
    The Impact of the Adequate Yearly Progress Requirement of the Federal “No Child Left Behind” Act on Schools in the Great Lakes Region by Edward W. Wiley Assistant Professor University of Colorado – Boulder William J. Mathis Superintendent Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union University of Vermont David R. Garcia Assistant Professor Arizona State University Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) Education Policy Studies Laboratory College of Education Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Box 872411 Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-2411 September 2005 EDUCATION POLICY STUDIES LABORATORY EPSL | Education Policy Research Unit EPSL-0509-109-EPRU http://edpolicylab.org Education Policy Studies Laboratory Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies College of Education, Arizona State University P.O. Box 872411, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411 Telephone: (480) 965-1886 Fax: (480) 965-0303 E-mail: [email protected] http://edpolicylab.org This research was made possible by a grant from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Impact of the Adequate Yearly Progress Requirement of the Federal “No Child Left Behind” Act on Schools in the Great Lakes Region Edward W. Wiley University of Colorado – Boulder William J. Mathis Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union University of Vermont David R. Garcia Arizona State University Executive Summary This study finds that nearly every school in the Great Lakes states is threatened to fail the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements mandated by the federal “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) Act. NCLB holds schools and districts accountable for student achievement on state standardized tests and schools that do not make AYP face sanctions. A school or district can avoid sanctions one of two ways: produce test scores that meet AYP annual objectives set by the state, or by making sufficient improvement over the previous year’s test scores to take advantage of “Safe Harbor” status.
    [Show full text]
  • Adequate Yearly Progress and Dropouts
    Adequate Yearly Progress and Dropouts: An Analysis of Kentucky High Schools & Districts Prepared by Michelle Schardein Master in Public Policy Capstone Summer 2012 Dr. Joshua Cowen, Faculty Advisor Dr. J.S. Butler, Faculty Advisor Table of Contents Executive Summary _____________________________________________________________________________ 3 Introduction ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 A. Accountability Overview ____________________________________________________________________ 4 B. Dropouts In Kentucky _______________________________________________________________________ 5 Relevant Theory and Literature ____________________________________________________________ 8 A. History of Accountability ___________________________________________________________________ 8 B. No Child Left Behind _______________________________________________________________________ 11 C. Dropout Rates ______________________________________________________________________________ 14 Research Design _____________________________________________________________________________ 16 A. Data __________________________________________________________________________________________ 16 B. Research Model _____________________________________________________________________________ 21 Analysis and Findings ______________________________________________________________________ 24 A. Fixed Effects ________________________________________________________________________________ 24 B. Between Effects _____________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]