DOCSLIB.ORG

150 Subpart A—Defining Adequate Yearly Progress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 in assisting 30.107 What must a tribal governing body or Bureau-funded schools to make AYP? school board include in its alternative 30.124 Will the Department of Education definition of AYP? provide funds for schools that fail to 30.108 May an alternative definition of AYP meet AYP? use parts of the Secretary’s definition? 30.125 What happens if a State refuses to allow a school access to the State assess- TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ment? 30.109 Will the Secretary provide assistance Subpart D—Responsibilities and in developing an alternative AYP defini- Accountability tion? 30.110 What is the process for requesting 30.126 What is required for the Bureau to technical assistance to develop an alter- meet its reporting responsibilities? native definition of AYP? 30.150 Information Collection. 30.111 When should the tribal governing AUTHORITY: Public Law 107–110, 115 Stat. body or school board request technical 1425. assistance? SOURCE: 70 FR 22200, Apr. 28, 2005, unless APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION otherwise noted. 30.113 How does the Secretary review and EFFECTIVE DATE NOTE: At 85 FR 17020, Mar. approve an alternative definition of 26, 2020, part 30 was revised, effective Apr. 27, AYP? 2020. For the convenience of the user, the new part 30 follows the text of this part. Subpart B—Assessing Adequate Yearly Progress § 30.100 What is the purpose of this part? 30.114 Which students must be assessed? This part establishes for schools re- 30.115 Which students’ performance data ceiving Bureau funding a definition of must be included for purposes of AYP? ‘‘Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).’’ 30.116 If a school fails to achieve its annual Nothing in this part: measurable objectives, what other meth- ods may it use to determine whether it (a) Diminishes the Secretary’s trust made AYP? responsibility for Indian education or any statutory rights in law; 149 VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:51 May 22, 2020 Jkt 250087 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\25\25V1.TXT PC31 kpayne on VMOFRWIN702 with $$_JOB § 30.101 25 CFR Ch. I (4–1–20 Edition) (b) Affects in any way the sovereign § 30.103 Did the Committee consider a rights of tribes; or separate Bureau definition of AYP? (c) Terminates or changes the trust Yes, the Committee considered hav- responsibility of the United States to ing the Bureau of Indian Affairs de- Indian tribes or individual Indians. velop a separate Bureau definition of AYP. For a variety of reasons, the § 30.101 What definitions apply to Committee reached consensus on the terms in this part? definition in § 30.104. This definition is Act means the No Child Left Behind in no way intended to diminish the Act, Public Law 107–110, enacted Janu- United States’ trust responsibility for ary 8, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Indian education nor is it intended to Act reauthorizes and amends the Ele- give States authority over Bureau- mentary and Secondary Education Act funded schools. (ESEA) and amends the Education Amendments of 1978. § 30.104 What is the Secretary’s defini- Bureau means the Bureau of Indian tion of AYP? Affairs in the Department of the Inte- The Secretary defines AYP as fol- rior. lows. The definition meets the require- Department means the Department of ments in 20 U.S.C. 6311(b). the Interior. (a) Effective in the 2005–2006 school OIEP means the Office of Indian Edu- year, the academic content and student cation Programs in the Bureau of In- achievement standards, assessments, dian Affairs. and the definition of AYP are those of School means a school funded by the the State where the school is located, Bureau of Indian Affairs. unless an alternative definition of AYP Secretary means the Secretary of the is proposed by the tribal governing Interior or a designated representative. body or school board and approved by Secretaries means the Secretary of the the Secretary. Interior and the Secretary of Edu- (1) If the geographic boundaries of cation. the school include more than one State, the tribal governing body or school board may choose the State def- Subpart A—Defining Adequate inition it desires. Such decision shall Yearly Progress be communicated to the Secretary in writing. § 30.102 Does the Act require the Sec- (2) This section does not mean that retary of the Interior to develop a definition of AYP for Bureau-fund- the school is under the jurisdiction of ed schools? the State for any purpose, rather a ref- erence to the State is solely for the Yes, the Act requires the Secretary purpose of using the State’s assess- to develop a definition of AYP through ment, academic content and student negotiated rulemaking. In developing achievement standards, and definition the Secretary’s definition of AYP, the of AYP. No Child Left Behind Negotiated Rule- (3) The use of the State’s definition making Committee (Committee) con- of AYP does not diminish or alter the sidered a variety of options. In choos- Federal Government’s trust responsi- ing the definition in § 30.104, the Com- bility for Indian education. mittee in no way intended to diminish (b) School boards or tribal governing the Secretary’s trust responsibility for bodies may seek a waiver that may in- Indian education or any statutory clude developing their own definition rights in law. Nothing in this part: of AYP, or adopting or modifying an (a) Affects in any way the sovereign existing definition of AYP that has rights of tribes; or been accepted by the Department of (b) Terminates or changes the trust Education. The Secretary is committed responsibility of the United States to to providing technical assistance to a Indian tribes or individual Indians. school, or a group of schools, to de- velop an alternative definition of AYP. 150 VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:51 May 22, 2020 Jkt 250087 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\25\25V1.TXT PC31 kpayne on VMOFRWIN702 with $$_JOB Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior § 30.108 ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION OF AYP (5) Measure progress separately for reading or language arts and for math- § 30.105 May a tribal governing body ematics; or school board use another defini- (6) Unless disaggregation of data can- tion of AYP? not yield statistically reliable informa- Yes. A tribal governing body or tion or reveals personally identifiable school board may waive all or part of information, apply the same annual the Secretary’s definition of academic measurable objectives to each of the content and achievement standards, as- following: sessments, and AYP. However, unless (i) The achievement of all students; an alternative definition is approved under § 30.113, the school must use the and Secretary’s definition of academic con- (ii) The achievement of economically tent and achievement standards, as- disadvantaged students, students from sessments, and AYP. major racial or ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with § 30.106 How does a tribal governing limited English proficiency; body or school board propose an al- (7) Establish a starting point; ternative definition of AYP? (8) Create a timeline to ensure that If a tribal governing body or school all students are proficient by the 2013– board decides that the definition of 2014 school year; AYP in § 30.104 is inappropriate, it may (9) Establish annual measurable ob- decide to waive all or part of the defi- jectives; nition. Within 60 days of the decision (10) Establish intermediate goals; to waive, the tribal governing body or (11) Include at least one other aca- school board must submit to the Sec- demic indicator which, for any school retary a proposal for an alternative with a 12th grade, must be graduation definition of AYP. The proposal must meet the requirements of 20 U.S.C. rate; and 6311(b) and 34 CFR 200.13–200.20, taking (12) Ensure that at least 95 percent of into account the unique circumstances the students enrolled in each group and needs of the school or schools and under § 30.107(b)(6) are assessed. the students served. (c) If a Bureau-funded school’s alter- native definition of AYP does not use a § 30.107 What must a tribal governing State’s academic content and student body or school board include in its achievement standards and academic alternative definition of AYP? assessments, the school must include (a) An alternative definition of AYP with its alternative definition the aca- must meet the requirements of 20 demic standards and assessment it pro- U.S.C.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]