TOPICAL SUMMARY JULY 2004 NORTHWEST REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY Office of Planning and Service Coordination

Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress

he No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The law states that “schools must What’s Inside Act of 2001 has brought about a establish a definition of adequate yearly 2—MARKING PROGRESS T sea change in education in the progress that each district and school is 3—CONSEQUENCES United States. While the act has its expected to meet. States must specify 4—STATES’ PLANS detractors—as well as its admirers— annual objectives to measure progress 5—REGIONAL AYP PATTERNS among educators, parents, government of schools and districts to ensure that 6—CONCLUSION officials, and the media, there is little all groups of students—including low- doubt that NCLB has cast new light on income students, students from major 6—BIBLIOGRAPHY public schools by using hard data to racial and ethnic groups, students with focus on achievement gaps at the indi- disabilities, and students with limited vidual school level. English proficiency—reach proficiency This Topical Summary discusses one [in reading and math] within 12 years.” Congress reauthorizes ESEA every five key aspect of NCLB: adequate yearly years: The No Child Left Behind Act of progress (AYP). It reviews the major FOUNDATION LEGISLATION 2001 is merely the latest incarnation. requirements of AYP, examines how When the law was passed, it received the five Northwestern states determine NCLB and its requirements for adequate widespread bipartisan support and AYP, and reports what the current data yearly progress grew out of the Elemen- President Bush hailed it as “the corner- tell us about the achievement gaps tary and Secondary Education Act stone of my administration.” During his among groups of students in these (ESEA), which Congress enacted in April first week in office, the President states. Finally, this report looks at how 1965 to provide guidance and funding to observed, “These reforms express my the top state education officials are public K–12 schools. This legislation deep belief in our public schools and viewing AYP results. formed the most important educational their mission to build the mind and component of President Lyndon B. John- character of every child, from every son’s “War on Poverty” by establishing background, in every part of America.” the Title I program, which provides PLACING AYP “compensatory” education funding for IN CONTEXT economically disadvantaged students. Over the years, ESEA has allocated bil- THE LATEST MODEL The adequate yearly progress (AYP) lions of dollars to schools with high pop- NCLB is the most sweeping reform yet requirement is at the core of NCLB’s ulations of economically disadvantaged of ESEA while renewing the federal accountability system. While AYP existed children through Title I. The act remains commitment to closing achievement in another form in prior legislation, a work in progress and continues to gaps. It establishes a framework for NCLB changed the emphasis from over- exert a powerful influence on education raising student achievement and adds all student performance to the perfor- and public policy in the United States accountability provisions to Title I mance of subgroups. some four decades after its inception. grantees. These provisions hold states, 2 progress. The process, summarized all five Northwest states, the AYP require- below, is drawn from No Child Left ment focuses immediate attention on Behind: A Desktop Reference, pub- those schools and groups of students that lished by the U.S. Department of Educa- lag behind their peers academically. tion. Each state has an accountability plan approved by the federal govern- STEP 3: STATES STEADILY school districts, and individual schools ment that specifies how the steps are INCREASE OBJECTIVES FOR accountable for improving the aca- implemented. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT demic achievement of all students, with all as the operative word. STEP 1: STATES ESTABLISH Once the baseline is established, the states The accountability provisions require ACADEMIC STANDARDS set interim AYP targets for increasing the that states: number of students who are proficient, • Create challenging academic content Academic standards articulate what stu- with the goal of 100 percent of students and student academic achievement stan- dents should know and be able to do; they reaching the state’s standards for profi- dards must apply uniformly to all schools and ciency by 2014. By 2004–2005, schools • Create assessments that measure the students in the state. The standards should are expected to have hit the first improve- reading and math skills of all students include challenging academic content in ment target. Other targets must be no in grades 3–8 annually and in at least academic subjects but must, according to more than three years apart, which means one grade during grades 10–12 by the NCLB, begin with standards in reading and the target will be reset at least five times in 2005–2006 school year math as the primary measures of AYP. By 12 years. Target increases must be equal • Issue “report cards” on each school’s the 2005–2006 school year, states also and incremental; for example, a state that academic achievements must have in place standards for science. starts at 40 percent in 2001–2002 might • Implement a single statewide account- After standards are established, states shoot for 45 percent in 2004, 50 percent ability system develop tests that measure whether stu- in 2006, 55 percent in 2008, and so on • Specify annual measurable objectives dents are “proficient” in reading and math until the 100 percent target is reached. that gauge student progress to ensure that by meeting state benchmarks. Targets for tested grade levels must be the all students reach proficiency in reading same for all schools and for all subgroups and math in 12 years with the data disag- STEP 2: STATES CALCULATE of students within schools. gregated for students with limited English THE STARTING POINT FOR AYP States were also required to set one proficiency and by income levels, race/ additional measure of academic ethnicity, and students with disabilities The goal of NCLB is for all students to be progress. For high schools, that mea- Being accountable for the performance proficient in reading and math by 2014. sure is the graduation rate. For elemen- of all students is one of the major chal- However, states set the initial starting tary and middle schools, each state lenges of NCLB. This accountability is point for determining whether schools selected its own measure—usually based on whether states, districts, and have made AYP by using 2001–2002 attendance rates, achievement on addi- schools are making adequate yearly assessment data in one of two ways. The tional state assessments, or decreases in progress toward the aim of bringing all baseline is either the passing rate for the grade-by-grade retention rates. students to academic proficiency by the lowest-performing subgroup of students end of the 2013–2014 school year. in the state (low income, disabled, lim- STEP 4: STATES MEASURE ited English proficient, racial/ethnic PERFORMANCE OF SCHOOL minority) or the passing rate for the DISTRICTS, SCHOOLS, AND school at the 20th percentile of overall GROUPS OF STUDENTS MARKING performance in the state, whichever is PROGRESS higher. The beginning target must be the Under NCLB, states must determine same for all groups of students at the annually if a Title I school is hitting the NCLB requires states to use a five-step tested grade level within a district or state-established AYP targets. States com- process to determine whether Title I school. By setting initial goals at the 20th pare the percentage of students in each schools are making adequate yearly percentile school, which is the case for school and the percentage of students in 3 each subgroup who meet proficiency • Parents are notified and given the standards to the statewide goals for the option of transferring their children to a year. States also measure whether the higher-performing school in the district. school has met the statewide goal for Priority is given to the lowest-achieving the additional academic indicator. AYP low-income students in that school. requirements are satisfied when the Transportation is provided or paid for school as a whole and each individual by the district out of its Title I allocation If the school does not make subgroup within the school meet or or another source. AYP for six consecutive years: exceed the statewide goals, with an aver- • The school must continue corrective age of 95 percent of the students com- If a school does not make AYP action. pleting the assessments. By 2005–2006, for three consecutive years: • The school must develop an “alter- states must begin assessing reading and • The school continues previous reme- nate governance” plan that includes one math every year in grades 3–8 and at diation activities. of the following actions: least once in grades 10–12. • Parents are given the option of using –Reopening the school as a public state-approved supplemental services charter school STEP 5: STATES BEGIN ACTION like tutoring. These services are paid –Replacing all or most of the staff TO HELP STRUGGLING SCHOOLS for with Title I funds. (School districts responsible for the lack of progress are required to spend 20 percent of –Engaging a private company to The sanctions for Title I schools not their Title I Part A funds for both sup- operate the school meeting AYP requirements are straight- plemental services and transportation –Turning over management of the forward under NCLB. for public school choice.) school to the state –Implementing other reforms If a school does not make AYP approved by the state for four consecutive years: It takes two consecutive years of mak- FACING THE • The school continues to notify par- ing AYP for a school to no longer be iden- CONSEQUENCES ents, provide transfer options, and offer tified as needing improvement. While supplemental services. NCLB suggests using the term “in need of Each year, schools are required to • The district and school must imple- improvement” to describe schools that do report their AYP progress to parents ment at least one of the following “cor- not meet AYP requirements for two con- and the community through school rective actions”: secutive years, many states are developing and district report cards. –Replace staff relevant to the failure their own terms to describe schools that –Implement a new curriculum that exhibit different levels of improvement. If a school does not make includes staff development AYP after the first year of –Decrease management authority at SAFE HARBOR measurements: the school level, replacing it with Schools and districts are encouraged more district supervision NCLB includes a provision—known to use the data to identify problems –Extend the school day or year as “safe harbor”—for schools making and make necessary adjustments. –Appoint an outside expert to advise definite progress but not yet meeting the school state goals. Even if a school or sub- If a school does not make AYP –Restructure the school’s internal group within a school falls short of for two consecutive years: organization state performance targets, the school • The school must identify the specific will make AYP if it reduces the number areas that need improvement and If the school does not make of students below the proficient level by develop an improvement plan with AYP for five consecutive years: 10 percent from the previous year and parents, teachers, and outside experts. • The school must continue corrective if students in the subgroup show • The school must devote at least 10 action. improvement on the additional aca- percent of its Title I Part A allocation • The school must plan for restructuring. demic indicator. Schools can apply this to professional development. safe harbor analysis to any subgroup of 4 THE STATES’ A WORK IN PLANS PROGRESS NCLB required each state to submit a As originally written, NCLB required plan by May 2003, detailing its account- that at least 95 percent of the students students that fails to meet the statewide ability system. The plan, known as the in each subgroup take the tests for the goal. Consolidated State Application results to be valid. However, in March T.T. Minor Elementary School in Seattle, Accountability Workbook, contains 31 2004, the U.S. Department of Education Washington, is one example of a North- critical elements grouped under 10 eased the restrictions by reducing the west school that has made AYP under the “principles.” number of students a school must test. safe harbor provision. Less than a third of There is great variation among the Under the current policy, the school the students in this high-poverty, high- states in their plans, particularly in how meets the requirements as long as it minority school were proficient in reading they handle annual objectives and inter- averages a participation rate of 95 per- in 2002–2003, a level well below Wash- mediate goals. For example, Washington cent among students over two or three ington’s AYP target of 56 percent. In math, has separate objectives and goals for years. only 16 percent of all students were profi- reading and for math in each of the NCLB regulations have undergone cient, compared to the state’s target of 36 three tested grades. The other four other changes as well. In December percent. Still, the school made significant states in the Northwest put all tested 2003, U.S. Secretary of Education improvement compared to 2001–2002, grades on the same scale. Also, Wash- Rod Paige issued final regulations on when only 15 percent of students were ington’s objectives increase every year, how schools may test certain students proficient in reading and no students were while the other states’ increase in “stair with disabilities. Each state may now proficient in math. That level of progress steps” every third year. Each of the five define a “significant cognitive disabil- enabled the school to meet adequate Northwest states has its own battery of ity.” Students who fit within this sub- yearly progress requirements. assessments used to determine if stu- group may be given an alternate dents are meeting state proficiency tar- academic assessment based on alter- ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS gets in reading and math. nate achievement standards. Each state The accountability system for limited will have to develop the alternate stan- NCLB includes three provisions that English proficient students also varies dards and assessments, which could ensure the quality of data used in deter- from state to state and is of particular include out-of-grade-level assess- mining AYP compliance: interest in the Northwest region, which ments. • States may average scores from the is home to immigrant populations Another revision, adopted in Febru- reporting year with scores from either speaking a wide variety of languages and ary 2004, affects assessments of limited the previous year or the previous two to a sizable American Indian and Alaska English proficient (LEP) students. Any years when computing the score that will Native population speaking Native Amer- newly arrived immigrant student who be compared to the state performance ican languages. Oregon administers has been in the United States for less target. Schools may also average scores math tests in Spanish and Russian side- than one calendar year may be across all grades within a school. by-side with English. Students can also exempted from the reading test, • Schools are accountable only for the choose to take both math and reading although these students must still take performance of students who have been tests with the questions presented in the math test. States also have the enrolled in the school for the full aca- simplified language. Alaska is consider- option to count in the LEP subgroup demic year. ing developing foreign or Native lan- “exited” LEP students for up to two • Schools are accountable only for sub- guage versions of its exams while Idaho years after they reach English profi- groups that are large enough to provide is considering administering the ISAT in ciency. This allows the schools to count “statistically valid and reliable” data. Spanish. their successes in working toward the Each state can set the minimum number For additional state guidelines, check goal of 100 percent proficiency in of students required for subgroup the online resources on Page 5. reading. accountability. three times that of schools that met AYP 5 REGIONAL AYP (average size, 67) in 2003. In Oregon, PATTERNS only seven of 84 schools with 1,000 or more total enrollment met AYP. So far, what patterns in school or stu- Size was also a big factor in Mon- dent performance in the Northwest tana, which revised the status of almost emerge from the AYP data? The North- 200 schools—adding them to the list of west Regional Educational Laboratory schools meeting federal standards— RESOURCES (NWREL) in Portland, Oregon, has after taking into account the state’s compiled the most recent AYP results rural makeup. “Because of their very For a detailed look at Adequate for Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Mon- small enrollments and the need to pro- Yearly Progress guidelines for your tana, and Idaho. The findings show that tect student privacy, Montana’s smallest own state and other states, see the 1,400 out of 5,100 schools in the schools required a modified procedure State Accountability Plans online region—or more than a quarter— to determine their (AYP) status,” at www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ fell short of AYP targets. explained Superintendent of Public stateplans03/index.html Other findings include: Instruction Linda McCulloch. • The percentage of schools not meet- • Since middle schools and high For the U.S. Department of Educa- ing AYP varied from 20 percent in Mon- schools tend to be large schools with tion Decision Letters on the State tana to 58 percent in Alaska. The more students in the tested grades than Accountability Plans: differences are partly explained by dif- elementary schools, they were much www.ed.gov/admins/lead/ ferences in standards, assessments, and less likely to meet AYP than elementary account/letters/index.html benchmarks, but more by differences in schools. For example, none of the 13 student demographics and school sizes. Montana high schools with more than For state contacts and details on Alaska is already testing all grade levels 1,000 students met AYP. the implementation of the State from three through 10, which makes its • The most common criteria for which Accountability Plans in the Northwest schools more accountable for their per- states did not meet AYP varied greatly. In states, see these NCLB/Title I-specific formance. Most other states tested only Alaska, the performance of all students, resources at the state education in three or four grades in 2003. Alaska Natives, students with disabilities, agency Web sites: Alaska Education Commissioner and economically disadvantaged stu- Alaska: ww.educ.state.ak.us/nclb/ Roger Sampson noted, “Making AYP dents each had a major impact on Idaho: www.sde.state.id.us/sasa/ isn’t easy. In fact, it’s very, very hard. schools not reaching their targets. In Montana: www.opi.state.mt.us/TitleI/ There’s one way to make AYP and many, Oregon, the performance of students Oregon: www.ode.state.or.us/nclb/ many ways of not making it…The ‘all with disabilities on both math and read- Washington: www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/ or nothing’ nature of AYP will be very ing was the most common reason for difficult for many of our schools on a not meeting AYP. For links to NCLB-specific resources year-by-year basis, particularly good In issuing the AYP results for Oregon at professional association and other schools that serve diverse student pop- schools, Superintendent Susan Castillo organization Web sites see: ulations. A school may be doing a very stated that she is committed to NCLB • Council of Chief State School Officers: good job as a whole but miss the mark but also to “an ongoing dialogue with www.ccsso.org/federal_programs/ for all but a few students.” the U.S. Department of Education and NCLB/index.cfm • Large schools are much less likely to our Congressional delegation about • Education Commission of the State make AYP than smaller schools because the criteria for AYP.” She added, “I http://nclb.ecs.org/nclb/ they are more likely to meet the mini- am committed to work hard to ensure • American Association of School mum subgroup size for one or more compliance with the law, but I will not Administrators: ww.aasa.org/NCLB/ subgroups. In Washington, for example, hesitate to point out instances where • National Association of State the average number of students in the the application of the law results in Boards of Education: tested grade in schools not meeting AYP manifest consequences, which indicate www.nasbe.org/Front_Page/NCLB/ was 203 students, which is more than the law should be modified.” Castillo NCLB.html 6 cient in reading and math over the com- ing decades.” Besides providing consis- BIBLIOGRAPHY tent goals that apply to all schools and all students within each state, the Educa- Alaska State Board of Education. tion Trust believes the AYP reports show (n.d.). What you can do to help your that “demography is not destiny, that school make AYP. Anchorage, AK: also observed that Oregon’s overall schools educating large numbers of low Author. Retrieved May 18, 2004, from increase in scores has come “at the income and minority students are capa- www.eed.state.ak.us/nclb/pdf/ what cost of wholesale elimination of ble of not only meeting state standards youcandotohelpyourschoolmakeayp.pdf ‘extras’…from music to sports.” for achievement, but vastly exceeding • A substantial minority of schools them.” Alaska State Board of Education. that did not meet AYP missed on only “The goals of No Child Left Behind (2003a). Consequences of not meet- one criterion, but more commonly they are right for our nation,” adds Wash- ing adequate yearly progress. Anchor- missed on two to five criteria. To show ington Superintendent of Public age, AK: Author. Retrieved May 18, the situation in one state, a quarter of Instruction Terry Bergeson. “We can’t 2004, from www.eed.state.ak.us/nclb/ Idaho schools not meeting AYP missed continue to evaluate our education sys- pdf/consequencesnotmeetingayp.pdf just one criterion and more than half tem by measuring overall student per- missed on two to five. Almost one in 10 formance when those overall scores Alaska State Board of Education. missed on 10 or more criteria. mask a devastating achievement gap (2003b). NCLB AYP: Message & com- Commenting on the results, Idaho affecting the kids with the most chal- munications framework. Anchorage, Superintendent of Public Instruction Mar- lenges in their lives.” AK: Author. Retrieved May 18, 2004, ilyn Howard urged parents and the public However, Bergeson goes on to say from www.eed.state.ak.us/nclb/pdf/ to look beyond the headlines and review that the way AYP is calculated highlights aypmessageandcommunications.pdf each school’s full report, available on the the complexities of the federal law and State Department of Education’s Web site. its unintended consequences. “A school Council of Chief State School Officers. “The reports provide a more detailed pic- or school district that is large and (2003). State plan summaries. Wash- ture than the label the schools will diverse has more ‘categories’ it must ington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 7, receive. It also is important to remember achieve in, so there is great disparity 2004, from www.ccsso.org/content/ that for most schools these reports reflect among schools and districts in how pdfs/StatePlanSummaries.pdf the performance of one grade level, not close they came to making adequate an entire school. These reports will be yearly progress and the challenges they Dianda, M. (2002). ESEA and ade- more meaningful in the future when all face in trying to raise student achieve- quate yearly progress: Monitoring the state’s tests are in place,” she said. ment. The state uniform goals run states’ initial activities [ESEA action counter to the continuous improvement guide]. Washington, DC: National Edu- goal we’ve advanced in our state.” cation Association. Retrieved April 14, ONCLUSION In the end, Bergeson may speak for 2004, from www.nea.org/esea/images/ C both critics and supporters of NCLB in esea-ayp.pdf Now that much of the initial AYP data pointing out that “we cannot become have been collected and analyzed, what lost in statistics…Behind every number Education Commission of the States. do they tell us? The Education Trust, a is a child depending upon us to make (2003). State accountability and national advocacy and research organi- sure he or she is given the necessary consolidated plans. Denver, CO: zation, concludes that “the system is tools to discover and achieve his or Author. Retrieved May 18, 2004, from doing what it was meant to do: shining a her dreams.” www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/42/65/ bright light on the state of achievement in 4265.htm America, identifying schools that need improvement, and allowing us to take Education Trust. (2003a). Elementary important steps toward closing achieve- and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) ment gaps and having all students profi- [Web page]. Washington, DC: Author. 7 Retrieved April 12, 2004, from www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/ www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/ESEA F7F160C3-DE70-4F63-BF0C- 2DC47911DA66/0/ AYPUnderNCLB.pdf Education Trust. (2003b). The ABCs of “AYP”: Raising achievement for Idaho Department of Education. (n.d.). all students. Washington, DC: Author. 2002–03 adequate yearly progress Retrieved April 12, 2004, from report: State of Idaho. Boise, ID: http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_ www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/ Author. Retrieved May 21, 2004, from schugurensky/assignment1/ 9C974109-4A70-4F5E-A07F- www.sde.state.id.us/admin/ayp/detail_ 1965elemsec.html 6DC90D656F0F/0/ABCAYP.pdf state.asp Spring, J. (1993). Conflict of inter- Erpenbach, W.J., Forte-Fast, E., & Potts, Improving America’s Schools Act of ests: The politics of American educa- A. (2003). Statewide educational 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. tion (2nd ed.). New York, NY: accountability under NCLB: Central 3632. (1994). Retrieved May 21, 2004, Longman. issues arising from an examination from www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/ of state accountability workbooks toc.html U.S. Department of Education. (2002). and U.S. Department of Education No Child Left Behind: A desktop refer- reviews under the No Child Left National Education Association. ence. Washington, DC: Author. Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: (2004a). No Child Left Behind Retrieved May 21, 2004, from Council of Chief State School Officers. Act/ESEA: The issue. Washington, DC: www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ Retrieved April 7, 2004, from Author. Retrieved May 21, 2004, from nclbreference/reference.pdf www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/Statewide www.nea.org/esea/ EducationalAccountabilityUnderNCLB.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2003). National Education Association. Approved state accountability plans. Greenough, R. (2003). Patterns in the (2004b). Assessing students with Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April adequate yearly progress determina- disabilities. Washington, DC: Author. 7, 2004, from www.ed.gov/admins/ tions for Northwest region schools in Retrieved April 14, 2004, from www. lead/account/stateplans03/index.html 2003 [PowerPoint presentation]. Port- nea.org/esea/nclbdisabilitiesflex.html land, OR: Northwest Regional Educa- tional Laboratory. Retrieved May 21, National Education Association. 2004, from www.nwrel.org/planning/ rna/ (2004c). Assessing limited English presentations/RNApresentation_AYP.ppt proficient students. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 14, 2004, from Hall, D., Wiener, R., & Carey, K. www.nea.org/esea/nclblepassess.html (2003). What new “AYP” information tells us about schools, states, and pub- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. lic education. Washington, DC: Educa- No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002). tion Trust. Retrieved May 21, 2004, Retrieved May 21, 2004, from www.ed. from www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/ gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf 4B9BF8DE-987A-4063-B750- 6D67607E7205/0/NewAYP.pdf Schugurensky, D. (2002). 1965: Ele- mentary and Secondary School Act, the Haycock, K., & Wiener, R. (2003, ‘War on Poverty’ and Title I. In History April). Adequate yearly progress of education: Selected moments of under NCLB. Paper prepared for the the 20th century [Electronic version]. National Center on Education and the Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, Economy Forum, Washington, DC. Ontario Institute for Studies in Educa- Retrieved May 21, 2004, from tion. Retrieved April 12, 2004, from The system is doing what it was meant to do: ‘‘shining a bright light on the state of achievement in America, identifying schools that need improve- ment, and allowing us to take important steps

toward closing achievement gaps and having all students proficient ‘‘ in reading and math over the coming decades.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: 503-275-9500, Fax: 503-275-0458 E-mail: [email protected] NWREL’s Web site address is www.nwrel.org

Planning and Service Coordination Director: Dr. Steven R. Nelson Writer: Wendell Anderson Editors: Rhonda Barton, Richard Greenough Design and Production: Denise Crabtree Technical Editor: Eugenia Cooper Potter

Comments or queries may be directed to Dr. Steven R. Nelson at [email protected]. To order products call 503-275-0755 or 800-547-6339 ext. 755.

This publication has been funded at least in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-01-CO- 0013. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organiza- tions imply endorsement by the U.S. government.