DOCSLIB.ORG

Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress 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.
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]
  • 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]