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