THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
ESEA ACTION GUIDE May, 2002
ESEA and Adequate Yearly Progress:
Monitoring States’ Initial Activities
The “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) provisions are among the more complex requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). As early as next month, the U.S. Department of Education is expected to issue regulations that interpret ESEA’s AYP provisions. In the meantime, each state is now preparing its consolidated application for ESEA state grants to the Department. Fortunately, the application timeline provides an opportunity to work with states as they set up the apparatus they need to meet ESEA’s AYP provisions.
ESEA requires states to establish baselines or starting points they will use to measure their progress over the next 12 years in meeting a key ESEA requirement: That all students are performing at a “proficient” level or above on state reading and math assessments by 2013-14.
In addition, states must determine how they will define “proficient” student performance in reading and math; decide on indicators of student performance they will include in their definitions of AYP; and set interim AYP targets that establish minimal levels of increased student performance from 2002-03 through 2013-14.
Questions to Ask Now About States’ AYP-Related Activities
1. How does your state currently define AYP? Does the definition meet ESEA requirements?
2. How will the state establish the baselines it will use to determine if schools and districts make AYP in reading and math, as ESEA requires?
3. How will the state establishing intermediate AYP targets that schools and districts must meet in reading and math between now and 2013-14?
4. How will the state define a “proficient” level of performance for students in reading and math for ESEA? Who will be involved in defining proficiency?
5. What additional academic indicators ¾ such as attendance rates or achievement on local assessments ¾ is the state considering as part of its definition of AYP? Are these the best indicators?
6. Does the state plan on exercising the option of averaging students’ test scores over two or three years to determine if schools and districts make AYP?
Key AYP Activities in States Start Now But Continue into 2003
On June 12, each state must submit its consolidated application for ESEA state grants to the U.S. Department of Education.[1] But on that date, states are only required to indicate that the will identify performance targets and submit baseline data for the targets. They do not have to actually identify the targets or provide the baseline data until months later.
The next set of AYP-related information from states is due on January 31, 2003. At that time, states must describe how they calculated their starting points or baselines for AYP; provide the state’s definition of AYP; and indicate the minimum number of students in ESEA-specified student subgroups that will yield statistically reliable information about students’ performance.
And the U.S. Department has set May 1, 2003 as the deadline by which states must submit their annual performance targets and their baseline AYP data.
This timeline provides an opportunity to work with state department of education staff over the next several months as they take these important steps to meet ESEA’s AYP requirements.
Each State Will Develop Its Own Definition of AYP
States must use students’ performance on annual assessments in reading and math as the “primary” measures of AYP. But the law also directs states to include at least one other indicator of academic performance when they assess AYP. States are now identifying those additional academic indicators.
The law requires states to use graduation rates for secondary students, but states can choose additional academic indicators at the secondary level, and they have complete discretion about the academic indicator(s) they choose for elementary students.
Possible additional indicators the law mentions are achievement on additional state or locally-administered measures, decreases in grade-by-grade retention rates, attendance rates, and changes in the percentage of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses.
The law also says that any additional academic indicators that states include in their state AYP definitions cannot reduce the number of schools or districts that are identified as not meeting AYP. In other words, these additional indicators buttress students’ test scores on state assessments. Assessment results are the primary measure for determining AYP.
States Must Set Baselines for Measuring AYP
The law directs states to establish baselines for measuring AYP in reading and math in one of two ways using student performance data from the 2001-02 school year.
First, states can base their starting points for assessing AYP on the percentage of students in the lowest-achieving subgroup of the student population who are performing at the proficient level in reading and math. The subgroups listed in the law are: economically disadvantaged students; students in major racial and ethnic groups; students with disabilities; and limited-English proficient students.
A state that chooses this first option would examine the performance of students in these groups in 2001-02. It might, for example, identify economically disadvantaged students as the lowest-performing subgroup, and determine that 20 percent of economically disadvantaged students are performing at the proficient level in reading.
This 20 percent figure would become the baseline for measuring the AYP of all students in reading in the state. Between the 2003-02 and the 2013-14 school years, the state would need to ensure that 100 percent of all students, and all students in the subgroups mentioned in the law, are performing at the proficient level. The difference between 100 percent and 20 percent is the distance the state needs to go.
Alternatively, states can establish their starting points for measuring AYP in reading and math by using school performance data.
States that choose this option will rank their schools based on reading and math results for 2001-02, and identify schools that are at the 20th percentile. They will set baselines for calculating AYP in reading and math through 2014 based on the percentage of students in these schools who meet or exceed the state-defined proficient level.
For example, if 25 percent of the students in schools that are at the 20th percentile are performing at the proficient level in reading, the baseline for measuring AYP in reading would be set at 25 percent. Between 2002-03 and 20013-14, the state must ensure that 100 percent of students are performing at the proficient level. The difference between 100 percent and 75 percent is the distance the state needs to go.
ESEA directs states to choose as their baselines for measuring AYP the option that provides the higher starting point. So, if a state determined that 20 percent of economically disadvantaged students, but 25 percent of students in the schools at the 20th percentile, were performing at the proficient level in reading, it must set its baseline in reading at 25 percent.
States Must Set AYP Targets
ESEA requires states to continually increase students’ performance between 2002-03 and 2013-14. To raise the bar over time, states must specify the minimum percentage of students (and subgroups of students) who, each year, must meet or exceed the proficient level of performance in reading and math.
States also must raise the bar in “equal increments” over the 12 years. ESEA requires the first increase within two years (in 2004-05). Each following increase must occur within three years, which means that the bar must be raised at least five times over the 12 years.[2]
In the example that follows, the baselines for measuring AYP are 40 percent in reading and 25 percent in math. In reading, the bar is raised 5 percent per year over the 12 years. In math, the bar is raised 15 percent in five two- to three-year increments.
Hypothetical Example of AYP Targets School Year
|
School Year
|
AYP Reading
Targets
|
AYP
Math
Targets
|
|
2001-02
|
40
|
25
|
|
2002-03
|
45
|
40
|
|
2003-04
|
50
|
40
|
|
2004-05
|
55
|
55
|
|
2005-06
|
60
|
55
|
|
2006-07
|
65
|
55
|
|
2007-08
|
70
|
70
|
|
2008-09
|
75
|
70
|
|
2009-10
|
80
|
70
|
|
2010-11
|
85
|
85
|
|
2011-12
|
90
|
85
|
|
2012-13
|
95
|
85
|
|
2013-14
|
100
|
100
|
States Can Use Averages in Determining AYP
ESEA permits states to determine if schools are making AYP by averaging students’ scores on reading and math assessments from a current school year with test scores from one or two preceding years. And until states implement ESEA-required assessments in these subjects in 2005-06, states can use the reading and math tests required by the 1994 ESEA. States also have the option of averaging “data across grades” to determine if the school has made AYP.
Averaging students’ performance over a two- or three-year period is designed to mitigate fluctuations in schools’ annual test scores, which can vary widely from year to year due to factors beyond schools’ control. They vary, for example, because of differences in the abilities and attitudes of groups of students being tested each year.
Experts say the problem is particularly acute at the elementary level where schools are smaller. “The average elementary school contains only 68 students per grade. With a sample this small, having five particularly bright students (or a few students with undiagnosed learning disabilities) in any year can lead to large fluctuations in a school’s test scores from one year to another.” [3]
The second source of annual fluctuations in schools’ test scores is variation in one-time factors that lead to temporary fluctuations in test performance. Some of these, such as a severe flu season, are unrelated to the school’s educational practices, but they can elevate or depress test scores.
States’ Initial Activities Lay a Foundation for Future Sanctions
ESEA requires schools, districts, and states to make AYP, and it specifies a series of increasingly negative consequences, especially for schools, if they fail to do so.
For schools to make AYP in any given year, each student subgroup must perform at or above the bar, wherever it is set. The consequences for schools that fail to do so are outlined below.
But there is an exception. If a particular student subgroup in a school fails to make AYP for one year, the school will be excused if:
a) the percentage of students in the group who failed to reach proficiency decreased by 10 percent; and
b) students in the subgroup showed progress on at least one additional indicator of academic performance (e.g., increased high school graduation rate).
If a school fails to make AYP for two consecutive years, it enters the first year of School Improvement, and must:
§ Notify parents and prepare a two-year improvement plan;
§ Use at least 10 percent of Title I funds for professional development;
§ Provide public school choice for students, if not prohibited by state law;
§ Use 5–15 percent of Title I funds for transportation; and
§ Receive federal School Improvement funds and technical assistance from the school district.
If a school fails to make AYP for three consecutive years, it enters the second year of School Improvement, and must:
§ Continue activities from Year 1 School Improvement, including
§ Provide supplemental services (e.g., tutoring); and
§ Use 5–15 percent of Title I funds for supplemental services or 20 percent combined for public school choice and supplemental services).
If a school fails to make AYP for four consecutive years, it enters the first year of Corrective Action, and must:
§ Continue to provide public school choice and supplemental services, and notify parents about the school’s status.
§ The local school district must implement at least one of the following:
§ Replace staff relevant to the failure
§ Implement a new curriculum
§ Decrease local decision-making
§ Extend the school year or day
§ Appoint an outside expert
§ Restructure internal organization
If a school fails to make AYP for five consecutive years, it enters the second year in Corrective Action, and must:
§ Continue to provide public school choice and supplemental services; and
§ Prepare a plan and make arrangements for restructuring.
If a school fails to make AYP for six consecutive years, the local school district must implement at least one of the following:
§ Reopen the school as a public charter school;
§ Replace all (or most) of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the failure to make AYP;
§ Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness;
§ Turn school operations over to the state;
§ Undertake other major restructuring that makes major reforms.
[1] U.S. Department of Education. (June 12, 2002). Consolidated State Application for State Grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Available at www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/CFP/conapp02.doc.
[2] Education Commission of the States. (2002). No state left behind: The challenges and opportunities of the ESEA 2001. Denver, CO: Author. Available at www.ecs.org
[3] Kane, T.J., D.O. Staiger, and J. Gepper,. (Spring 2002). Randomly accountable. Education Next, p. 58. Available at www.educationnext.org.
This ESEA Action Guide was written by Marcella Dianda, NEA Student Achievement Department
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Student Achievement Department
1201 16TH Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 822-7350
www.nea.org
|
|
