How does ayp affect schools

A second period for making edits is from September 6 to For technical assistance, please contact Robin Jindrich-Cecil at 1. Questions can be emailed to robin. Results for the other indicators—unexcused absences and graduation rates—will also be available for viewing.

If you find errors in these rates, contact Pete Bylsma a t Updated AYP results that reflect the edits and appeals made through August 15 will be available for review on the same confidential Web site as of August August 26 is our tentative date to release the list of schools and districts identified for improvement. This complies with the federal requirement that we notify districts of that status before the school year begins so parents of students in schools that are in improvement can be notified before school begins.

Mary Alice Heuschel. Deputy Superintendent. Bob Harmon. Assistant Superintendent. Under flexibility granted to states by the U. This attachment provides information regarding the process and possible reasons for appealing AYP determinations.

From July 27 to August 8, , preliminary AYP results for schools and districts will be posted on a confidential Web site. D istricts must appeal on behalf of schools. The release of all AYP results will occur in early October and will reflect the results of all appeals and changes to student records.

OSPI will respond to districts within 15 calendar days of the receipt of an appeal. All final appeal determinations will be made by September 30, A number of situations may warrant an appeal to ensure a proper AYP determination is made.

These could relate to the following topics:. OSPI will automatically average WASL results over grades 4, 7, and 10 when multiple grades are served and one or more grades do not make the AYP target, but averaged results could be combined across multiple years. Department of Education guidance, if the only reason a school or district does not make AYP is because of the special education category.

We cannot change the AYP status from previous years to reflect what would have occurred if the current policies were in place at that time. However, information about how that status would have been different can be included in an appeal for consideration. If a district wants to appeal any AYP determination, it must submit the appeal in written form letter, fax, or email , with supporting documentation of the circumstances that warrant the appeal, to:.

Assistant Superintendent for Special Programs. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Box Olympia, Washington FAX: Email: rhharmon ospi. Submit appeals when they are warranted and stand a reasonable chance of being approved.

If you have questions about the appeals process or the types of appeals that could be made, please contact Bob Harmon at the email shown above or by phone at No Child Left Behind requires increased accountability for all public elementary and secondary schools, especially those that receive Title I funds.

Under this act, schools and districts that do not make adequate yearly progress AYP face a series of specific consequences as defined in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However, only districts and schools that receive Title I funds face a series of escalating consequences until they meet AYP criteria for two consecutive years. I nformation about these sanctions and why they occurred must be made available to parents and community members in an understandable, accessible format by the beginning of the school year.

Teachers, principals, parents, and community members also need to be informed about AYP results, even if no sanctions occur. District Improvement. EdWeek Research Center. EdWeek Top School Jobs. EdWeek Market Brief. Menu Search. Sign In Subscribe.

Reset Search. Every Student Succeeds Act Explainer. Share article Remove Save to favorites Save to favorites. Education Week Staff. Work published under this byline was created by staff members of Education Week.

Thank you for subscribing. Nov 12 Fri. This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.

These data points help you. Content provided by ACT. Nov 15 Mon. Help every student belong in school with these practices for school climate. Content provided by Panorama. Nov 16 Tue. And while most students in special. See More Events. Teacher Jobs. Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.

In addition, some have expressed concern that schools might be more likely to fail to meet AYP simply because they have diverse enrollments, and therefore more groups of pupils to be separately considered in determining whether the school meets AYP standards.

They also argue that the application of technical assistance and, ultimately, consequences to such a high percentage of schools will dilute available resources to such a degree that these responses to inadequate performance would be insufficient to markedly improve performance.

The proportion of public schools identified as failing to meet AYP standards is not only relatively large in the aggregate, but also varies widely among the states.

This result is somewhat ironic, given that one of the major criticisms of the pre-NCLB provisions for AYP was that they resulted in a similarly wide degree of state variation in the proportion of schools identified, and the more consistent structure required under NCLB was widely expected to lead to greater consistency among states in the proportion of schools identified.

It is likely that state variations in the percentage of schools failing to meet AYP standards are based not only on underlying differences in achievement levels, as well as a variety of technical factors in state AYP provisions, but also on differences in the degree of rigor or challenge in state pupil performance standards and assessments. Particularly now that all states receiving Title I-A grants must also participate in state-level administration of NAEP tests in 4 th and 8 th grade reading and math every two years, this variation can be illustrated for all states by comparing the percentage of pupils scoring at the proficient level or above on NAEP versus state assessments.

Such a comparison was conducted by a private organization, Achieve, Inc. According to this analysis, the percentage of pupils statewide who score at a proficient or higher level on state assessments, using state-specific pupil performance standards, was generally much higher than the percentage deemed to be at the proficient or higher level on the NAEP tests, and employing NAEP's pupil performance standards.

Of the states considered, the percentage of pupils scoring at a proficient or higher level on the state assessment was lower than on NAEP implying a more rigorous state standard for five states 58 out of 32 in math and only two states out of 29 in reading. Further, among the majority of states where the percentage of pupils at the proficient level or above was found to be higher on state assessments than on NAEP, the relationship between the size of the two groups varied widely—in some cases only marginally higher on the state assessment, and in others the percentage at the proficient level was more than twice as high on the state assessment as on NAEP.

More recently, a report by the National Center for Education Statistics mapped each state's standard for a proficient level of performance in reading and mathematics at the 4 th and 8 th grade levels for the school year onto the equivalent NAEP scales. The report's authors concluded that in comparison to the common standard embodied in NAEP, state standards of proficiency varied widely, and in almost all cases were lower on state tests than under NAEP.

A second issue is whether some states might choose to lower their standards of "proficient" performance, in order to reduce the number of schools identified as failing to meet AYP and make it easier to meet the ultimate NCLB goal of all pupils at the proficient or higher level by the end of the school year. In the affected states, this would increase the percentage of pupils deemed to be achieving at a "proficient" level, and reduce the number of schools failing to meet AYP standards.

It seems likely that the pre-NCLB variations in the proportion of schools failing to meet AYP reflected large differences in the nature and structure of state AYP standards, as well as major differences in the nature and rigor of state pupil performance standards and assessments.

While the basic structure of AYP definitions is now substantially more consistent across states, significant variations remain with respect to the factors discussed in this section of the report such as minimum group size or use of confidence intervals , and substantial differences in the degree of challenge embodied in state standards and assessments remain.

While, as discussed above, ED recently published policy guidance that relaxes the participation rate requirement somewhat—allowing use of average rates over two- to three-year periods, and excusing certain pupils for medical reasons—the high rate of assessment participation that is required in order for schools or LEAs to meet AYP standards is likely to remain an ongoing focus of debate.

In recent years, the overall percentage of enrolled pupils who attend public schools each day has been approximately What might be the major advantages and disadvantages of growth models of AYP, in comparison to status or improvement models? These questions are addressed in the following pages. Growth models generally recognize the reality that different schools and pupils have very different starting points in their achievement levels and recognize progress being made at all levels e.

They more directly measure the effect of schools on the specific pupils they serve over a period of years, attempting to track the movement of pupils between schools and LEAs, rather than applying a single standard to all pupils in each state. They have the ability to focus on the specific effectiveness of schools and teachers with pupils whom they have actually taught for multiple years, rather than the change in performance of pupil groups among whom there has usually been a substantial amount of mobility.

They can directly as well as indirectly adjust for non-school influences on achievement, comparing the same students across years and reducing errors due to student mobility. Proponents of growth models often argue that status models of AYP in particular make schools and LEAs accountable for factors over which they have little control, and that status models focus insufficiently on pupil achievement gains, especially if those gains are below the threshold for proficient performance, or gains from a proficient to an advanced level.

Status models, such as the current primary model of AYP under NCLB, might even create an undesirable incentive for teachers and schools to focus their attention, at least in the short run, on pupils who are only marginally below a proficient level of achievement, in hopes of bringing them above that sole key threshold, rather than focusing on the most disadvantaged pupils whose achievement is well below the proficient level.

The current status model of AYP also confers no credit for achievement increases above the proficient level, that is, bringing pupils from the proficient to the advanced level. Although any growth model deemed consistent with NCLB would likely need to incorporate that act's ultimate goal of all pupils at a proficient or higher level of achievement by see below , the majority of such models used currently or in the past do not include such goals, and tend to allow disadvantaged schools and pupils to remain at relatively low levels of achievement for considerable periods of time.

Growth models of AYP may be quite complicated, and may address the accountability purposes of NCLB less directly and clearly than status or to a lesser extent improvement models. If the primary purpose of AYP is to determine whether schools and LEAs are succeeding at raising the achievement of their current pupils to challenging levels, with those goals and expectations applied consistently to all pupil groups, then the current provisions of NCLB might more simply and directly meet that purpose than growth model alternatives.

However, its implications are multifaceted, and do not necessarily favor a particular AYP model. Growth models have the advantage of attempting to track pupils through longitudinal data systems. But if they thereby attribute the achievement of highly mobile pupils among a variety of schools and LEAs, accountability is dispersed. At the same time, the presence of highly mobile pupils in the groups considered in determining AYP under status and improvement models may seem unfair to school staff.

However, the impact of such pupils in school-level AYP determinations is limited by NCLB's provision that pupils who have attended a particular school for less than one year need not be considered in such determinations. It is generally agreed that growth models of AYP are more demanding than status or improvement models in several respects, especially in terms of data requirements and analytical capacity.

For a longitudinal data system sufficient to support a growth model, it is likely that states would need to have pupil data systems incorporating at least the following:.

Although the availability of information on state data systems is insufficient to enable one to determine with precision how many states could or could not currently implement such models if they chose to do so, it is very likely that growth models generally require resources and data systems that some states currently lack. This concern is being addressed through an ED program intended to help states design, develop, and implement statewide, longitudinal data systems.

Further, the establishment of longitudinal data systems for education is a priority for state participation in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and the "Race to the Top" discretionary grant competition under the ARRA. Thus far, at least 41 states have received awards through three rounds of competition.

According to the announcement in the April 15, , Federal Register , the program is intended "to enable SEAs to design, develop, and implement statewide, longitudinal data systems to efficiently and accurately manage, analyze, disaggregate, and use individual student data Applications from states with the most limited ability to collect, analyze, and report individual student achievement data will have a priority Most growth models used before initiation of ED's growth model pilot, or still used as part of state-specific accountability systems, have not incorporated an ultimate goal such as the one under NCLB—that all pupils reach a proficient or higher level of achievement by The first type of growth target has been most common, while NCLB's ultimate goal would represent a growth target of the second variety, with separate paths with presumably separate starting points for each relevant pupil cohort.

The models approved thus far under ED's growth model pilot arguably meet the ultimate goal requirement. However, under some of these models, pupils need only be proficient or on track toward proficiency within a limited number of years as of These consequences, as well as possible performance-based awards, are not discussed in detail in this report.

For additional information on this legislation, see CRS Report , Education for Disadvantaged Children: Major Themes in the Reauthorization of Chapter 1 , by [author name scrubbed] out of print, available upon request. There is a variant of the group status model, sometimes called an "index model," under which partial credit would be attributed to performance improvements below the proficient level—e.

One state, Massachusetts, has injected a partial growth element into its safe harbor provision. See the U. Program regulations published in did not require graduation rates and other additional academic indicators to be disaggregated in determining whether schools or LEAs meet AYP standards.

However, regulations published subsequently in October discussed later in this report require graduation rates to be disaggregated in AYP determinations. If the number of pupils in a specified demographic group is too small to meet the minimum group size requirements for consideration in AYP determinations, then the participation rate requirement does not apply.

It has occasionally been said that the AYP systems approved by ED for a few states before initiation of the growth model pilot announced in November incorporate "growth" elements.

However, such claims appear to be based primarily on the inclusion in the AYP systems of "pupil achievement indexes" that give partial credit for achievement gains below the proficient level, comparing this year's pupil groups with last year's.

They do not meet the definition of growth model as used in this report. This is determined by ranking all public schools of the relevant grade level statewide according to their percentage of pupils at the proficient or higher level of achievement based on all pupils in each school , and setting the threshold at the point where one-fifth of the schools weighted by enrollment have been counted, starting with the schools at the lowest level of achievement.

Under program regulations [34 C. As noted earlier, under the accountability policy approved for use in Massachusetts, a school or LEA also meets the safe harbor requirement if the number of pupils in relevant groups and subjects scoring below the proficient level declines sufficiently to put them on track toward proficiency by the end of the school year. For senior high schools, the additional indicator must be the graduation rate. A typical additional indicator for elementary and middle schools is the attendance rate.

ED has approved state accountability plans under which schools or LEAs would be identified as failing to meet AYP only if they failed to meet the required level of performance in the same subject for two or more consecutive years, but has not approved proposals under which a school would be identified only if it failed to meet AYP in the same subject and pupil group for two or more consecutive years. One other state, Massachusetts, incorporates a partial growth element into its safe harbor provision.

Delaware's proposal included use of confidence intervals at an unspecified level in implementing the growth model; however, ED approved use of the model without confidence intervals.

Most states use confidence intervals in their AYP determinations. However, in most cases, the confidence intervals are applied to group average percentages of students scoring proficient or above, not individual student scores. This limitation does not apply to the administration of alternate assessments based on the same standards applicable to all students, for other pupils with non-cognitive or less severe cognitive disabilities.

Under current regulations, the short-term policy cannot be extended beyond the school year. This would be calculated on the basis of statewide demographic data, with the resulting percentage applied to each affected school and LEA in the state.

In making the AYP determination using the adjusted data, no further use may be made of confidence intervals or other statistical techniques. The actual, not just the adjusted, percentage of pupils who are proficient must also be reported to parents and the public. The 3. In such cases, the former pupils with disabilities would not have to be counted in determining whether the minimum group size was met for the disability subgroup. See Federal Register , June 24, , pp.

However, in the aggregate, the results are quite similar. According to Section b 2 H , "Each State shall establish intermediate goals for meeting the requirements, Alternatively, the confidence interval "window" may be applied to average test scores for each relevant pupil group, that would be compared to a fixed threshold score level to determine whether AYP has been met.

The text above describes the way in which confidence intervals have been used by states for AYP determinations. The concept could be applied in a different way, requiring scores to be at or above the highest score in the "window" in order to demonstrate that a pupil group had meet AYP standards to a statistically significant degree.

Minimum group sizes for AYP purposes are typically in the range of 30 to 40 pupils, while those for reporting are typically in the range of five to 20 pupils. Thomas J. National Center for Education Statistics, U. Of the four subject and grade level comparisons, the state proficiency standard was found to be equivalent to or higher than the NAEP proficiency standard for no states in 4 th or 8 th grade reading, for two states in 4 th grade math, and for three states in 8 th grade math.

Of the four subject and grade level comparisons, the state proficiency standard was found to be lower than the NAEP basic standard for 24 states in 4 th grade reading, for 12 states in 8 th grade reading, for six states in 4 th grade math, and for eight states in 8 th grade math. Topic Areas About Donate. Download PDF. Download EPUB. Topic areas Education Policy. Tables Table 1. A group status model, such as the current primary model of AYP under the NCLB described further below , establishes a series of threshold levels or AMOs, which are percentages of pupils scoring at a proficient or higher level of achievement on state standards-based assessments of reading and mathematics.

These AMOs are specific to each grade level and subject reading or mathematics at which state assessments are administered. A key feature of the AMOs in this model is that they are the same for all pupil groups—the "all pupil" group as well as each of the demographic subgroups specified under the NCLB pupils with disabilities, pupils from low-income families, pupils with limited English proficiency, etc.

An example of a successive group improvement model is the secondary "safe harbor" model authorized under the NCLB. Under this model, as embodied in the NCLB, the basic structure of the AYP system is the same as described above, but the primary focus shifts to the change from the previous year for each group. The performance of pupils in the same grade level who share relevant demographic characteristics within a school, LEA, or the state overall may be combined into a cohort.

The change in scores for this cohort is compared to a standard of expected growth. The expected growth may be either "data-driven" e. A school or LEA is deemed to meet AYP requirements if the achievement growth of each relevant cohort of pupils meets the expected level of growth.

Most considered only achievement test scores, but some considered a variety of additional factors, most often dropout rates or attendance rates. Often, the state AYP standards set a threshold of some minimum percentage, or minimum rate of increase in the percentage, of pupils at the proficient or higher level of achievement on a composite of state tests. These thresholds were often based, at least in part, on performance of pupils in a school or LEA relative to statewide averages or to the school's or the LEA's performance in the previous year.

Several states identified schools as failing to make AYP if they fail to meet "expected growth" in performance on the basis of factors such as initial achievement levels and statewide average achievement trends. These thresholds almost never incorporated a "ladder" of movement toward an ultimate goal to be met by some specific date.

While some state AYP standards were based on achievement results for a single year, they were frequently based on two- or three-year rolling averages. The AYP standards generally referred only to all pupils in a school or LEA combined, without a specific focus on any pupil demographic groups. However, the AYP standards of some states included a focus on a single category of low-achieving pupils separately from all pupils, and a very few e. One state New Mexico compared school scores to predicted scores on the basis of such factors as pupil demographics.

The state AYP standards under the IASA were sometimes substantially adjusted from year-to-year often with consequent wide variations in the percentage of Title I-A schools identified as needing improvement. The specified demographic groups are as follows: economically disadvantaged pupils, LEP pupils, pupils with disabilities, and pupils in major racial and ethnic groups, as well as all pupils. The models proposed by the states must meet at least the following criteria: they must incorporate an ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the school year; achievement gaps among pupil groups must decline in order for schools or LEAs to meet AYP standards; annual achievement goals for pupils must not be set on the basis of pupil background or school characteristics; annual achievement goals must be based on performance standards, not past or "typical" performance growth rates; the assessment system must produce comparable results from grade-to-grade and year-to-year; and the progress of individual students must be tracked within a state data system.

Under Alaska's growth model, pupils will be included in the proficient group if their achievement level trajectory is on a growth path toward proficiency within three additional years for pupils in grades , or within two additional years for pupils in grade Alaska currently has no standards-based assessments for grades beyond Pupils in the 3 rd grade the earliest grade at which state assessments are administered will be measured on the basis of status only, not growth.

The growth model will not apply to pupils with disabilities who take alternate assessments. In Arizona, the growth model will be applicable to pupils in grades only. Pupils will be included in the proficient group if their achievement level trajectory is on a growth path toward proficiency within three years or by 8 th grade, whichever comes first. Unlike some other states participating in the growth model pilot, pupils with disabilities who take the state's alternate assessment will be included in the Arizona growth model.

Under the Arkansas policy, AYP will be calculated each year on the basis of both statutory provisions and using the state's growth model, and a school will meet AYP standards if it qualifies using either method. Under the growth model, pupils in grades will be deemed to be proficient if they are on a growth path toward proficiency by the end of 8 th grade. Pupils already proficient must be on a path to continue to be proficient through grade 8 i.

In Colorado, the growth model will be applicable to pupils in grades , but will not include pupils with disabilities who take alternate assessments. Pupils will be included in the proficient group if their achievement level trajectory is on a growth path toward proficiency within three years or grade 10 if earlier ; growth calculations will include currently-proficient students only if they are on a trajectory to maintain proficiency over the next three years or grade AYP will be calculated each year on the basis of both statutory provisions and using the state's growth model, and a school will meet AYP standards if it qualifies using either method.

Under the Delaware growth model, AYP will be calculated each year on the basis of both the statutory provisions and using the state's growth model, and a school will meet AYP standards if it qualifies using either method. Individual pupil performance will be tracked from one year to the next.

Specified numbers of points will be awarded on the basis of changes if any in pupils' performance level; points will be awarded for partial movement toward proficiency, but not for movement beyond proficiency. The average growth scores for schools and LEAs to meet AYP standards increase steadily until , by which time all pupils would be expected to achieve at a proficient or higher level.

Florida's growth model will be essentially the same as the current status model except that proficient pupils will include both those currently scoring at a proficient or higher level and those who are on an individual path toward proficiency within three years. The model will be applied to AYP determinations for grades with some modifications for pupils in grade 3.

Under the Iowa model, pupil tests score ranges below proficient have been divided into three categories: Hi Marginal, Lo Marginal, and Weak. A student who rises from one of these levels to a higher level, and has not previously attained the higher level, will be deemed to have met "Adequate Yearly Growth" AYG.

For schools and LEAs that have not met AYP though application of the standard status and safe harbor models, students making AYG will be added to those scoring proficient or above, and this combined total will be used in determining whether the school or LEA makes AYP for the year. Students beginning at the Weak level must reach proficiency within three years, those beginning at Lo Marginal must become proficient within two years, and those beginning at Hi Marginal must reach proficiency within one year.

By , the growth model would no longer be used, and all pupils will be expected to achieve at a proficient or higher level. The growth model adds a third category of students "on trajectory" toward proficiency. To determine whether students are on trajectory toward proficiency, each of the proficiency levels is divided into three sub-levels. Similar, but slightly different, procedures are applied to Michigan's MI-Access Functional Independence alternate assessment.

The growth model does not cover high school students. If a student's performance improves over the previous year by a number of sub-levels such that, if the improvement continued at the same rate in the future, they would reach proficiency within three years, they are counted as being on trajectory toward proficiency. Thus, the total of students scoring at a proficient level plus non-proficient students on a trajectory toward proficiency within three years plus those who are provisionally proficient would be compared to the total number of students tested in each relevant subgroup.

The Minnesota growth model incorporates a "value table" under which varying amounts of partial credit will be given for growth among sub-levels of achievement below proficient. The partial credit will be greater, the greater the student's achievement growth.

The resulting calculations will converted to a scale consistent with the standard AMOs in reading and mathematics to determine if the AMOs have been met. Pupils at all grade levels will be included, as well as pupils with disabilities taking alternate assessments, as long as two consecutive years of assessment results in Minnesota are available for the pupils. In Missouri, if students currently scoring below a proficient level are on track to be proficient within either four years or by 8 th grade, whichever occurs first, they will be added to the number of students currently scoring at a proficient or higher level.

Students in grades 3 and 8 will be evaluated on the basis of the status model and "safe harbor" only. No confidence intervals will be applied to growth model calculations. Only the current status and safe harbor models will used for AYP determinations for grades Students with disabilities, including those taking the state's alternate assessment for students with the most severe cognitive disabilities, will be included in the growth model, applying trajectories and achievement levels associated with either the regular or alternate assessments.

The North Carolina policy adds a projection component to the current group status model. If the achievement level of a non-proficient pupil is on a trajectory toward proficiency within four years, then the pupil is added to the proficient group. The trajectory calculations will be made for pupils in the 3 rd through 8 th grades.

Ohio has adopted a variation of the "projection" or "on track to proficiency" approach that is common to the North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Florida models.