Failing to meet ayp

AYP 'Balloon Payment' Coming Due, Say Researchers -- THE Journal

failing to meet ayp

However, schools that meet achievement targets for the aggregate student of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under NCLB on subsequent. Almost half of Texas schools fail to meet federal standards . A district must meet AYP standards for two years to be removed from the. Oct 1, The Duluth school district failed to meet AYP standards as a whole for the sixth year in a row. Only two of the 13 Duluth district schools open last.

Further, while states were encouraged to apply the AYP standards to all public schools and LEAs, states could choose to apply them only to schools and LEAs participating in Title I-A, and most did so limit their application. The IASA provided that all relevant pupils 9 were to be included in assessments and AYP determinations, although assessments were to include results for pupils who had attended a school for less than one year only in tabulating LEA-wide results i.

LEP pupils were to be assessed in the language that would best reflect their knowledge of subjects other than English; and accommodations were to be provided to pupils with disabilities. Importantly, while the IASA required state assessments to ultimately by provide test results that were disaggregated by pupil demographic groups, it did not require such disaggregation of data in AYP standards and calculations.

The statute provided that state AYP standards must consider all pupils, "particularly" economically disadvantaged and LEP pupils, but did not specify that the AYP definition must be based on each of these pupil groups separately. Finally, the statute was silent with respect to data-averaging or other statistical techniques, as well as the basic structure of state AYP standards i.

Although states were required to adopt and implement at least "transitional" AYP standards, on the basis of "transitional" state assessment results, soon after enactment of the IASA, they were not required to adopt "final" AYP standards, in conjunction with final assessments and pupil performance standards, until the school year.

Further, states were not allowed to implement most consequences, such as reconstituting school staff, until they adopted final assessments, so these provisions were not implemented by most states until the IASA was replaced by NCLB. Most considered only achievement test scores, but some considered a variety of additional factors, most often dropout rates or attendance rates.

failing to meet ayp

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.

failing to meet ayp

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.

failing to meet ayp

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.

Threatening letter could lead to AYP fail

In some states, a substantial majority of Title I-A schools were identified as failing to make AYP, while in others almost no schools were so identified. In Julyjust before the initial implementation of the new AYP provisions of NCLB, ED released a compilation of the number of schools identified as failing to meet AYP standards for two or more consecutive years and therefore identified as being in need of improvement in for most states or in states where data were not available.

The latter were frequently criticized as being insufficiently specific, detailed, or challenging. Criticism often focused specifically on their failure to focus on specific disadvantaged pupil groups, failure to require continuous improvement toward an ultimate goal, and their required applicability only to schools and LEAs participating in Title I-A, not to all public schools or to states overall.

However, under NCLB, state AYP standards must also include at least one additional academic indicator, which in the case of high schools must be the graduation rate. The additional indicators may not be employed in a way that would reduce the number of schools or LEAs identified as failing to meet AYP standards. One of the most important differences between AYP standards under NCLB and previous requirements is that under NCLB, AYP calculations must be disaggregated; that is, they must be determined separately and specifically for not only all pupils but also for several demographic groups of pupils within each school, LEA, and state.

Test scores for an individual pupil may be taken into consideration multiple times, depending on the number of designated groups of which they are a member e. The specified demographic groups are as follows: However, as is discussed further below, there are three major constraints on the consideration of these pupil groups in AYP calculations.

First, pupil groups need not be considered in cases where their number is so relatively small that achievement results would not be statistically significant or the identity of individual pupils might be divulged.

State policies regarding "n" have varied widely, with important implications for the number of pupil groups actually considered in making AYP determinations for many schools and LEAs, and the number of schools or LEAs potentially identified as failing to make AYP. Second, it has been left to the states to define the "major racial and ethnic groups" on the basis of which AYP must be calculated.

Another major break with the past is that state AYP standards must incorporate concrete movement toward meeting an ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or advanced level of achievement by the end of the school year. The steps—that is, required levels of achievement—toward meeting this goal, known as Annual Measurable Objectives AMOsmust increase in "equal increments" over time. The first increase in the thresholds must occur after no more than two years, and remaining increases at least once every three years.

As is discussed further below, several states have accommodated this requirement in ways that require much more rapid progress in the later years of the period leading up to than in the earlier period.

More Schools Fall into NCLB's "Failing" Category

As noted in the example above, group status models set as their AMOs threshold levels of performance, expressed specifically in terms of the percentage of pupils scoring at a proficient or higher advanced level on state assessments of reading and mathematics.

These AMOs must be met by any school or LEA, both overall and with respect to all relevant pupil subgroups, in order to make AYP, whatever the school's or LEA's "starting point" for the multi-year period covered by the accountability policy or performance in the previous year. This AMO "uniform bar" is applicable to all pupil subgroups of sufficient size to be considered in AYP determinations. The threshold levels of achievement are to be set separately for reading and math, and may be set separately for each level of K education elementary, middle, and high schools.

Such group status models attempt to emphasize the importance of meeting certain minimum levels of achievement for all pupil groups, schools, and LEAs, and arguably apply consistent expectations to all pupil groups.

The secondary model of AYP under the NCLB currently is the "safe harbor" provision, an example of a successive group improvement model. This is an alternative provision under which schools or LEAs that fail to meet the usual requirements may still be deemed to have made AYP if they meet certain other conditions.

However, as discussed later in this report, it has been allowed through waivers and revised program regulations. For the sake of simplicity, in the remainder of this report we will refer to the three AYP models by the abbreviated titles of "status," "improvement," and "growth" models. On June 10,ED announced that accountability plans had been approved for all states. However, many of the approved plans required states to take additional actions following submission of their plan.

The models proposed by the states must meet at least the following criteria: In addition, applicant states must have their annual assessments for each of grades approved by ED, and these assessments must have been in place for at least one year previous to implementation of the growth models. In JanuaryED published peer review guidance for growth model pilot applications.

The models must be consistent with the ultimate goal of all pupils at a proficient or higher level bya major goal of the statutory AYP provisions of NCLB. More significantly, they must incorporate comparable annual assessments, at least for each of grades plus at least one senior high school year, and those assessments must be approved by ED and in place for at least one year before implementation of the growth model.

Further, all performance expectations must be individualized, and the state must have an infrastructure of a statewide, longitudinal database for individual pupils. Proposed models would have to be structured around expectations and performance of individual pupils, not demographic groups of pupils in a school or LEA, although individual results would have to be aggregated for the demographic groups designated in NCLB. Two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, were approved to use proposed growth models in making AYP determinations on the basis of assessments administered in the school year.

The growth models for individual states are briefly described below. 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 gradesor within two additional years for pupils in grade Alaska currently has no standards-based assessments for grades beyond Pupils in the 3rd 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 8th 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 8th 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 gradesbut 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 untilby 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. Bythe 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.

THE News Update

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 8th 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.

failing to meet ayp

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 3rd through 8th 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.

After application of the standard status and safe harbor models, if any pupil group fails to meet AYP, then a determination will be made if a sufficient proportion of pupils in the group is on track toward meeting the required proficiency threshold as of a "target grade.

In the case of a high school, pupils would have to be on track toward proficiency by the 11th grade. Pupils currently scoring at a proficient level but who are projected to be below the proficient level by the target grade will not be considered to be proficient. The growth model will consider whether each pupil is projected to be proficient in one to three years the time period varies by grade level.

If a currently proficient pupil is projected to score below proficient, he or she will be considered non-proficient under the growth model. Tennessee's projection model will not be applied to high schools. In Texas, a projection component is added to the current group status model. If the achievement level of a non-proficient pupil is projected to be at or above the proficient level by the next "high stakes grade" 5, 8, or 11then the pupil is added to the proficient group.

Projections will be based on current year scores for individual pupils in both reading and math plus mean scores in reading or math depending on the subject for which the projection is being calculated for the school they attend. This technique will be applied to pupils taking the general state assessment as well as the TAKS-M Alternate Assessment; pupils with more substantial cognitive disabilities who take the TAKS-Alt Alternate Assessment will be included in the growth model but using a different method based on their rate of improvement among sub-levels of achievement.

Overall, most of the growth models approved by ED thus far are based upon supplementing the number of pupils scoring at a proficient or higher level with those who are projected, or deemed to be on a trajectory, to be at a proficient level within a limited number of years.

Eleven of the fifteen approved models follow this general approach. Among these states, a distinction may be made between eight states North Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Alaska, Arizona, Missouri, Michigan, and Texas that combine currently proficient pupils with those not proficient who are "on track" toward proficiency, and four states Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Colorado that consider only projected proficiency levels for all pupils i.

In contrast, the models used by at least three other states—Delaware, Iowa, and Minnesota—focus on awarding credit for movement of pupils among achievement categories up to proficiency. A evaluation report by ED focuses on the two states approved to use a growth model for AYP determinations in the school year, North Carolina and Tennessee.

Most of the regulations deal with policy areas other than AYP. Many of the regulations clarify previous regulations or codify as regulations policies that have previously been established through less formal mechanisms such as policy guidance or peer reviewer guidance. The regulations related to AYP are briefly described below. Graduation, participation and attendance also are taken into account.

Failure by any group of students on either test means failure for the entire school and district, and benchmarks and penalties rise each year. Targets for a new, tougher math test were recalibrated by the state last spring after test scores plummeted.

Even more schools might have failed if the targets hadn't been changed. One-size-fits-all mandates and labeling schools as "failures" is a flawed way to address the unique challenges of some schools, said Minnesota Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius.

Under current federal law, all students must be proficient in both reading and math by The state had applied for a waiver this summer, and it will resubmit its application under the new process, Cassellius said. Until the state receives a waiver, districts must follow sanctions under the current No Child Left Behind law.

A waiver would free states from the deadline and allow more flexibility in how they measure student achievement. That's good news to Tawnyea Lake, director of assessment, evaluation and performance for the Duluth district. Duluth's data shows a few instances in which a group of students kept the whole school from passing.

At Homecroft, which made AYP inlow-income students didn't meet reading proficiency standards this year, so the whole school failed to make AYP.

Daily Press - We are currently unavailable in your region

The same happened at Congdon Park, where special education students as a group didn't meet reading standards, and at East, where low-income students didn't meet AYP for math. Some schools saw widespread failure among their students. No groups of students at Morgan Park Middle School met reading standards. One school failed because it was one student short of meeting standards, Lake said.

Nettleton Elementary remains on the failure list but had a double-digit increase in reading and math scores.