Sign In. Search Our Site. Bernalillo Public Schools Achieving Excellence. Questions or Feedback? 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.
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 July , just 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 AMOs , must 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. 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.
The initial minimum starting point for the "uniform bar" was to be the greater of a the percentage of pupils at the proficient or advanced level of achievement for the lowest-achieving pupil subgroup in the base year , or b the percentage of pupils at the proficient or advanced level of achievement for the lowest-performing quintile 5 th 17 of schools statewide in the base year.
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.
Aspects of state AYP plans that apparently received special attention in ED's initial reviews included 1 the pace at which proficiency levels are expected to improve e. In November , the Secretary of Education announced a growth model pilot program under which initially up to 10 states would be allowed to use growth models to make AYP determinations for the or subsequent school years.
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 January , ED 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 by , a 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. 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. States must provide a more extensive rationale than previously required for their selection of minimum group sizes, use of confidence intervals, and related aspects of their AYP policies. Although no specific limits are placed on these parameters, states must explain in their Accountability Workbooks how their policies provide statistically reliable information while minimizing the exclusion of designated pupil groups in AYP determinations, especially at the school level.
States must also report on the number of pupils in designated groups that are excluded from separate consideration in AYP determinations due to minimum group size policies.
In addition, the regulations codify provisions for the National Technical Advisory Council that was established in August to advise the Secretary on a variety of technical aspects of state standards, assessments, AYP, and accountability policies.
Under the regulations as published in October , each state would have been required to submit its Accountability Workbook, modified in accordance with the regulations, to ED for a new round of technical assistance and peer review. Workbooks were to be submitted in time to implement any needed changes before making AYP determinations based on assessment results for the school year. However, in a letter to chief state school officers dated April 1, , the Secretary of Education stated that a new round of peer reviews of state Accountability Workbooks would not be conducted at this time.
The regulations clarify that assessments required under Title I-A may include multiple formats as well as multiple academic assessments within each subject area reading, mathematics, and science. This does not include the concept of "multiple measures," as this term has been used by many to refer to proposals to expand NCLB through inclusion of a variety of indicators other than standards-based assessments in reading, mathematics, and science. Further, ED policies regarding provisions for states to request waivers allowing them to use growth models of AYP are codified in the October regulations previously they were published only in policy guidance and peer reviewer guidance documents.
Numerous changes have been made to previous policies regarding graduation rates used as the "additional indicator" in AYP determinations for high schools. Previously, states were allowed a substantial degree of flexibility in their method for calculating graduation rates and were not required to disaggregate the rates by pupil group except for reporting purposes. Also, although states were required to determine a level of, or rate of improvement in, graduation rates that would be adequate for AYP purposes, they were not required to set an ultimate goal toward which these rates should be progressing.
Under the October regulations, states must adopt a uniform method for calculating graduation rates. This method must be used for school, LEA, and state report cards showing results of assessments administered during the school year, and for purposes of determining AYP based on assessments administered during the school year states unable to meet these deadlines may request an extension.
This method has been endorsed by the National Governors Association. The graduation rate is defined as the number of students who graduate from high school in four years 31 divided by the number of students in the cohort for the students' class, adjusted for student transfers among schools.
States may also propose using a supplementary extended-year graduation rate, in addition to the four-year rate, in order to accommodate selected groups of students such as certain students with disabilities who may need more than four years to graduate. These graduation rates must be disaggregated by subgroup. States must set an ultimate goal for graduation rates that they expect all high schools to meet.
No federal standard is established, but the state goal, as well as annual targets toward meeting that goal, must be approved by ED as part of the state's accountability policy. The purpose of these regulations is to clarify the application of standard, assessment, and accountability provisions to pupils "with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
SEAs may request from the U. Secretary of Education an exception allowing them to exceed the 1. According to ED staff, three states in Montana, Ohio, and Virginia , and four states in the preceding three states plus South Dakota , received waivers to go marginally above the 1.
In the absence of a waiver, the number of pupils scoring at the "proficient or higher" level on alternate assessments, based on alternate achievement standards, in excess of the 1. A new ED policy affecting an additional group of pupils with disabilities was announced initially in April , with final regulations based on it published in the Federal Register on April 9, The new policy is divided into short-term and long-term phases.
It is focused on pupils with disabilities whose ability to perform academically is assumed to be greater than that of the pupils with "the most significant cognitive disabilities" discussed in the above paragraph, and who are capable of achieving high standards, but may not reach grade level within the same time period as their peers. In ED's terminology, these pupils would be assessed using alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards.
The short-term policy may apply, with the approval of the Secretary, to states until they develop and administer alternative assessments under the long-term policy described below. Alternatively, in eligible states that have adopted modified achievement standards, schools and LEAs may count proficient scores for pupils with disabilities on these assessments, subject to a 2.
The long-term policy is embodied in final regulations published in the Federal Register on April 9, These regulations affect standards, assessments, and AYP for a group of pupils with disabilities who are unlikely to achieve grade level proficiency within the current school year, but who are not among those pupils with the most significant cognitive disabilities whose situation was addressed by an earlier set of regulations, discussed above.
For this second group of pupils with disabilities, states would be authorized to develop "modified academic achievement standards" and alternate assessments linked to these. The modified achievement standards must be aligned with grade-level content standards, but may reflect reduced breadth or depth of grade-level content in comparison to the achievement standards applicable to the majority of pupils.
The standards must provide access to grade-level curriculum, and not preclude affected pupils from earning a regular high school diploma. As with the previous regulations regarding pupils with the most significant cognitive disabilities, there would be no direct limit on the number of pupils who take alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards.
However, in AYP determinations, pupil scores of proficient or advanced on alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards may be counted only as long as they do not exceed a number equal to 2. In general, LEAs or states could exceed the 2. Thus, in general, scores of proficient or above on alternate assessments based on alternate and modified achievement standards may not exceed a total of 3.
The April 9, , regulations also include provisions that are widely applicable to AYP determinations. First, states are no longer allowed to use varying minimum group sizes "n" for different demographic groups of pupils.
This prohibits the previously common practice of setting higher "n" sizes for pupils with disabilities or LEP pupils than for other pupil groups. Second, when pupils take state assessments multiple times, states and LEAs may use the highest score for pupils who take tests more than once.
Finally, as with LEP pupils, states and LEAs may include the test scores of former pupils with disabilities in the disability subgroup for up to two years after such pupils have exited special education. In summary, there are now five groups of pupils with disabilities with respect to achievement standards, assessments, and the use of scores in AYP determinations.
These groups are summarized below in Table 1. Table 1. Regular with accommodations e. Alternate assessments based on regular, grade-level achievement standards e. In addition, the new guidance would allow schools to exclude pupils who fail to participate in assessments due to a "significant medical emergency" from the participation rate calculations. The new guidance further emphasizes the authority for states to allow pupils who miss a primary assessment date to take make-up tests, and to establish a minimum size for demographic groups of pupils to be considered in making AYP determinations including those related to participation rates.
It is not known how many of these schools would meet the new, somewhat more relaxed standard. In a letter dated February 19, and proposed regulations published on June 24, , ED officials announced two new policies with respect to LEP pupils.
However, the participation of such pupils in reading tests in English , as well as the inclusion of any of these pupils' test scores in AYP calculations, is to be optional i. Both these options, if exercised, should increase average test scores for pupils categorized as being part of the LEP group, and reduce the extent to which schools or LEAs fail to meet AYP on the basis of LEP pupil groups. ED has released a February 4, , letter to a state superintendent of education providing more flexibility in AYP determinations for targeted assistance schools.
Currently, most Title I-A programs are in targeted assistance schools, although the number of schoolwide programs has grown rapidly in recent years, and most pupils served by Title I-A are in schoolwide programs. LEA and state level AYP determinations would still have to be made on the basis of all public school pupils. The impact of this authority, and the extent of its utilization, are unclear. Districts would still have the option of presenting additional information which might modify inferences about the progress of their schools.
Second, States might develop State standards and uniform assessments, but choose to grant the authority to some LEAs to develop their own assessments to match State standards, provided that the assessments meet criteria specified by the State.
Districts with sufficient assessment staff and capabilities could benefit from this flexibility by using, perhaps with some modifications, assessment systems they have developed that match their instructional programs. Their assessment systems then would not only match the State standards and provide accurate data about the effectiveness of their schools but, most importantly, would assist teachers and students to improve teaching and learning on a daily basis.
Both purposes could be met using information from the same comprehensive assessment system. The task for the State, of course, is to ensure that the local assessments do indeed match the State standards. This is not the same as saying that the local assessments from different districts are comparable in a strict measurement sense, but that there is evidence the assessments match the standards, both in breadth and depth. The process of determining adequate yearly progress for these districts is slightly different than for the first type of mixed-model districts.
States need to develop procedures for these districts that are parallel to the procedures that apply to the state-assessed districts--parallel for the sake of equity, yet sufficiently flexible to allow for a variety of different types of local assessment systems and instruments. Some States may choose to give all districts latitude in developing their own assessments or in setting their own standards as well as their assessments. Such States would need to develop or adopt model standards or criteria against which locally-developed standards and assessments could be compared and approved.
Some States might establish voluntary standards. In any case, as described earlier, States are obligated to develop criteria to ensure that the districts work toward high standards, and that the assessments actually are aligned with their standards.
A local assessment State will still need to develop criteria for its districts to determine the adequate yearly progress of their schools, not a simple task given the variability the State will encounter.
Furthermore, the State will need to cope with this variability when it develops equitable systems for determining the adequacy of progress for its districts. The law is clear that States are responsible for defining adequate yearly progress. States are then responsible for identifying LEAs which are not making adequate progress.
LEAs are responsible for reviewing the progress of all their Title I schools, and identifying those not making adequate progress, and therefore in need of program improvement. The definition of adequate yearly progress need not be the same for LEAs and schools.
For example, a State may wish to use other data elements to define adequate yearly progress of LEAs such as the number of schools in need of improvement, the number of distinguished schools, and other measures that would only be appropriate at the district level.
For example, for a K-2 building where no State assessments are given, an alternative method of defining adequate yearly progress must be determined. May the definition of adequate yearly progress vary from year to year for schools or LEAs? Although consistency is the goal, there are several reasons why the definition of adequate yearly progress may legitimately vary from year to year: 1 new assessment components may be added as the assessment system is phased in over a period of years; 2 other achievement indicators may be added or dropped as appropriate; or 3 the weights of the components may change as the States learn more about how they work together.
Nevertheless, the definition must always result in continuous and substantial yearly improvement. May a State classify LEAs and schools into more than two categories making or not making adequate yearly progress?
How should a State determine the amount of progress that needs to be made each year to reach the goal of all children served under Title I meeting the State's proficient and advanced levels of performance? The process is mainly one of determining what proportion of students are not functioning at the proficient and advanced performance levels, how long the State or district needs to bring them up to those levels, and, therefore, how much progress needs to be made each year that is, what additional proportion of the students needs to be at those levels in each successive year.
Although the amount of progress made each year does not have to be constant, each year's required progress must be continuous and substantial. Is there a specific time frame in which all children served under Title I must meet the State's proficient and advanced levels of performance? The appropriate time frame for all children served under Title I to meet the States proficient and advanced levels of performance will vary from State to State.
Since real reform takes time and States are at different stages in their efforts, each State may have a different time frame but should describe in its State plan how its definition of adequate yearly progress is sufficiently rigorous to achieve that goal during a student's school career. There is no common definition that can be translated into a specific amount of progress across all the State and district assessment systems during a specific time frame.
The goal is to move as many students into the proficient and advanced categories as soon as possible. It is important for a State to develop this definition involving LEAs, teachers, pupil services personnel, other school staff, parents, and administrators to determine what stakeholders view as substantial progress for their State.
It refers to the progress of schools and LEAs, not students. But it must be based on the success of those schools and LEAs in increasing the number of students reaching proficient and advanced performance levels. This is consistent with the new law's focus on the effectiveness of school programs. There are three key steps. The first step is to determine the performance level for all students assessed by the State assessment system. The second step is to summarize that information for the school to determine the extent to which the students are attaining the proficient and advanced performance levels.
The third step is to determine whether the school has made adequate improvement over the previous year and the extent to which the students are attaining the proficient and advanced performance levels.
How long must a student attend a school or district to be included in yearly review of progress? The law provides that students who are not in the school or district for the full academic year may be excluded from the yearly review of progress of the school or district, respectively. Specifically, students who have not been in a school for the full year do not have to be included in computing adequate yearly progress for that school, but they are to be included in the district review if they were somewhere in the district for the full year.
Students who were not in the district for the full year may be excluded from either the school or district review or both. Nov 16 Tue. And while most students in special. Nov 17 Wed. Are you confident in your improvement efforts? Meet five experts who will share proven solutions to help you grow leaders, enhance teacher effectiveness, and improve achievement. Content provided by Cognia. See More Events. Teacher Jobs. Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
Principal Jobs. Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles. Administrator Jobs.
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more. Support Staff Jobs. Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more. Create Your Own Job Search. Andrew Ujifusa. Will that affect how well the law survives the pandemic?
0コメント