AYP – Adequate Yearly Progress

AYP is an acronym for the all too familiar education requirement of Adequate Yearly Progress. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 introduced the acronym AYP as a requirement for Title 1 funding. Showing progress to receive funding under Title 1 was not new to education at the time of NCLB, however. The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 initiated the framework for the current model of AYP. Understanding how states behaved under the 1994 Reauthorization of ESEA helped legislature frame a more accountable form for AYP under NCLB in 2001. In 1994 states were given the freedom to mark the required percentage needed to show improvement and thus receive Title 1 funding. As a result, states set expectations low which guaranteed funding.

NCLB was careful not to make the same mistake in allowing states to set their own standards and mandated the following requirements for AYP:

• State tests are the primary measurement in determining AYP. Secondary schools must also include graduation rates.
• 95% of student population must take the state test.
• 1% of student population may take an alternate test.
• Data from the school year 2001-2001 is the base for measuring AYP.
• All students must reach proficient or higher by the school year 2013-2014.
• Districts have 12 years to have all students at or above proficient. States must show progress in yearly, equal measurements. The years may be broken into increments and progress averaged yearly. The first increment must be no less than two years and each increment after must be no less than three years.
• Four subgroups must also be at or above proficient: major ethnic/racial groups, economically disadvantaged students, limited English proficient (LEP) students, and students with disabilities.(Adequate Yearly Progress, 2004) Minimum number of students in each subgroup is determined at the state level.
• A school qualifies for Safe Harbor if one subgroup does not meet AYP, however, all other indicators have reduced by 10% to meet AYP.
• Reading and math requirements must be set separately.

Gambling that the post Bush administration would abolish the AYP requirements, many districts combined their early years into small increments. This gave two to three years for a district to make gains. The district was then able to average this gain over the two to three year period. Many schools were not labeled as failing under this method. Schools which chose yearly gains found it to be more difficult and failed early. Keeping to the former method allowed schools to be successful and adapt more positively to the new requirements.

Schools and districts find other ways to avoid a failing grade. By manipulating subgroups to be under the minimum requirements, schools will not need to meet the AYP gains for this area. States use “confidence intervals simply to reduce the number of schools that fail AYP.” (Popham, 2005) Confidence intervals are “supposed to revolve around how accurately a sample represents a population.” (Popham, 2005) With 95% of the student population required for testing, this hardly qualifies as a sample. Schools are scrambling to find ways to meet the 100% proficient goal so not to be labeled failing.

Schools and districts which fail to meet the state requirements of AYP for two consecutive years follow the NCLB plan for school improvement. The school improvement plan which is detailed in the chart below provides a method for underachieving schools to turn around and meet the state requirements for AYP. In the fourth year of school improvement a major restructuring process occurs and the school will see the state take over. Schools are given many opportunities for improvement before this happens, however.

For the gambling districts, the utopian dream of 100% proficiency by 2013-2014 may not be a requirement after all. According to Obama’s A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which was sent to Congress on March 15, 2010, proficiency will not be the ultimate measure of student achievement. Student achievement will be measured by individual student improvement as well as student preparedness for college and career.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS (Paige, 2002)
AYP for two consecutive school years. A school moves to the next "step" or "year" in this chart if it continues to not make AYP.

School Improvement, Year One
In general, schools identified for improvement must receive technical assistance that enables them to specifically address the academic achievement problem that caused the school to be identified for improvement. The LEA is required to provide technical assistance as the school develops and implements the plan, including specific assistance in analyzing assessment data, improving professional development, and improving resource allocation. In addition, the following must take place:
1. All students are offered public school choice.
Each school identified for improvement must develop or revise a two-year school improvement plan, in consultation with parents, school staff, the local educational agency, and other experts, for approval by the LEA. The plan must incorporate research-based strategies, a 10 percent set-aside of Title I funds for professional development, extended learning time as appropriate (including school day or year), strategies to promote effective parental involvement and mentoring for new teachers.

School Improvement, Year Two
1. Make available supplemental educational services to students from low-income families.
In addition, the LEA continues to offer technical assistance to implement the new plan, and offer public school choice.

Corrective Action, Year Three
Corrective Action requires an LEA to take actions likely to bring about meaningful change at the school. To accomplish this goal, LEAs are required to take at least one of the following corrective actions, depending on the needs of the individual school:
1. Replace school staff responsible for the continued failure to make AYP;
2. Implement a new curriculum based on scientifically based research (including professional development);
3. Significantly decrease management authority at the school level;
4. Extend the school day or school year;
5. Appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward making AYP in accordance with its school plan; OR
6. Reorganize the school internally.
In addition, the LEA continues to offer technical assistance, public school choice and supplemental educational services.

Restructuring, Year Four
During the first year of restructuring, the LEA is required to prepare a plan and make necessary arrangements to carry out one of the following options:
1. Reopen school as charter school.
2. Replace principal and staff.
3. Contract for private management company of demonstrated effectiveness.
4. State takeover.
5. Any other major restructuring of school governance.
In addition, the LEA continues to offer public school choice and supplemental educational services.

Implementation of Restructuring, Year Five
Implement alternative governance plan no later than first day of school year following year four described above.




References:

Adequate Yearly Progress. (2004, September 10). Retrieved July 5, 2010, from Education Week: http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/adequate-yearly-progress/

Paige, R. (2002, July 24). ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary. Retrieved July 5, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020724.html#chart

Popham, W. J. (2005). America's "Failing" Schools. Boca Raton: CRC Press.