AYP

Patty Quinn Benn

Curriculum Evaluation

Dr. Dugan

8 July 2008

AYP

“An individual state’s measure of yearly progress toward achieving state academic standards, as described in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. Adequate yearly progress is the minimum level of improvement that states, school districts, and schools must achieve each year, as negotiated with the U.S. Department of Education” (Ravitch, 12).

A-Y-P: three small letters that pack quite the punch! Since the introduction of NCLB in 2001, adequate yearly progress has been at the forefront of the legislation and has had the power to label schools and school districts as passing or failing. Believe it or not however, AYP is not a new concept. Long before ESEA’s reauthorization with NCLB, AYP forced Title I schools and districts to prove annual improvement, especially with their “underserved” student populations. In doing so, ESEA funds were continually awarded annually to struggling schools to assure continued improvement and that underserved students’ needs were still being met. The only requirement of AYP at that time was to show improvements – how much improvement was not specified by the federal government, but within each state. States who feared their schools or districts would not meet the AYP expectations established very low AYP targets, some as low as two percent (Popham 21-22). Once the federal government figured out what many states were doing to buck the system, “legislators who crafted NCLB wrote into law a requirement that, within twelve years from the end of the 2001 – 2002 school year, a full 100% of the nation’s students had to be ‘proficient’” (Popham 23). Therefore, the often debated requirements and sanctions of NCLB were brought on by many of our American school systems.

AYP takes into account a number of different factors. The progress each school/district/state is making is measured by: (following information obtained from Ravitch 13)

1. specified percentages of students scoring “proficient” or “advance proficient” on state tests in English language arts and math
2. participation of at least 95% of students in those tests
3. specified Academic Performance Index scores or gains
4. for high schools, a specified graduation rate or improvement in the graduation rate (scores are disaggregated by subgroups)

To further explain the subgroups, they take into account ethnicity, poverty, disabled, etc. and the expectation is that 100% of them are to attain proficient or above within the twelve year marker (school year of 2013-2014). This includes the special education student population (Popham 24).

This timeline is worrisome for many schools/districts and states. What is also worrisome is the fact that if a school does not reach AYP two consecutive years in a row, there are dire consequences. These consequences include being identified as a "school improvement" and must draft a plan for improvement. The consequences continue when "schools that fail to make AYP for a third year are identified for corrective action, and must institute interventions designed to improve school performance from a list specified in the legislation. Schools that fail to make AYP for a fourth year are identified for restructuring, which requires more significant interventions. If schools fail to make AYP for a fifth year, they much implement a restructuring plan that includes reconstituting school staff and/or leadership, changing the school’s governance arrangement, converting the school to a charter, turning it over to a private management company, or some other major change" (www.febp.newamerica.net). Before a school runs into such trouble, “a state can employ one-year, two-year, or three-year intervals in its twelve year AYP timeline” (Popham 29). This can serve as plus for many districts. Because each state can determine the amount of improvement necessary within intervals of the twelve-year timeline, many schools have used this to their advantage. Some schools “push the length of the state’s early AYP increments to the absolute legal limits – namely, two years, and then three years – it is hoped that fewer of the state’s schools and districts will fail to make their AYP targets in the early years of the law’s life” (Popham 29). However, this could be detrimental in the end, for if NCLB’s 2013-2014 benchmark comes to fruition, some schools will have a lot of ground to make up in the years right before the end of the timeline.

Horror stories have been heard across that nation in both elementary and high schools alike. One such story takes place in Indiana just this past year. The Monroe County Community School Corp. has failed to make AYP the second year in a row. However, when the data is analyzed, MCCSC “made adequate yearly progress in 32 of the 33 cells measured, but fell below the standard because it didn’t show progress in English/language arts for kids on free and reduced lunches” (Herald Times). Furthermore, the data shows that one of the elementary schools in the district has continually improved year after year, but because the improvement was not enough by federal standards, the school has been labeled as “failing, placing it in the lowest category of schools” (Herald Times). Shouldn’t we be acknowledging and honoring improvement within our school systems?

It is no secret that NCLB has it opponents. What will Obama do to rectify the situation facing our schools today? Will the 2013-2014 deadline for 100% proficiency come to fruition? As of right now, the public does not know the answer, nor does the public have a clear idea of where Obama can lead them. However, some people have suggestions for Obama and his administration. For example, W. James Popham, author of America’s Failing Schools, also wrote an article entitled, “Transform Toxic AYP into a Beneficial Tool.” Within such, Popham outlines five necessary changes to make AYP work to our (parents, teachers, administrators, students) advantage. He says that the idea of AYP “causes serious educational mischief in the nation’s schools” (Popham 577). So, what does he suggest?: (following info obtained from Popham 578-581)

1. Change the language – basic, proficient, and advanced do not really mean anything, especially to parents. The language should read under grade level, grade level, and above grade level.
2. Use tests that measure instructional improvement – the tests used now are unreliable for they are not monitoring improvement and the wrong kinds of accountability.
3. Establish realistic levels of required improvement – NCLB’s demands are too high and unrealistic – instead, the idea of satisfactory annual improvement should be established.
4. Evaluate school-specific and district-specific improvement – improvement percentages should be based on particular schools and districts, not predicted statewide.
5. Focus public attention on subgroups – scores should be disaggregated for statute designed subgroups.

Since the induction of ESEA in 1965, the government has been trying to assure that America’s students receive the best education possible. We as educators have seen many changes over the past fifty years. What changes are to come in the future with the Obama administration at the helm? Time will surely tell. However, one hope is that AYP is remodeled and reconfigured. While the idea has its pluses, as Popham so poignantly pointed out, there are many flaws that are hurting the American education system more than helping.