One Goal, Different AYPs

Abstract

WHEN THE airlines began to be measured on whether flights departed and arrived on schedule, they began to pay more attention to whether they had scheduled each plane to be at the gate with enough time for cleaning, loading luggage, and restocking supplies. They worked on boarding passengers more efficiently. Pilots were pressured to push back from the gate on time so they would arrive at their destination on schedule. While public disclosure of airline performance has had its own set of downsides, such as sometimes pushing back from the gate only to hold passengers hostage while the plane sits on the tarmac for 30 minutes or a few hours, the level of accountability for the airlines has indeed been raised. So it will be for state education systems as they are pressured to make adequate yearly progress (AYP). Just as United, Frontier, Northwest, Delta, and Jet Blue have had their feet held to the fire, so will schools. Working backward from 2013-14 -- the school year established by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act as the target for having all students proficient or advanced in reading and math -- states need to determine the amount of student progress necessary to meet this goal. And they can't just use an average for student bodies as a whole. They must take into account the performance of various subgroups of students. Of course, this is a simplistic analysis of the new requirement, but the point is that states, districts, and schools everywhere need to ensure that all students are making at least a year's progress for each year spent in the classroom. Most of us have never before seen the data that tell us whether students with disabilities or low-income students are making such gains. By the beginning of next year, however, most of us will have seen the data, and we'll know the results for low-income students, for students with disabilities, for ethnic and racial minorities, for English learners, for both sexes, and for migrant students. These are the groups for whom reports will be made, although gender and migrant status will not be considered when calculating AYP. The states are taking a variety of approaches to meeting the new requirements. Here are a few highlights to give just a taste of how it might work. Pennsylvania. According to a press release from the state education department, the results of the spring 2002 state assessments (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment or PSSA) will be the baseline for AYP. Using an intermediate or stepped method, the department determined that, in order for all Pennsylvania students to be proficient in 12 years, schools must move 5% of students into the top two performance levels of each of the intervening assessments. In meeting the requirements of NCLB, graduation rates will also be included in the calculation, and the state has selected attendance rates as its other indicator. (States have a choice for this second indicator for elementary schools and middle schools.) The state board set 75 students at the building level as the minimum number to form one of the disaggregated groups. According to the board, using 75 as the minimum limits the overidentification of students and allows districts and the state to make optimal use of resources. Tennessee. H.B. 3159, signed into law last summer, requires the state commissioner to recommend a listing of all schools that are to be placed on notice or on probation for failure to make adequate yearly progress. During the year a school or district has been placed on notice, the state department and the office of education accountability are to conduct a joint study of the school or district. This study is to include findings on how the school or system can meet the performance standards for AYP. The commissioner has the authority to approve the allocation of state grants and to provide technical assistance through an outside expert. The director of each local education agency that serves schools placed on notice must promptly notify parents of such identification. …