NCLB Recommendation #5
SUBJECT
AYP Determinations: Performance by Subgroups
P.L. 107-110 PROVISIONS
TITLE I PART A SUBPART 1 SEC. 1111(b)(2)
NSBA RECOMMENDATIONS
#5: A state may permit a school to be identified as meeting AYP when one or more subgroups fail to make AYP targets as long as the total number of students in the subgroups missing AYP does not exceed 10 percent of the total number of students counted for the specific assessment or indicator. (This alternate method could not be applied to the same subgroup/subgroups for the same subject in two consecutive years).
RATIONALE
This option permits a one-year deferral of a school being identified as not making AYP when a relatively small number of students are unable to score proficient and the subgroup or subgroups involved made AYP in the previous year.
PROPOSED BILL LANGUAGE
Section 1111(b)(2) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(N)* Additional Methods of Defining Adequate Yearly Progress.
“(i) In General – For the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section, the State educational agency may identify a school or local educational agency as having made adequate yearly progress pursuant to subparagraph (I) in any year in which one or more groups described in clauses (v) of subparagraph (C) in that school or local educational agency do not meet or exceed the proficient level established under subparagraph (G) in a subject to which the accountability provisions of this subsection applies or do not meet the requirement for any other indicator established under subparagraph (D) if –
“(I) the same group or groups did not fail to meet the requirements for adequate yearly progress for that same subject or the other indicator in the previous year as determined without using the provisions of this subparagraph; and
“(II) the number of students who did not meet or exceed the proficient level in such group or groups is not greater in the aggregate than a percentage determined by the State educational agency but not in excess of 10 percent of the students enrolled in the school or local educational agency, as the case may be, in grades that were assessed in that subject or indicator for adequate yearly progress.
“(ii) Greater Percentage – The Secretary may, on an individual State basis, approve a greater percentage than the amount set forth in clause (i)(II) for determining weather a school or local educational agency has met the requirements for adequate yearly progress if –
“(I) the percentage over that amount is consistent with the accountability system of the State and is proposed as an amendment to the State plan required by this section; and “(II) the State educational agency applies a lower status designation of adequate yearly progress to any school or local educational agency that utilizes the percentage approved under this clause for determining that adequate yearly progress was met.”.
*Note: (N) is a newly proposed subparagraph, its letter may vary in the final bill.
IMPACT OF CURRENT LAW
The current AYP framework subjects schools and school districts to an “all-or-nothing” accountability system without differentiating the levels of its AYP status. In most states, schools potentially have upwards of 40 ways of failing to make AYP. NSBA’s recommendation recognizes that in limited situations it is reasonable to identify a group or groups in a school as making AYP when, in one year, the number of students in that group or groups who don’t score proficient or above is a relatively small proportion of the entire number of test takers. This method of determining AYP, however, would not be applied to a subgroup that failed to make AYP in the previous year.
NSBA CONTACT
Reggie Felton, director of federal relations, 703-838-6782 or rfelton@nsba.org.