11/23/04 -- The U.S. Education Department's approval of amendments to state accountability plans under the No Child Left Behind Act are likely to have the effect of enabling more schools to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), the Center on Education Policy reports.
Although the information released this fall by states listing the schools that did and did not make AYP are preliminary -- and not all states have released such lists, "the overall trend seems to be toward more schools making AYP this year than last year," an analysis by CEP finds. "But this doesn't necessarily mean that student achievement has gone up in each of those schools."
According to the report, 47 states have asked the U.S. Department of Education to approve changes to their NCLB accountability plans.
"These changes could increase -- at least in the short term -- the number of schools nationwide that make AYP," the report says.
Some of the changes are intended to take advantage of rule revisions made by the U.S. Education Department for testing students with disabilities, testing English language learners, and calculating the percentage of students taking state tests.
Other changes proposed by states would provide more flexibility in areas not addressed by those rule changes or would allow states to adopt policies the department had already approved for other states.
For example, the department has allowed two interpretations of NCLB for determining whether a school is identified for improvement. Under the more stringent interpretation, schools are identified for improvement if they miss AYP targets in either subject area -- math or reading/language arts -- for two consecutive years.
Most states opted for the less stringent interpretation in their original accountability plans, which holds that schools will be identified for improvement only when they miss targets in the same subject area for two consecutive years. This year, five more states have received permission to use the less stringent interpretation.
The department has also approved amendments requested by nine states to identify a district as being in need of improvement only when it does not make AYP in the same subject and across all three grade spans (elementary, middle, and high school) for two consecutive years.
Eight states received approval for changes that address the problem of gathering reliable combined test scores or other data to determine AYP for schools with very small numbers of students. These states were allowed to use alternate means to determine whether a small school makes AYP, such as aggregating test scores over two years or allowing special review teams to use other means to gauge the school's performance.
This year two more states, South Carolina and Washington, received permission to average two or three years of data when calculating the percentage of students scoring at proficient levels on state tests, the key factor used to determine AYP. This change is intended to minimize the effect of fluctuations in group test scores that occur due to measurement error or changes in the composition of a school's student body.
NCLB requires schools and districts to meet achievement targets for each significant "subgroup" of students enrolled, such as African American students, low-income students, or students with disabilities. Only subgroups large enough to produce reliable combined test scores are separately counted for AYP purposes.
Five of these states were allowed to increase their minimum subgroup sizes beyond the numbers in their original accountability plans -- some as high as 40 or 50 students.
Several of these states received approval to set higher minimum subgroup sizes for students with disabilities and English language learners than for other subgroups. Alaska, for example, raised the minimum size for students with disabilities and English language learners from 20 to 40.
Four states changed their formulas for determining subgroup size. Washington, for instance, adopted different criteria for different size schools or districts: in schools or districts with fewer than 3,000 students, the minimum subgroup size is 30, while in schools or districts with 3,000 students or more, the minimum subgroup size is 1 percent of enrollment.