School Accountability
School Accountability - Click here to see an update . Gen. Assembly passes law to match state and federal accountability requirements because of federal requirements of ESEA, the "No Child Left Behind Act."
Adequate Yearly
Progress announced in August
The measurement is called "Adequate Yearly Progress" or AYP for short. It is the
procedure used by the so-called No Child Left Behind Act to hold schools accountable
for student performance.
It is based on two mandated statewide tests - mathematics and reading/language arts.
AYP is measured both for all students as well as several subgroups: major racial/ethnic
groups, students in poverty, limited-English proficient students and students with
disabilities.
Schools and districts must meet certain
targets in every one of the 37 subgroups in order to have achieved Adequate Yearly
Progress. And, the so-called No Child Left Behind Act requires that by the school
year 2013-14, 100% of all students must score at the proficient or above level.
It's much more complex, but that's the gist.
There are severe consequences along the way for schools that fail to make AYP for
two years in a row, and much more severe punishments if that number increases to
four years.
There are no rewards for improvement. There are no rewards for making AYP period.
Although NCLB's goal is admirable, it wastes billions of dollars on federal state
and local resources thanks to its paperwork, bureaucracy and testing requirements.
Worse, successful classroom learning is being held back, not improved, by overly
rigid mandates that don't meet the needs of many students. Thus, the effect is leaving
more children behind instead of fewer. A snapshot of two tests does not give educators,
students, parents and the public an accurate picture of how schools are doing. Parents
and educators understand that multiple measures (not two) such as graduation rates,
attendance, classroom performance, should be used to evaluate how students are doing.
And assessments should be multiple as well so that they can inform teaching and
learning, not punish our schools.
| 2001 Ratings before ESEA/NCLB |
2003 Ratings: compliance with
ESEA/NCLB - |
2004 Ratings: compliant with ESEA/NCLB: AYP Plus |
|
two-year cycle
DSTP: Rading/writing, mathematics |
one-year cycle
DSTP: Reading/writing, mathematics |
AYP
DSTP: Rading/writing, mathematics |
| Overall average scores | At least 95% participation | At least 95% participation |
|
School Rating (initial)
Site visits |
Analysis by 9 sub-groups (40 students
or greater) AYP: Yes or NO |
Analysis by 9 sub-groups (40 students
or greater)
AYP: Above, Meets or Below
Target
|
|
School Rating (final): Superior, Commendable, Under Improvement |
School Rating: Superior, Commendable, Academic Review, Academic Progress, Academic Watch |
AYP + AYP PLUS = school rating Superior, Commendable, Academic Review, Academic Progress, Academic Watch |
In other words, effective in 2004,
an AYP Rating plus the State Progress Rating = the School Rating
| AYP Rating, plus the....... | State Progress Rating ..... equals | School Rating |
| Above target | Above target |
Superior Performance is excellent. |
| Above target | Meets target | SAME |
| Meets target | Above target | SAME |
| Above target | Below target |
Commendable Performance is above average. |
| Meets target | Meets target | SAME |
| Below target | Above target |
Academic Review Performance is acceptable. |
| Below target | Meets target | SAME |
| Below target | Below target | SAME |
| Meets tartet for one year while Under Improvement | NA |
Academic Progress - Under Improvement Performance needs improvement. |
| Below target for two or more consecutive years in the same content area | NA |
Academic Watch - Under Improvement
Performance is unsatisfactory. |
