Standards Based Reform: A Catalyst for Improving Schools

No Child Left Behind (NCLB):

The 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA) created the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Clearly, the intent of NCLB is to set an academic floor for America’s student population (Sanders, 2003, p. 3). The goal of NCLB is for all students to be proficient in language arts and mathematics by 2014. The No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law in January 2002 and represents a dramatic expansion of the Federal role in education by requiring that schools and districts be held accountable for ALL student performance. Prior to NCLB, Federal accountability requirements focused mainly on students participating in the Federal Title I program, which targets funding based on district poverty levels and did not focus with the same level of intensity on student performance (Sanders, 2003).

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Defined:

Adequate Yearly Progress, or (AYP), is a measure of yearly progress toward achieving State academic standards. “Adequate Yearly Progress” is the minimum level of improvement that States, school districts, and individual schools must achieve each year.

NCLB mandates that all students in all States will be tested annually in

mathematics and reading for grades 3-8. Each of these tests is to be linked to curricular standards, along with an accompanying definition of a proficiency level attached for each grade and subject. Each district and school must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with all students collectively and with each identifiable subgroup of students (explicitly

defined by the U.S. Department of Education), or serious sanctions can occur. The Federal definition of AYP is not a value-added measure of progress for individual

students, but rather it requires cross-cohort comparison of the percent of students meeting the proficiency standards this year compared to percent proficient last year. If this

percentage of proficient students for a district or a school is not sufficiently greater than the previous years percentage, then this school or district will have failed to meet the AYP requirement (Sanders, 2003, p. 3).

Individual States were given guidelines in setting the beginning benchmark or baseline standard and are trusted to raise that target incrementally until it reaches 100% by 2014. These expectations apply not only to the school or district as a whole, but also to the performance of subgroups, including racial/ethnic categories, low-income students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners (ELL). The targets reflect the need for constant improvement over time and will increase over time until the 100% threshold in 2014. Below is Pennsylvania’s AYP target schedule:

• 2002-2004: 45% proficient in Reading, 35% proficient in Mathematics • 2005-2007: 54% proficient in Reading, 45% proficient in Mathematics • 2008-2010: 63% proficient in Reading, 54% proficient in Mathematics • 2011: 72% proficient in Reading, 67% proficient in Mathematics • 2012: 81% proficient in Reading, 78% proficient in Mathematics • 2013: 91% proficient in Reading, 89% proficient in Mathematics • 2014: 100% proficiency in Reading and Mathematics. (PDE website).

Under NCLB, a decision is made every year whether or not a school is making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with established incremental achievement targets. To make the determination if AYP was met, States compare the percentage of students in each school who meet proficiency standards, as well as the percentage of students in each subgroup within each school, to the Statewide goals for the year in question. If the school as a whole and each individual subgroup within the school meet or exceed the statewide goal in mathematics and language arts, then the school has met AYP. An additional third measure of academic progress is required. For high schools, this measure is the graduation rate. For elementary and middle schools, attendance rates are used. (Education Trust, 2003).

District AYP Defined

Under the Pennsylvania Accountability System and the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB), school districts in Pennsylvania are expected to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) performance targets, just like individual schools and the State as a whole. Districts that do not meet their AYP targets receive designations that follow the same pattern as individual schools, namely:

• A district that did not meet its performance targets the first year receives a

Warning designation. The Pennsylvania Department of Education does not

require a formal response from the district; however, the district is

encouraged to address the area(s) of concern in a deliberate manner to avoid slipping into the next category.

• A district that did not meet its performance targets for two or three

consecutive years receives a District Improvement designation. Each district in this category is required to prepare a district strategic plan to address the underlying causes of poor performance.

• A district that did not meet its performance targets for four or more years receives a Corrective Action designation. Each district in this category falls within PDE’s intensive intervention and assistance programs, tailored to address the barriers to achievement in each district. (PDE website)

Historical AYP Data in Pennsylvania

2003-2004 School Year: (second year of implementation of NCLB)

In 2003-2004, 284 school districts out of 500, or 56.8% of all Pennsylvania school districts had met District AYP.

In 2003-2004, one school district out of 500, or 0.2% of all Pennsylvania school districts had been designated as “making progress” but had not met District AYP.

In 2003-2004, 39 school districts out of 500, or 7.8% of all Pennsylvania school districts were categorized as “warning” status.

In 2003-2004, 171 school districts out of 500, or 34.2% of all Pennsylvania school districts were categorized in District Improvement I.

In 2003-2004, one school district out of 500, or 0.2% of all Pennsylvania school districts was categorized in District Improvement II.

In 2003-2004, four school districts out of 500, or 0.8% of all Pennsylvania school districts were in Corrective Action 2 (second year).

2002-2003 School Year: (first year of implementation of NCLB)

In 2002-2003, 121 school districts out of 500, or 24.2% of all Pennsylvania school districts had met AYP.

In 2002-2003, 373 school districts out of 500, or 74.6% of all Pennsylvania school districts had received a “warning” for not meeting AYP for the first time.

In 2002-2003, two school districts out of 500, or 0.4% of all Pennsylvania school districts were in District Improvement I.

In 2002-2003, four school districts out of 500, or 0.8% of all Pennsylvania school were categorized in Correction Action 2 (first year).

Table 1 shows historical (past years) District AYP determinations for school years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

Table 1

Historical PDE District AYP Classifications for 2003-2004 and 2002-2003 School Years.

AYP OVERALL STATUS 2003-2004 2002-2003

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Met AYP 284 56.8 121 24.2 Making Progress 1 0.2 0 0.0 Warning 39 7.8 373 74.6 District Improvement 1 171 34.2 2 0.4 District Improvement 2 1 0.2 0 0.0 Corrective Action 1 0 0.0 0 0.0

Corrective Action 2 (first year) 0 0.0 4 0.8

Corrective Action 2 (second year) 4 0.8 0 0.0

Total 500* 100.0 500* 100.0