Adequate Progress Gina LaPlaca Grand Canyon University Special Education Litigation & Law SPE 350 Dr. Ware-Howard September 10, 2011

Adequate Progress Definition Adequate progress will vary from state to state. Is a measurement defined by the United States federal No Child Left Behind Act It allows the U.S. Department of Education to determine how every public school and school district in the county is performing academically

Adequate Yearly Progress Court Cases: Franklin County Court of Appeals Schools did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress The schools learned of its AYP status when the department issued local report cards They filed an appeal with the Department because it believed the AYP determination was in error The department denied both schools because of the deadline Both schools were denied because the procedures were invalid

Adequate Yearly Progress Court Cases: Reading, Pennsylvania School Department had created an unfunded mandate by failing to provide funding to fulfill NCLB mandates The sanctioned schools had not received federal funds designated to implement NCLB The Department failed to provide test in Spanish for ELL students Department failed to provide technical assistance to those schools that were sanctioned (Lecker,W. C., Ward, N, 2005) Reading, Pennsylvania School District was not prepared for the AYP and the NCLB. They violated due to the process and filed an appeal for the six schools in the district to reviewing NCLB AYP. The State Department of Education refused the appeal. The policy allows the Department to review only the accuracy of the data, whether significant growth had been made by the schools or district in question.

How School Districts Measure Adequate Progress State test must be the primary factor in the state’s measure of Adequate Yearly Progress They must use at least one academic indicator of school performance For secondary schools, the other academic indicator must be the high school graduation rate States must set a baseline for measuring students’ performance toward the goal of 100 percent proficiency by spring 2014. Education, 2001)

How School Districts Measure Adequate Progress cont…. States must also create benchmarks for how students will progress each year to meet the goal of 100 percent proficiency A state’s AYP must include separate measures for both reading/language arts and math. In addition, the measures must apply not only to students on average, but also to students in subgroups, including economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, English-language learners, African- American students, Asian-American students, Caucasian students, Hispanic students and Native American Students. To make AYP, at least 95 percent of students in each of the subgroups, as well as 95 percent of students in a school as a whole, must take the state tests, and each subgroup of students must meet or exceed the measurable annual objectives set by the state for each year (Department of Education, 2001

How Schools Districts are Held Accountable School districts needs to make the AYP for two consecutive years The states are required to develop rewards and sanctions for all schools The law specifies a number of consequences for those schools receiving Title 1 funds The parents must be notified of the students that need improvement Schools must provide “supplement services,” such as tutoring, to students attending low-performing schools, and providing assistance to the school or district identified Additional sanctions are added, including ordering restructuring of the school, if a school identified for improvement continuously fails to make AYP

Concerns and Challenges that May Arise Regarding AYP Teachers are accountable for their students’ progress there are many obstacles to overcome that are not reflected by the scores on the yearly test. Factors that affect students test scores: Socioeconomic factors Students’ special needs Transiency Limited experiential background Difficult home environments, as well as language barriers The testing requirements for NCLB do not reflect how hard school districts and teachers are working to help these students. The standardized testing is not uniform from state to state, making comparisons impossible. State standardized testing programs suffer from many of the same problems as any standardized testing process. In addition, these test may also add an extra layer of burden on teachers and administrators who live and teach in fear of failure (that is, their students’ failure of such test). Although the goals of standardized testing and grand-to ensure that students are getting a quality education the method will be forever flawed.

References Keegan, L., et. Al., “Adequate Yearly Progress: Results, not Process,” in Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (ed.), 2002 Wiener, R, “Why Do we Have AYP…and How Is It Working?” Washington, DC: The Education Trust Bauer, A II, Borman, A. J., Challenging Adequate Yearly Progress, http:www.eastmansmith.com/documents/public ations/AYP.pdf